Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Question Evolution Day is February 12

YOU can be a part of Question Evolution Day, no sign-up, no charge.
To find out more about this annual event, click here!
Showing posts with label Miller-Urey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Miller-Urey. Show all posts

Friday, March 20, 2015

Revisiting the Failed Miller-Urey Experiment?

In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey had a notion to do an experiment to back up the assumptions that, using science and and intelligently-designed apparatus, life could form by chance. The obtained some amino acids, and Darwin's Cheerleaders were overjoyed that chemical evolution had a basis in their worldview. However, the experiment has long been discredited (they used a trap to remove the amino acids from the environment so they wouldn't be destroyed), and the "reducing atmosphere" concept of the early earth has long been abandoned.

Image modified from Yassine Mrabet  /Wikimedia Commons
Of course, this bit of historical science used assumptions, and they wanted to test their ideas to see if they worked. Scientists do that. However, even though the experiment is invalid, when creationists point out its many flaws (including that it argues against abiogenesis), evolutionists will circle the wagons to defend it. A newer attempt to bring the experiment back into respectability by using a computer simulation and saying that it's valid on the quantum level. Not hardly. The logical conclusion is that life originated by the hand of our Creator, but that is anathema to materialistic evolutionists.
This feedback answers Aleksey K. of Ukraine, who asked about revisitation of the iconic Miller Urey experiment. The media claimed that it could have produced many more amino acids than previously thought. This is followed by a box about the nature of Earth’s early oxidizing atmosphere, which falsifies one of the important premises behind the experiment.
You can read the question and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's response (with several important links) at "The Miller–Urey experiment revisited".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, October 20, 2014

Oxygen, the Origin of Life, and Another Vindication of Creationists

As creationists have maintained, oxygen has been present on Earth from the beginning. Some evolutionists know this, too. Further research confirms it, which means origin of life ideas on "early" Earth are defunct.

In the evolutionary scheme of things, origin of life ideas require absence of oxygen on a primordial earth. Abiogenesis does not work, despite the claims of proponents of the failed Miller-Urey experiment. That's because oxygen will cause such life to cash in its chips. Creationists (and some evolutionists) have known for a long time that Earth has had, and must have, oxygen from the beginning. This deals aces and eights to origin of life conjectures. It also throws a wild card into the draw for speculations about extraterrestrial atmospheres.
Free oxygen is death to life trying to evolve, but it was present early on, being formed naturally from atmospheric carbon dioxide.

What is life? What is the meaning of life? Astrobiologist Chris McKay says it’s a tricky question, but on Astrobiology Magazine, he offers a contrasting challenge: “in the search for life in our solar system what is needed more than a definition of life is a definition of death.” And what does it mean to be dead? “It means that the organism was once alive and is composed of organic molecules that are specific to life — molecules such as DNA, ATP, and proteins.” Life, therefore, consists of many non-living parts, but just putting the parts together doesn’t make them alive.

Scientists at UC Davis didn’t say it directly, but origin of life research just got dealt a death blow. A press release from UC Davis says that oxygen forms naturally from carbon dioxide:
Whoa, Wilberforce! To read the press release and the rest of the article, you'd be obliged to click on "Oxygen Was Present from the Start".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Abiogenesis — A Secret Evolutionary Dogma

When presented with the observed fact that life only comes from life and never from non-life, proponents of evolution distance themselves by claiming that evolution only deals with the development of life and not the origin of life. This is a disingenuous ploy, similar to when atheists attempt to change the established definition of atheism into "lack of belief in God"; both are transparent attempts at moving the goalposts.

It is interesting that evolutionists will claim that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, but will gleefully accept poor "evidence" that they think accepts abiogenesis, and will also defend the discredited Miller-Urey experiment — usually by ignoring facts and citing outdated and unfounded rhetoric by other evolutionists as "proof".

Despite theories, conjecture, guesses, wishful thinking and loud bullying, the fact remains that life comes from life. Assumptions based on faith will not change that.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, August 20, 2012

Abiogenesis Ain't Happening

morgueFile/cyblor (modified)
Despite the disingenuous claims of some people that "evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life", we keep hearing about evolutionists attempting to explain the origin of life. (Some have pushed the question backward, thinking that life had its origin in outer space, but never mind about that now.) Of course, the logical conclusion of a Creator is streng verboten in a naturalistic framework, so experiments and speculations about abiogenesis continue. (Amazingly, the discredited Miller-Urey experiment is trotted out and dusted off every once in a while.) All of these experiments to explain the origin of life without the Creator are ironic, because they require calculations, planning, equipment, intelligence and design. 

