More ignored evidence by creationists?

Question

Most creationists cite that life couldnt have crawled from primordial soup... that things were just "created" by god (I wonder what that would look like if you were standing there! would it just appear?)

Anyway, my question is this: Why do creationists ignore the explicit findings by Miller and Urey done decades ago?

They used a glass jar filled with basic earth elements (methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water, all what makes up this "primordial soup") heated it, zapped it with electricity, cooled it over and over again... and in LESS THAN A WEEK there was evidence of amino acid strings, the building blocks of life.

Amino acids are what form your DNA among other things.

So yes, things can spontaneously arrange themselves. Why are creationists so stubborn?

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

Click the link to see details of the experiment. Its verey easy to follow... it was a very simple experiment after all.

There has been recent research showing that the proportions of Miller and Urey were off, but that is pretty acceptable due to the fact that the exp. was done over 30 years ago.

However, even if the gases were different or in different proportion, it doesnt matter; what matters is their content. Organics are made from just a few elements: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen etc. No matter how you re arrange them into different gases, as long as they are there its possible to repeat the results.

The gases could have easily come from many sources. NASA photos of forming stars and plants show rings of gases as well as other inert materials that coalesce into the planetoid. Wouldnt be any different here. Also, metorites are still bringing gases and elements to earth in varying quantities.

Answer 1

they don't have to believe something if they don't want to. However, remember that a person's beliefs doesn't change reality. Whatever happened, happened.

Answer 2

Due to the fact that they have not been able to replicate this same "experiment" and have the same conclusions performed over and over again is a sure sign and testament that the results were contaminated at some point with organic matter. How difficult is it to replicate in a lab and just assume it must have happened naturally? As well this "primordial" soup theory still can't explain or even touch the concept of irreducible complexity in all life forms and systems..you can only go so far back even with the so called "simple cell" and see that with out certain formed or working parts the thing is useless. Things cannot spontaneously arrange themselves..the very "arrangement" and the word spontaneous are mutually exclusive. Why don't you get that? Even if there were a primordial soup..how the heck would they know what it contained and under what conditions it developed into any living thing? Its not about stubborness..its about logic. Creation points to a creator...get that and perhaps then you will see correct order of things. Love in Christ, ~J~ <><

Answer 3

Well, because it's all been proven to be irrelevant. They didn't know what the earth's atmosphere was made of. They just picked a bunch of very reactive chemicals because they knew that it'd be more likely to cause a reaction.

If you use the chemicals that NASA has known made up the earth's atmosphere since the 1980's (which are quite innert), you do NOT get the same product (amino acids).

There are a number of other problems too such as the fact that once these amino acids are created they are taken out of the system and preserved. There is a very good reason for this - if you don't remove them right away they dissolve. It's like stirring a bowl of alphabet soup. You make see the word "Hello" if you stir long enough but if you keep stirring the letters will soon become random again.

If you do a bit of research you'll see that this experiment has been shown to be quite irrelevant. Oddly it's still shown in nearly every science textbook I've seen often with nothing more than a short blurb stating a bit of what I mentioned above.

Answer 4

I went into my kitchen the other day and got some water, some sugar and some flavoring with food coloring and made Kool-Aid.

My point is, so what? They grabbed a few basic ingredients together and zapped it and made an amino acid. Did they witness any further developement since then? Did they make a DNA strand? Did they make a lifeform of any sort? No. They made a very crude and basic building block of life but it does not disprove God's creation. That's like seeing a child put down a toy block and saying that proves he built the Sears Tower.

Now actually some creationist do believe that evolution, micro-evolution and macro-evolution, was part of God's creation process - so what you are really trying to do is deny the existence of God, not disprove creationism.

Personally, I believe in some forms of micro-evolution, or species evolving to adapt with a changing enviroment. I don't believe in species jumping such as a rat turning to a squirrel who changes to a monkey who changes to an ape who eventually became a man. God created man as man, and woman as woman. I can't prove it but that is why it is called faith, but it takes just as much faith to believe evolution too, which will never be proven.

Answer 5

So who created the basic earth elements like methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water? All they showed is that God created the chemicals needed for life. But not WHERE those chemicals came from. How they happen to be the right ones for life. Plus the acids they created were not stable and did not survive. When they can make an absolute vucuum and have life appear, we'll talk. Until then, you still need a Creator.

Nice try, but better luck next time.

Answer 6

Then how long did it take for those amino acids to organize themselves into DNA and begin reproducing? You call yourself a skeptic? How come Darwinism is based more upon leaps of faith than science?

Miller and Urey only proved that under the right conditions amino acids can be formed. Actually hydro carbons - the building blocks of amino acids - have been found in the interstellar dust. What does this show? A propensity of organic compounds to build into complex molecules. Whoopie! Intelligent Design 1 Darwinism 0.

