Showing posts with the label Miller-Urey

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 modi fied from Yassine Mrabet   /Wiki media C ommons 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 experim

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

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 m

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.

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. 

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 ea

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 modi fied from Yassine Mrabet   /Wiki media C ommons 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. Abiogene

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