Creationists

[Hollie]

Give me one well known evolutionist that accepts the miller urey experiment as viable evidence that a cell could form naturally. Most of them admit ignorance when it comes to the origins question.

Your comment is ignorant. First, your juvenile attempt at a slight with "evolutionist" speaks volumes about your disgust for science. Secondly, evolution is not a study of haw life began. You are not aware of even the most basic principles of evolutionary science.

And neither are you!!!! If you were, you could answer the two questions I've posed numerous times on this thread regarding origins and evolution. None of your evo fools can seem to answer them so nice try at sound scientific.

Actually, you posted material mined from Christian creationist websites with a predefined agenda of supporting a religious view. Religion is not science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Pecking people with your finch beak does not validate your claims either. They are based on pseudo science.

Yes of course. I suppose the entirety of the field of sciences is wrong, At least most of it. A 6,000 year old earth proposed by the charlatans at the ICR would necessarily negate a great deal of science.

You're thick. Repeat it as many times as you like. I don't subscribe to the young earth view, no matter how many times you respond to an argument that I'm not making.

Yes, you and I disagree on this subject.

 

[UltimateReality]

When ID is valid, an intelligent manipulator will come up with his religious believers, who can understand the greenhouse effect, AGW, resulting climate change, and related, impending climate disasters.

Until the manipulator can get his DDDs to understand the greenhouse effect, whereby atmospheric molecules of three atoms or more contribute to global warming, I won't believe in ID.

Somebody is just fucking around, intelligent or not. In many cases, NOT. ID needs to back down. The human designer is CRIME, which pays. So crime will pay, for some, while others do TIME.

In the same way, Romanesque Christianity is buggering around, with media, designed of, for, and by Popes, who are long-dead. Can the Romanesque bastards listen, to Benedict, who claims people who don't believe in global warming are ATHEISTS?

If you are deep into ID, you need to find a smart Pope, if you are Christian.

For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.

 

[UltimateReality]

Explain to us in your own words what that means.

Ad Hollimen, don't even go there. I took several computer science classes at the U of A and I don't need to school some child on Binary code or Quaternary code or bits and bytes or information retrieval systems. Go school your ignorant self.

So.... You have no clue and a feverish web search turned up nothing.

Oh the pain!

Here it is in my own words slick. DNA is digital code. Are you happy now?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules."

Please provide links to a few.

I heard someone used what they think today the early atmosphere was rteally like and the same test did not produce one molecule.

 

[Hollie]

When ID is valid, an intelligent manipulator will come up with his religious believers, who can understand the greenhouse effect, AGW, resulting climate change, and related, impending climate disasters.

Until the manipulator can get his DDDs to understand the greenhouse effect, whereby atmospheric molecules of three atoms or more contribute to global warming, I won't believe in ID.

Somebody is just fucking around, intelligent or not. In many cases, NOT. ID needs to back down. The human designer is CRIME, which pays. So crime will pay, for some, while others do TIME.

In the same way, Romanesque Christianity is buggering around, with media, designed of, for, and by Popes, who are long-dead. Can the Romanesque bastards listen, to Benedict, who claims people who don't believe in global warming are ATHEISTS?

If you are deep into ID, you need to find a smart Pope, if you are Christian.

For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.

There's that self-hating, angry, regressive spirit we all know and detest.

 

[UltimateReality]

Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."

Well that was an exaggerated comment on my part,but it is a rediculous thought that is how life started.



Francis Crick on Origin of Life


"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

- Francis Crick



Today, Miller’s experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled “Life’s Crucible”:

Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller’s atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. “It’s a problem,” he sighs with exasperation. “How do you make polymers? That’s not so easy.”223

As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled “The Emergence of Life on Earth,” the following comments appear:

Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
That’s bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules – the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.224

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. 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.225

References:

218 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.

219 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.

220 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, “Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth,” Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.

221 “New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.

222 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.

223 “Life’s Crucible,” Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)

224 “The Rise of Life on Earth,” National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)

225 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.(emphasis added

Miller’s Experiment « Mazin’s Blog

I'm sorry, what research shows it was impossible for life to emerge by chance? Remember, our inability to recreate it does not mean it could not happen. Also remember, our inability to explain it does not mean it could not happen. So I'm looking for research that actually shows it is impossible, not research which fails to adequately explain how it could have happened.

Well get busy then!!!

 

[newpolitics]

Hmmm... it really doesn't seem like the Miller-Urey Experiment was refuted. I think what you are referring to is the idea that the experiment simulated the conditions on the earth billions of years ago. They were incorrect about the conditions, but the experiment still demonstrated that building amino acids is entirely possible using only a few inputs, and therefore, possible on the primitive earth.

The Miller and Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.