Answer 7

the god challenged all non-believeres to creat a fly "source the Holy Quran",and till now all the scientists couldn't creat a single cell even with intellegent effort and technical support.the making of an amino acid by a single chemical reaction is not an evidence of anything.
chance is mindless and any creature is a very sophisticated biological ,chemical and physical system that indicates an intellegent design.
for example it is unbelievable that the mere drop of single letteres on the ground can make an encyclopedia or a meaningful book because this needs effort and intellegence.
so how about the chance of making a whole library containing 1 million books ,the chance here is zero.
it is the same idea the mere reaction of simple ground elements cann't make a meaningful creature !!!

Answer 8

The information you provided still begs the question... how did the universe get here to begin with to even HAVE the ingredients to build upon to create amino acids or planets or anything? Where did earth, the universe, the galaxy, where did all THAT come from? What began it ALL?

Until someone answers THAT question, I am still going to at least wonder if there is a higher power or energy or whatever. I'm not saying that it can't be explained, but until we have that explanation, I'll leave my options open.

Answer 9

has anyone ever considered that both creationist and evelutionist could both be right? science is nothing more than an understanding of our enviroment and how it all works. so we go get the ingrediants to fix us some primordial soup take the necessary steps and boom we have life. did we create it? unfortunatly no. what ever happened, happened because the necessary ingrediants were there to produce it. the bible said God formed man created him in the likeness of his image. God is like a scientist he knew and knows what is needed for anything and everything. nature opperates off of natural laws that God arranged and put into action. our planet is tilted on its axis if it wasnt it couldnt sustain life if it was one degree more or less tilted it could be tragic for life on earth now whether God physically took his hand and tilted it or he arranged for comits and meteors to impact the earth to cause it what does it matter? this earth and all that is in it this universe and all planets he created and is under his control what he wants done gets done the only thing science has done for us is givin us the ability to understand how it all works it doesnt deny whether God exist or not.

Answer 10

There is really no point to changing someone's personal belief. But if that person's belief interferes with my personal progress, or the progress of humankind- it really needs to be fixed.

Unfortunately, religious zealots love to debate with logically-minded individuals because it's an easy win for them. All they have to do is say God made it happen. On the other hand, science always has to prove itself. And unfortunately, there is no way to win a debate when Science hasn't figured it all out yet. Religion is a roadblock to progress, to getting to the point where we can all thrive and peacefully coexist. The irony of all of this is that most religious minded people think their morality is the true path to peace and happiness. But what they fail to recognize is that this is nothing more than a veiled threat- "believe in what I believe in and we can all be happy". What a pile of crap. Take a good look into the eyes of the people that have "found Jesus" in their lives. Are they really happy? Or are they merely masking their pain with denial? They're fooling themselves. And that state of mind that their in is not an easy thing to break. So trying to convince them of something outside of their beliefs is pretty much useless.

But there is no way they're gonna take me with them- and there are a number of people that will never give up the quest to find the answers that will stop this nonsense for once and for all.

The biggest denial in the world today is one simple thing: Religion is the root of all evil that exists on this planet. Take it away, and half of the civilized world's problems will instantly disappear. Don't get me wrong- morality still has a role to play in this world. Just because we don't have faith in a higher power doesn't mean we are immoral. That's where everyone gets it wrong. Being a good person and a religious person are two completely independent things. And there are just so many good people who aren't getting that yet.

Answer 11

No creationist ignores evidence. It is the evolutionists who ignore and suppress evidence. That argument you cite was nullified years ago by the facts.

The reason no self-respecting scientist who claims to be an atheist uses that argument anymore is because they are well aware that the experiment was set up and controlled by a 'designer' under 'designed' conditions that could not exist in nature. Plus, oxygen is needed to give life, yet, if present, would destroy the materials of life before they ever could become alive. And of course, let's not overlook the laws of biogenesis or thermodymanics.

The odds of even the most 'simple' protein to form on its own by random chance is so rare as to be regarded as 'zero' by mathematicians. Ultimately, when evolutionists are faced with this reality, their only comeback is always, "well we are here, so evolution must have happened in spite of the odds." to which a creationist could say, "well, we are here, so creation must have happened in spite of your disbelief". It works both ways.

Every year, hundreds of scientists, many of whom are not religious, become 'creationists' simply because the weight of the evidence.

The most 'simple' cell contains a million micro-machines, each one dependent on the proper functioning of the others. Even if such amino acid strings could form without the many human controlled conditions set up by Miller and Urey, the odds of even the simplest of these micro-machines forming on its own is again so rare as to be considered impossible, and even if it did come together, it could not continue to exist without so many of the other components of the cell existing along with it.

You need to take a course in micro-biology to appreciate how ridiculous your argument sounds.