Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 172070 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#104095 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The general view is that this early atmosphere would’ve consisted of carbon dioxide, water vapor and nitrogen. If you reproduce the experiment under these conditions you get cyanide and formaldehyde.
Although these are organic molecules, they certainly do not support living cells, rather having a completely opposite effect. Formaldehyde is so toxic that it’s not even allowed in many labs. Just opening a bottle can destroy proteins. Cyanide gas has been used through history to execute prisoners by gassing them to death. Mixing the two together creates embalming fluid.
In 1995 Science magazine said that most experts now dismiss the experiment because “the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller Urey simulation”.
Another objection to this experiment was the continuous cycle that the elements were put through. Although it is believed that the early Earth did have frequent lightning storms, it would not have produced the amount of amino acids that the Miller experiment did, however, it still could have produced amino acids.
http://www.evolutionorigin.com/icons-of-evolu...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_L._Bada#...

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/14/5526

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#104096 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
However, as noted, the atmospheric model used by Miller-Urey never matched the atmosphere of early earth at any known point; at the time of the Miller–Urey experiment, scientists thought Earth's atmosphere was composed of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor.[9] However, in current times, geochemists have concluded that hydrogen, being a light element, would have most likely escaped earth's atmosphere.[10] Consequently, the model of gases contained within an early earth would have been carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor.[9] When the Stanley Miller tested the later model, no amino acids were produced at all, thus nullifying the experiment.
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki10...
Read the links from my last post.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#104097 Nov 1, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> The time in London can never be the same with that of New York. Nuts. Time must change because that time is subject to adjustment.
Your stupidity has been pointed out to you several times now. Sadly, you are too stupid to get it.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#104098 Nov 1, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
"It is one thing to explain the occurrence of heads on a single coin toss by appealing to chance, it is quite another to take the view that ,..the specific sequence of nucleotides in the DNA molecule of the first organism came about by a purely random process in the early history of the earth"
Bernd Olaf Kuppers
" We can accept a certain amount of luck in our explanations, but not to much,. In our theory of how we came to exist , we are allowed to postulate a certain ration of luck. This ration has as it's upper limit, the number of eligible planets in the universe,...We therefore have at our disposal ,odds of 1 in 100 billion ,billion as an upper limit to spend in our theory on the origin of life. This is the maximum amount of luck we are allowed to postulate in our theory . Suppose we want to suggest, for instance ,that life began when both DNA and it's protein based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed a 100 billion billion to one"
Richard Dawkins
Notice ! no mechanisms , no working hypothesis, no experimental success .just random chance as the origin of life!
Fascinating! a scientific theory based on astronomical luck! The entire basis of this myth is that given enough time and chance virtually anything can happen!, even inanimate matter , completely random ,can create the information to self organize and spring to life.. the fools roulette wheel!
..and the Dud makes fun of magic! ha,ha,ha.
If you fools want to continue to defend your faith, have at it! but don't call it science.
HE IS WORKIN' ON A QUOTE MINE
GOIN' DOWN DOWN
WORKIN' ON A QUOTE MINE
WHEW HE LIKES TO LIE, WOW!

(with all due respect to Lee Dorsey)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#104099 Nov 1, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Until then, Stop projecting. Buffoon.
Oh, look! Chuckles learned a new word, "Projecting". Isn't that just precious?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104100 Nov 1, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,...oh boy!
Even you don't believe that,a dubious amino acid experiment 60 years ago? Since then? absolutely nothing! the real truth of those experiments show the impossibility of life creating itself . Only a religious nutcase would believe it.
Take all your amino acids, add proteins , chemicals and compounds together in the proper proportions , now what is the mechanism that causes it to come to life? Use your famous Scientific peer reviewed articles! Show us the magic!
Not impossible at all. Life creates itself every day. And before 3.8 billion years ago there was no life.

All you need to do is demonstrate the existence of life before that time. Then you will have a point.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104101 Nov 1, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You absolutely can't stand it can you? When the truth of abiogenesis is pointed out to you, that it is based on the presumption that given enough time and chance life can assemble and begin on its own.
Why don't you call it by it's proper title
The astronomical luck theory.
Sucking Bone science at its best
It's astronomical luck that Mercury looks exactly as it does in exactly that place. So uh, no difference really.(shrug)

Problem is you're looking at "luck" in a subjective manner, not mathematically. And while I agree the odds of life developing are probably extremely small, that's countered by the fact that there's an entire UNIVERSE full of natural chemical experiments taking place for over 13 billion years.