(wikipedia)

Another wiki soldier

And you're sources are... answeringenesis.com? Or Kent Hovind? Wow. You really got me there.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you never presented an argument.

All functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source.

That's a statement derived from your religious beliefs.

That's a major part of issues with being taken seriously. You don't know what an argument is.

Then present any kind of code that was developed absent of a mind ?

 

[UltimateReality]

Your claims to miracles are pointless.

There are no miracles required to spark the building blocks of life.

No one is required to accept your bellicose, unfounded claims to supernaturalism.

Not according to Crick one of the persons That discovered the genetic code. He said it was miracle because he could not bring himself to admit a mind created the code.

According to the quote you later posted by Crick, he does not actually say it is a miracle. What he says is that it appears somewhat like a miracle because we have not yet gained the knowledge or understanding to explain it.

Oh no!! Here we go again!! Someone says "appears" and the whole thread goes south.

 

[UltimateReality]

Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.

Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?

Nicely done.

You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.

The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall


Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists

If DNA is a code, then it is an example of a code occurring naturally. This argument should more accurately be 'no OTHER code occurs naturally, so DNA must not either'. Even then it seems an inaccurate analogy.

I explained this in a later post, which is now a previous post to this one. Your statement that DNA occurs naturally is not valid. It does not occur naturally. Everything, and I mean, EVERYTHING that is alive on this planet today, is the result of the code being passed down for BILLIONS of years. It is up to the evo's to come up with a testable and falsifiable theory regarding the origin of the first dna.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hmmm... it really doesn't seem like the Miller-Urey Experiment was refuted. I think what you are referring to is the idea that the experiment simulated the conditions on the earth billions of years ago. They were incorrect about the conditions, but the experiment still demonstrated that building amino acids is entirely possible using only a few inputs, and therefore, possible on the primitive earth.

The Miller and Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.

(wikipedia)

Another wiki soldier

And you're sources are... answeringenesis.com? Or Kent Hovind? Wow. You really got me there.

Nope ,I can speak for myself,I have used answers in genesis,but I have also used your fellow evolutionists,yeah I Got you there.

 

[newpolitics]

you never presented an argument.

All functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source.

This is simply untrue. It is true for the only other instance we've we seen, because we created that instance (a binary code- it is not digital. that is a play on words to make it seem more designed. digital code uses binary coding, but the language is not the same. Digital coding has very specific meanings that don't translate to DNA). That doesn't mean the information in DNA came from a creator. It simply doesn't. If this is the basis for your argument and that of the ID proponents, then you have no evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not according to Crick one of the persons That discovered the genetic code. He said it was miracle because he could not bring himself to admit a mind created the code.

According to the quote you later posted by Crick, he does not actually say it is a miracle. What he says is that it appears somewhat like a miracle because we have not yet gained the knowledge or understanding to explain it.

Oh no!! Here we go again!! Someone says "appears" and the whole thread goes south.

 

[UltimateReality]

Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."

Well that was an exaggerated comment on my part,but it is a rediculous thought that is how life started.



Francis Crick on Origin of Life


"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

- Francis Crick



Today, Miller’s experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled “Life’s Crucible”:

Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller’s atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. “It’s a problem,” he sighs with exasperation. “How do you make polymers? That’s not so easy.”223

As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled “The Emergence of Life on Earth,” the following comments appear:

Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
That’s bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules – the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.224

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. 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.225

References:

218 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.

219 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.

220 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, “Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth,” Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.

221 “New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.

222 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.

223 “Life’s Crucible,” Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)

224 “The Rise of Life on Earth,” National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)

225 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.(emphasis added

Miller’s Experiment « Mazin’s Blog

I couldn't help but notice that the long quote appears prominately in all the expected Christian creationist websites and even Harun Yahya's site.

Ad Hollyman Fallacy for the upteenth time!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall


Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists

If DNA is a code, then it is an example of a code occurring naturally. This argument should more accurately be 'no OTHER code occurs naturally, so DNA must not either'. Even then it seems an inaccurate analogy.

IF DNA code was designed by a supernatural designer, why would he purposely design a code that was subject to damage?

Why such shoddy design?

You ask a religious, not a scientific question, so here is your religious answer. The original DNA code was not subject to errors, thus allowing Adam and Eve to exist in the garden forever. With sin, the code was corrupted, and thus physical death became a reality. It is the copying errors that cause aging. Next question!

 

[UltimateReality]

Yes of course. I suppose the entirety of the field of sciences is wrong, At least most of it. A 6,000 year old earth proposed by the charlatans at the ICR would necessarily negate a great deal of science.

You're thick. Repeat it as many times as you like. I don't subscribe to the young earth view, no matter how many times you respond to an argument that I'm not making.

