The Miller-Urey experiments

Whoo! Forum virgin! Try not to look around the site too much, unless you have a lot of time. I find this place highly addictive. No, you can't make me There is no additional evidence that a die hard creationist would require to accept reality. They just keep saying "That's not enough! That's not enough!" Regardless of the fact that there's been "enough" for the last 50-100 or maybe even 200 years or so.That's exactly what makes a creationist "die hard"... the ability to ignore reality so as to force a literal translation of the Bible onto anyone who'll listen. Since they already ignore loads of reality to be in the position they take today, what's one more piece to ignore come tomorrow? Some of them very well may say this or point it out as the reason why the theory "isn't complete" or some other nonsense. But even if we did have experiments that produced self-replicating life, it wouldn't change the mind of any die-hard creationist. They'ed simply find another reason to ignore that area of reality."But there is no record of a world-wide flood in history."
"That's because things in the past were not recorded as we would expect them today since things long ago worked differently.""But here's an experiment that produces self-replicating life."
"But things in the past worked differently, so just because you can naturally produce self-replicating life now doesn't mean it was possible long ago."o_O (That's a cockeyed-wierded-out-raise-the-eyebrow-brain-exploding-smiley-face)Some people just don't want to accept reality, they'ed rather accept a literal Bible. Or, at least, what they perceive as a literal Bible (there are other threads here for that topic...) It's not my field of expertise either. But I am confident in saying "yes."
Science is always filled with those curious to push the boundaries of what we know.