Creationists: What do you make of this now famous experiment which proves ...?

Question

that it is possible - in a very short time - to produce the building blocks of self-replicating DNA out of the promordial elements on Earth?

sorry, forgot to add link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

Answer 1

You have to wonder if it can be done so easily in a laboratory how could it not have occured in a time period of hundreds of millions of years when all the necessary chemicals were available yet creationists argue that it was a billion to one chance. Creationists don't seem aware that the theories for abiogenesis are more than adequate to explain how life originated and are supported by ample evidence. In this instance using Wikipedia is justified because these results are attested to on talk origins and other reliable scientific sites.

Answer 2

My understanding is that this experiement and its results were never replicated in later times and thus, this experiment goes into the same catagory as those who have claimed to have made cold fusion.

I was aware of this but I never saw this link and I have put it into my favorites for further studies.

I will go as far to say that based on what Planck and Heisenberg have to say about randomness and uncertainty that this could be a one time thing, just as reality was.

BUT, science is about PROVING THINGS ABSOLUTELY WITH RULES and thus any High School teacher should be able to reproduce the results by following the experiment AT WILL in the class room semester by semester.

Why is this NOT being done if it is so true!

NEXT, this still doesn't prove that it can happen RANDOMLY.

Theoritically an AUTOMOBILE can be made randomly, but no one has ever done that in a lab either.

FINALLY, all this proves is INTELLEGENT DESIGN. It proves the MIND is capable of creating magic with things.

REMEMBER to DEFEATE creationism you have to PROVE it can happen RANDOMLY IN NATURE.

For SCIENTISTS to do it, is INTELLEGENT DESIGN

So this proves the INTELLEGENT DESIGN THEORY and leaves open the possibility that a brilliant, advanced mind in someone named GOD did this ages ago and that's why we are here.

You have NOT established how this can happen in a VOLCANINC mountain SPONTANIOUSLY.

Remember SCIENCE is about PROVING how GOD did things.

Science gave us CPR and that can be a proof of how Jesus raised the dead.

What it doesn't explain is how Jesus did it 2,000 years ago or why man would WRITE about restoring life with the touch of a hand or hands 2,000 years ago.

CPR is only 50 years old.

So, all our experiment establishes is that a well educated mind can create the building blocks of life out of inorganic materials.

Religion has no problems with the Big Bang or Evolution, the problems is with RANDOM, MINDLESS, SOULESS processes which create life.

I'll be the first to admit that there are Las Vegas odds for that, but those odds are astronomical.

The odds more tend to favor an pre-existing intellegence life force that knew chemistry and physics and applied those things to create life. Those are better odds and your experiment establishes that fact.

Now, go establish the RANDOM fact. That's a bit tougher to do.

By the way, SCIENCE and our own emperical observations indicate that the Earth is moving thousands of miles per hour in space. Yet a SCIENCE experiment (sorry, I don't have the link anymore, but search and you will find it) around 1909 THAT WON A NOBEL PRIZE that has BEEN repeated dozens of times, taking ERROR into account PROVES the EARTH could be motionless! In other words the Earth could be the center of the universe, stationary and everything else moves. THAT experience extablishes -- TAKING ERROR INTO ACCOUNT -- zero motion on the part of the Earth!

We call that a paradox. OR it establishes that rules of observation are flawed as a result of relativity. Hence what we see and measure may be flawed for we can't observe things independetly enough.

Jesus had a saying for that. Don't pick the cinder out of someone's eye because you have a big tree growing out of your own eye.

Just because you have a ruler, doesn't mean the rules of the universe will let you accurately measure things.

Answer 3

Miller and Urey? With all due respect to their intial foray, there has been a lot of research in the field of abiogenesis in the last 50 years. Check out Szostack's work at Harvard, or some of the work going on in Scripps. That simple chemical reactions led to a RNA phenotypic world is no longer in question. The really hot question now in science is whether phenotypic RNA evolved protein synthesis and metabolism, or whether these chemical processes started independently (it appears that this is chemically possible) and then merged in an endosymbiotic process.

Answer 4

Scientific experiments about the generation of life from non-life are fairly new. There has been much progress made.

Recently researchers discovered an enzyme that was strictly comprised of RNA, meaning DNA and protein was not needed (this was once thought to be an insurmountable obstacle).

At this point, science is moving so fast that someone saying "It's impossible" is usually interrupted by someone else doing it.

Answer 5

You have nothing I know I have searched and researched a long time and they can not do it.


Go to biology and ask if right and left hand amino acids can combine to form life. That experiment generated both left and right hand amino acids. You should read your own link. The experiment is not new and there has been a lot of research done since then. An amino acid and a bubble are a very long way from life.
Maybe they will sometime but they can't now or I wouldn't have asked what I asked.

Answer 6

It's a long way from making a protien molicule to making a living organism. A living organism take a minimum of 72 functioning parts to survive. (current theory)

By the way. I'm NOT a creationist but I believe in an intelligent designer.

Answer 7

Though I am in favor of Evolution, I think your argument should come with a link siting your source.

Answer 8

That's very interesting. But if I were you, I wouldn't use info off of wikipedia, not always reliable.

Answer 9

Where do you think that all of the elements came from? God created and used these elements to further create everything.

Answer 10

So, go ahead and use it to make an animal. After you do +that+, I will start to investigate your claims.
BTW, the word is 'primordial', not promordial.