Fall to the floor and kick and stomp your feet if you like. Using your religious views to try and inflict blunt force trauma on others is pointless.

Religion is not science. It's that simple. You can't bring yourself to understand that claims to "the gods did it" are meaningless in the real world of science, exploration and discovery.

I'll say it REAAAALLL SLOOOOOWWWWWWW, again. I am not here posing as a Creationist. I am sticking strictly to scientifically verifiable theories and evidence. You must be a south pole evolutionist. Call me Creationist one more time...

 

[UltimateReality]

You made bellicose statements,

Bellicose. Isn't about the third time you've used this in the last 5 posts? Hollyman, it doesn't matter how many big words you look up in the dictionary, you still don't sound intelligent.

You're now reduced to blathering like a child who has been scolded.

You can also be condescending. You still don't sound like a grown up.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you never presented an argument.

All functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source.

This is simply untrue. It is true for the only other instance we've we seen, because we created that instance (a binary code- it is not digital. that is a play on words to make it seem more designed. digital code uses binary coding, but the language is not the same. Digital coding has very specific meanings that don't translate to DNA). That doesn't mean the information in DNA came from a creator. It simply doesn't. If this is the basis for your argument and that of the ID proponents, then you have no evidence.

The 4 nucleotides (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine) are the alphabet of the genetic code, which is the language of the recipe book.

Each word in the language of genetics is 3 letters long and is called a codon. A sentence composed of codons spells out the ingredients needed to make a protein.

The ingredients of proteins are molecules called amino acids.
Only 20 different amino acids needed to make all the proteins in the body. Each 3-letter code represents the instruction to add a particular amino acid.


A lot of the amino acids used come from the food we eat, whilst others are made in the by our own cells. Those that we can make ourselves are called non-essential amino acids, whilst those we get from our diet are essential amino acids.

There are some codons in the genetic code that don’t stand for an amino acid. Instead they’re like the capital letter at the beginning of a sentence and the full stop at the end. They’re called the start and stop codons and indeed tell the machinery making the protein to start and stop building.

The genetic code - the language of genetics






DNA contains the genetic instructions for all living organisms

Our bodies are made up of some five trillion cells with a multitude of functions. Within the nucleus of almost every one of these cells are long molecules called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is like an organic blueprint or book of recipes. Your DNA is a genetic code that contains all the instructions needed to make an organism like you, to renew your cells and to keep your body functioning properly.




Nucleotides are the ‘rungs’ in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the ‘words’ and ‘sentences’ of your genetic code


The language of life

DNA molecules are found within the nuclei of your cells and are really long chains of building blocks called nucleotides. These chains form the iconic twisting ladder structure (the double-helix) that was discovered by the Nobel laureates Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953. Nucleotides are the ‘rungs’ in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the ‘words’ and ‘sentences’ of your genetic code, in which nucleotides are the ‘letters’. Nucleotides come in four different versions, adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, usually represented by the letters A, T, C and G, respectively. The human genetic code consists of about 3 billion of these four kinds of nucleotides. Each of your cells contains two copies of this genetic code, one inherited from your mother and the other from your father.

DNA The Code of Life | The Language of Life | deCODEme

You will find mountains of literature supporting our view over yours.

 

[Hollie]

Well that was an exaggerated comment on my part,but it is a rediculous thought that is how life started.



Francis Crick on Origin of Life


"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

- Francis Crick



Today, Miller’s experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled “Life’s Crucible”:

Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller’s atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. “It’s a problem,” he sighs with exasperation. “How do you make polymers? That’s not so easy.”223

As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled “The Emergence of Life on Earth,” the following comments appear:

Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
That’s bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules – the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.224

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. 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.225

References:

218 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.

219 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.

220 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, “Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth,” Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.

221 “New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.

222 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.

223 “Life’s Crucible,” Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)

224 “The Rise of Life on Earth,” National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)

225 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.(emphasis added

Miller’s Experiment « Mazin’s Blog

I'm sorry, what research shows it was impossible for life to emerge by chance? Remember, our inability to recreate it does not mean it could not happen. Also remember, our inability to explain it does not mean it could not happen. So I'm looking for research that actually shows it is impossible, not research which fails to adequately explain how it could have happened.

Well get busy then!!!

Here again and as usual, you're at a disadvantage. Duane Gish whos name appears frequently in your references is a card carrying member of the ICR.

Its obvious what his intended goal is as a representative of a fundie religious organization.

He makes no pretence of being either objective or truthful. Why should anyone take his comments as truth when he is under written agreement with the ICR that limits his writing to a narrowly defined agenda defined by a religious organization.

He's actually announcing his bias up front. And by using the ICR as you're typical source of support, you're announcing your bias as well.