Quote:
Originally Posted by 2percent
Today, Miller's experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists...
As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life...
Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed...
|
This is the beauty of science... if flaws are found in a hypothesis or theory, the flaws are modified and retested, or the hypothesis or theory is discarded (even by the same scientist that did the original experiment and/or proposed the theory!) in favor of the next best explanation. This next best explanation used to be God in many cases, but is increasingly less so as time passes and we discover and test new, more realistic explanations...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2percent
In brief, neither Miller's experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific.
|
Look, it's obvious that you cut and pasted this from somewhere. When you're trying to argue a point and you use someone else's work, it's more credible (and just common courtesy to the original author) to cite your source. That way, others that are reviewing it can see where it came from (I'm not claiming you're trying to pass this off as your own ideas, but...). That's another beauty of the scientific process - peer-reviewed papers, subject to the educated scrutiny of others in the field. And I can tell from the last paragraph in this one (especially the highlighted parts), that this article
isn't one of those. I'm interested to see the source on this one.
As to the bolded parts... just because you haven't confirmed that X didn't cause Z, it doesn't automatically confirm that Y did cause Z. And they then go on to talk about "prejudices that are totally unscientific". Did no one else catch the irony here? And I'm also interested to know what these claimed "unscientific prejudices" are for these evolutionists (also - generalize much?
All evolutionists? Or just the one to whom this article was debasing?). And lastly, "obvious reality" of creation? Again, just because you can observe Z (in this case, Earth, humans, animals, the universe, etc.), and even are not able to confirm that X ("neither Miller's experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted") caused Z... this STILL doesn't mean you can confirm that Y (in this case, God) caused Z. Where is the obvious reality of creation? And once again, just because an old book says it happened DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. That last paragraph completely erases any vestige of scientific credibility the article may have otherwise had...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2percent
Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:
All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.26
|
Again, this guy is also generalizing his conclusions to that of
All of those studying the origin of life. I doubt they all got together and issued this unanimous edict. But I agree with his sentiment... It
is hard to imagine
this origin of life. But it doesn't mean that it's not still possible, and that it didn't happen that way. It just has been proven yet (and who knows if it ever will? I'm not claiming that I know it did). It's also hard to imagine that God created life. But, again, this is still a possibility too. It's just a matter of what is more probable... and, even though the odds are so tiny of the big band/primordial ooze/evolution scenario having happened, it is still more probable (based on actual, observable reality, and the accumulated scientific knowledge [that builds upon and corrects itself] of thousands of years) than the creation scenario as set forth in the Bible.