Therefore IF life is possible, it is likely inevitable considering the circumstances.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#104102 Nov 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It's astronomical luck that Mercury looks exactly as it does in exactly that place. So uh, no difference really.(shrug)
Problem is you're looking at "luck" in a subjective manner, not mathematically. And while I agree the odds of life developing are probably extremely small, that's countered by the fact that there's an entire UNIVERSE full of natural chemical experiments taking place for over 13 billion years.
Therefore IF life is possible, it is likely inevitable considering the circumstances.
His position seems reminiscent of the creationist proposal that "the planet Earth is perfectly adapted to/for humans." 0.o

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#104103 Nov 1, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> The time in London can never be the same with that of New York. Nuts. Time must change because that time is subject to adjustment.
sure it can. it can be whatever time we wish it to be.

there are many people that use universal time...(same time all around the globe) for them it certainly is the same time in NY as london.

these are very simple concepts...

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104104 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
However, as noted, the atmospheric model used by Miller-Urey never matched the atmosphere of early earth at any known point; at the time of the Miller–Urey experiment, scientists thought Earth's atmosphere was composed of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor.[9] However, in current times, geochemists have concluded that hydrogen, being a light element, would have most likely escaped earth's atmosphere.[10] Consequently, the model of gases contained within an early earth would have been carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor.[9] When the Stanley Miller tested the later model, no amino acids were produced at all, thus nullifying the experiment.
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki10...
Hey! don't confuse him with facts.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104105 Nov 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It's astronomical luck that Mercury looks exactly as it does in exactly that place. So uh, no difference really.(shrug)
Problem is you're looking at "luck" in a subjective manner, not mathematically. And while I agree the odds of life developing are probably extremely small, that's countered by the fact that there's an entire UNIVERSE full of natural chemical experiments taking place for over 13 billion years.
Therefore IF life is possible, it is likely inevitable considering the circumstances.
Knew you would be an astronomical luck proponent.

Again, no mechanisms , or hypotheses of how it happened, just give it enough time and anything can happen.

If you wish to defend your faith , fine. just don't call it science. that's magic.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104106 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The general view is that this early atmosphere would’ve consisted of carbon dioxide, water vapor and nitrogen. If you reproduce the experiment under these conditions you get cyanide and formaldehyde.
Although these are organic molecules, they certainly do not support living cells, rather having a completely opposite effect. Formaldehyde is so toxic that it’s not even allowed in many labs. Just opening a bottle can destroy proteins. Cyanide gas has been used through history to execute prisoners by gassing them to death. Mixing the two together creates embalming fluid.
In 1995 Science magazine said that most experts now dismiss the experiment because “the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller Urey simulation”.
Another objection to this experiment was the continuous cycle that the elements were put through. Although it is believed that the early Earth did have frequent lightning storms, it would not have produced the amount of amino acids that the Miller experiment did, however, it still could have produced amino acids.
http://www.evolutionorigin.com/icons-of-evolu...
You are probably right about the hydrogen not being present. You forgot about other gases, and so did your article. Methane would still be a significant source gas and though the presence of H2 would have made the results more dramatic there would still be various nucleic acids made, and don't forget the many that would have come to Earth as part of asteroids. Adenine would still be a byproduct of the Miller Urey experiment if run where cyanide gas was created:

http://people.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/...

There is some agreement that Miller/Urey had the atmosphere off a bit, but very few claim the experiment was totally flawed. The important fact that deniers ignore is that there were multiple source of amino acids and yet they claimed, at Miller's time, that it was impossible for these to form naturally. There are other versions of this experiment that could be tried. For example they could reproduce an early sea floor experiment with superheated gases of CO2, methane, ammonia gas, and liquid water under high pressure and see how they react.

And of course how could I forget the fact that amino acids found on meteorites are also evidence for abiogenesis. The important fact that you want to ignore is that there are more than one sources of amino acids. Again in the past your side said that even amino acids were impossible to find naturally forming.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#104107 Nov 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Your stupidity has been pointed out to you several times now. Sadly, you are too stupid to get it.
The prime example of the dunning kruger effect

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104108 Nov 1, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey! don't confuse him with facts.
bohart it is you and your side that deny facts.

You have the mistaken idea that if you can harm the concept of abiogenesis that you harm evolution. Sadly you can do neither. Nor can your new hero replaytime. Now he may not be as big of an idiot as you are. He is still debating at a huge disadvantage, his prejudice hinders his seeing the obvious truth.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104109 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me shorten it up for you Sub. Based on scientific evidence, from the links I gave they say;
From the first link "1995 Science magazine said that most experts now dismiss the experiment”.
From the second link "Arrhenius and many other researchers dismiss the experiment”
From the third link "However, in current times, geochemists have concluded …..thus nullifying the experiment."
The Miller–Urey experiment has been nullified and dismissed by most researchers/scientists. Hope that doesn’t hurt your feelings Sub. lol
Where were your supposed sources that support this claim? Were you using creatard sources again? Remember that creatards must use sources since they have been caught lying so often. Unsupported sources have no reliability at all. And you forgot the one major reason that many have dropped the Miller/Urey experiment. Not because he may have been wrong. But because we have found that there was an abundance of amino acids from space.

Here you go tard, some peer reviewed science just for you:

http://scholar.google.com/citations...

http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...

You will like the last one. All 20 amino acids used by life have been found.