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, February 24, 2012

Chemical Evolution: False

Another evolutionary myth to devastate is "chemical evolution". People still cling to the infamously bad "Miller-Urey Experiment" (which Chandra Wickramasinghe referred to as "cheating") as "proof" of abiogenesis, and make other desperate attempts to cling to the fantasy that life originated by time, chance and random processes without a Creator — or a mechanism.
The ancient Greeks believed in the spontaneous generation of life. More recently, Louis Pasteur showed that life did not arise from non-living material. Yet those who deny the Creator's existence must believe it happened once upon a time. Evolutionists estimate the earth to be 4.6 billion years old and the earliest fossils about 3.8 billion years old. An initially hot Earth might take, say, 0.3 billion years to become "user friendly," so the first life took only about half a billion years to arrive from abiotic (non-living) starting materials. If it is as easy as just having the right conditions, one might think that life should have evolved many times before the advent of photosynthesis produced an oxygen concentration which made conditions unfavorable. Yet all life rides upon the same biomolecules, metabolic pathways, and genetic information, so life had but one origin, either created or evolved.
Modern theories of the origin of life date back to the Soviet scientist Oparin in 1924. His ideas of a Primeval Soup were promoted in the West by fellow communist J.D.S. Haldane of Cambridge. In 1953 Urey & Miller published results of some simple experiments in organic chemistry which seemed to lend credence to the soup theory. Interestingly, forty years later, Miller admitted that the question of the origin of life is much more difficult than he, or anyone else, had thought. Clutching at straws, others have suggested mid-ocean ridges (with their cocktail of hot chemicals) as the cradle of life, while others have postulated an extraterrestrial seeding of the Earth. This latter suggestion still does not offer a mechanism for abiogenesis.
Read the rest of "The Myth of Chemical Evolution" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, November 21, 2011

Putting that Miller-Urey Experiment to Rest

The more we learn about the complexities of genetics, amino acids, the cell itself, mutations and so many other things, the more we can see that evolution is an empty, unscientific philosophy that should have been discarded years ago. For example, people still insist that the long-discredited Miller-Urey experiment regarding the "primordial Earth" is proof of chemical evolution. What did they really get from this experiment?

Image modified from Yassine Mrabet  /Wikimedia Commons
First, cheating pays off in "science", because they started with amino acids, broke them down, and then got amino acids again. Second, it shows that intelligence, not chance, made things happen (such as the "cold trap" trick). Third, that a bad experiment (a spark does not equal a lightning bolt, get real) can yield "results" if they fit preconceptions.

Even worse for evolutionists, this faulty experiment manages to argue against abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is the theory that under the proper conditions life can arise spontaneously from non-living molecules. One of the most widely cited studies used to support this conclusion is the famous Miller–Urey experiment. Surveys of textbooks find that the Miller–Urey study is the major (or only) research cited to prove abiogenesis. Although widely heralded for decades by the popular press as ‘proving’ that life originated on the early earth entirely under natural conditions, we now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for the opposite conclusion. It is now recognized that this set of experiments has done more to show that abiogenesis on Earth is not possible than to indicate how it could be possible. This paper reviews some of the many problems with this research, which attempted to demonstrate a feasible method of abiogenesis on the early earth.
You can read the rest of "Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, November 4, 2011

Evolutionists Persist in Presenting Bad Information

How can anyone justify science "education" when it is based in the presupposition that evolution is a "fact", evidence contrary to evolution is ignored or even suppressed, evolutionary "science" is to be protected, and the textbooks contain outdated and outright wrong material? (Even the terribly outdated and misused Miller-Urey experiment is still being cited!) Bad textbooks are preferred over materials that require critical thinking. Evidence for evolution is cherry-picked. That is not science, Skippy, that is indoctrination.
According to a study released today by the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, bogus embryo drawings, long-debunked claims about tonsils, and outdated information from a 1950s lab experiment highlight the glaring bloopers found in proposed science instructional materials currently being considered by the Texas State Board of Education.
"Retro-science must be in, because the proposed materials are filled with outdated scientific claims," said Casey Luskin, a policy and education analyst with Discovery Institute. "It's truly amazing how much discredited information keeps getting recycled year after year."
In order to satisfy state educational standards set in 2009 (TEKS), the Board of Education asked publishers to submit supplementary instructional materials that would enable students to "analyze and evaluate" core aspects of evolutionary theory, and to "examin[e] all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking." But according to the 70-page Discovery Institute study, only one set of instructional materials out of the 10 evaluated managed to comply with the TEKS as well as avoid glaring scientific errors.
Top science bloopers in the proposed instructional materials include:
Read the rest of "Glaring Bloopers Found in Proposed Texas Science Curricular Materials" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!