And of course when creatards try to lie about how past research was wrong we can always rely on TalkOrigins to clear it up:

http://tinyurl.com/3cna2r4

"This statement is misleading. What geochemists agree on is that if the early earth's mantle was of the same composition as the modern mantle and if only terrestrial volcanic sources are considered as contributing to the atmosphere, and if the temperature profile of the early atmosphere was the same as modern earth (this is relevant to rates of hydrogen escape) then there will be much less hydrogen compared to Miller's first atmosphere (20% total atm.). Even if this worst-case scenario is accepted, hydrogen will not be completely absent, in fact there is a long list of geochemists that consider hydrogen to have been present (although in lower amounts, roughly 0.1-1% of the total atmosphere). At these levels of H2 there is still significant (although much lower) amino acid production."

And more of course. The only reason that many think Miller/Urey does not matter is that there are multiple sources of amino acids. Not that he was necessarily wrong. He did have too much hydrogen in his atmosphere, his experiment still would produce amino acids.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#104110 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The general view is that this early atmosphere would’ve consisted of carbon dioxide, water vapor and nitrogen. If you reproduce the experiment under these conditions you get cyanide and formaldehyde.
Although these are organic molecules, they certainly do not support living cells, rather having a completely opposite effect. Formaldehyde is so toxic that it’s not even allowed in many labs. Just opening a bottle can destroy proteins. Cyanide gas has been used through history to execute prisoners by gassing them to death. Mixing the two together creates embalming fluid.
In 1995 Science magazine said that most experts now dismiss the experiment because “the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller Urey simulation”.
Another objection to this experiment was the continuous cycle that the elements were put through. Although it is believed that the early Earth did have frequent lightning storms, it would not have produced the amount of amino acids that the Miller experiment did, however, it still could have produced amino acids.
http://www.evolutionorigin.com/icons-of-evolu...
What our evolutionary HS teachers and texts neglected to tell us was that Miller/Urey added all the correct compounds they copied from known aminos and surprise! got one, a LH amino, which is a deadly poison! How scholarly. Another under the breath deception used to lure millions of trusting and open minded youth into "believing" that evolution could bridge the non-life to life barrier. All peer reviewed of course..

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U will Never Know

#104111 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>

And of course when creatards try to lie about how past research was wrong we can always rely on TalkOrigins to clear it up:
http://tinyurl.com/3cna2r4
Did you even read that link? They are only talking about Jonathan Wells's book. Yep saying one guy is wrong sums it all up for everyone else. Everyone must be wrong if Well's was. LOL
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104112 Nov 1, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Knew you would be an astronomical luck proponent.
Again, no mechanisms , or hypotheses of how it happened, just give it enough time and anything can happen.
If you wish to defend your faith , fine. just don't call it science. that's magic.
Chemistry *is* a mechanism. I see you avoided addressing all my points as usual. Fact is the evidence unequivocally indicates life from non-life. We're quite happy to say we don't know precisely how it happened yet. You say that all unknowns justify invisible Jew magic. I say you're talking BS and just covering for the fact you know even less than us.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104113 Nov 1, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
What our evolutionary HS teachers and texts neglected to tell us was that Miller/Urey added all the correct compounds they copied from known aminos and surprise! got one, a LH amino, which is a deadly poison! How scholarly. Another under the breath deception used to lure millions of trusting and open minded youth into "believing" that evolution could bridge the non-life to life barrier. All peer reviewed of course..
Of course, if it's poisonous to one lifeform then it's poisonous for everything.

Except uh, that's not the case in the real world.

Keep lying SBT. It's all you got.(shrug)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104114 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you even read that link? They are only talking about Jonathan Wells's book. Yep saying one guy is wrong sums it all up for everyone else. Everyone must be wrong if Well's was. LOL
Wrong again. They were talking about the arguments that Well's was using. Some of the same ones that you were using.

So everyone is wrong if they use Wells failed argument.

And I see you are deep in denial, you ignored the other two links I gave. There are hundreds of studies that show there are amino acids in meteorites how many of those do you need to see.

One more time, the reason that Miller/Urey is largely ignored today is not whether he was right or not. The reason is that there are other proved positive sources of amino acidds and that outranks a hypothetical one any day.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
hoosier hillbilly (Sep '12) 4 min Mister_ E 1,957
LOVE and OTHER BRUISES (Apr '12) 4 min KNIGHT DeVINE 1,392
Any Word ! (Mar '11) 8 min KNIGHT DeVINE 2,143
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 10 min KNIGHT DeVINE 14,607
Last Word is First Word (no "breast" word please) 19 min KNIGHT DeVINE 233
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 23 min DILF 1,981
only TWO words! (Nov '08) 23 min KNIGHT DeVINE 25,743
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 24 min DILF 12,821
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 49 min Hoosier Hillbilly 42,141
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 56 min Mister_ E 167,474
Answer a question with a question 2 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 532
More from around the web