Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

i am trying to say - this is not a debate about the limits of God's power (this for stu - if there is a God.) this is purely a debate about the fact that evolutionists no longer claim science knows life sprung from inorganic material by chance. Which is a major change. I was taught many times that this experiment showed life could come from inorganic life.

miller urey

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 than 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, nitrogen, 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.[8

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

The final episode of Star Trek TNG even showed Picard and Q back at the goo.

It seems now many scientists science state we do not know how life came about on earth.

 

So there are people that believe that the Universe came from nothing?? And they can see that the chances of life existing require a sun, moon, earth, all that good stuff, including the gravitational forces, electrical forces, etc...... to be in a state of near perfection? And they still have a belief system built around it all coming from nothing? Amazingly stupid people I'd have to say... And in the light of how perfect things have to be to sustain life they believe that this perfection has held for how long? Billions of years!! And over the years, the more they discover about how the Solar System actually works, the further back they have to push their imagined beginning to account for a few things.. but wait, eventually they will have to push the supposed creation from nothing so far back that it won't make sense that things could have lasted this long...

But not to worry, they always come up with something classy like "you're just a stupid religious person and I'm really smart" or something like that...

 

you said you have proof life came form non life.
the stuff you are now writing is beside the point.

mary shelly wrote a work of fiction about what animates life.
science is no longer willing to claim they know what created life from non life. yet you keep insisting insisting on a fiction when you state you have proof.


As far as context... here is a quote from a paper from MIT..

you will see I quoted De Duve in context... and if you read the pdf... you will see the author cites the parallels to cosmology...


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
have little idea yet what form this explanation will take—although of course it
will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
last resort, if an option at all—but we have every reason to look for such an
explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.
3
There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the “Almosta Miracle Camp” including Francis Crick (1981), ErnstMayr (1982),
and Jaques Monod (1974), who appear to be content with the idea that life
arose by chance even if the probability of this happening is extremely low.
4
According to Crick “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied
to get it going” (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a “happy
accident” (p. 14).
5
According to Mayr, “a full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this
event was.” (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was “virtually zero. . .our number came up in the
Monte Carlo game” (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is “chance caught
on a wing” (p. 78). That is, although natural selection took over early to produce the diversity of life, its origin was nothing but an incredibly improbable
fluke.Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake? 459
However, the vast majority of experts in the field clearly define their work
in opposition to this view. The more common attitude is summed up neatly
by J. D. Bernal.
[T]he question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms,
clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge
that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than
chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life. (quoted in Fry 2000:
153)
Having calculated the staggering improbability of life’s emergence by chance,
Manfred Eigen (1992) concludes,
The genes found today cannot have arisen randomly, as it were by the throw of
a dice. There must exist a process of optimization that works toward functional
efficiency. Even if there are several routes to optimal efficiency, mere trial and
error cannotbe one of them. (p. 11)
It is from this conclusion that Eigen motivates his search for a physical principle that does not leave the emergence of life up to blind chance, hence
making itreproducible in principle:
The physical principle that we are looking for should be in a position to explain
the complexity typical of the phenomena of life at the level of molecular structures and syntheses. It should show how such complex molecular arrangements
are able to form reproducibly in Nature. (p. 11)
According to Christian de Duve (1991),
. . .unless one adopts a creationist view,. . .life arose through the succession of an
enormous number of small steps, almost each of which, given the condition at
the time had a very high probability of happening. . .the alternative amounts to
a miracle. . .were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the
combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally.
(p. 217)
Not all theorists follow De Duve so far as suggesting that life’s emergence
mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987)
captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into life’s
origin. According to Dawkins,
All who have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex as
the human eye could not possibly come into existence through [a single chance
event]. Unfortunately the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus
of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself (p. 140)460 NOUS ˆ
In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks
“Whatis the largestsingle eventof sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories,
and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?” (p. 141) And
he answers that there are strict limits on the “ration of luck” that we are
allowed to postulate in our theories.
6
According to Dawkins, an examination
of the immense complexity of the most basic mechanisms required for DNA
replication is sufficient to see that any theory which makes its existence a
highly improbable fluke is unbelievable, quite apart from what alternative
explanations are on the table


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

 

I've noticed a lot of that in this thread. In fact more of it than any real evidence or decent argument.

 

The universe is everything you’re calling God , except the universe exists in actuality.
All a religious person like you really does is replace the word Universe with the word God .

 

Someone incessantly blurts out 'stupid' in every post they make , so you only noticed others saying something they've never said.
Really?

I suppose with no argument and nothing sensible to contribute, you would say something like that

 

So the proof, the fact, that the building blocks of life themselves can and are formed naturally by chemical reaction from inorganic material, is beside the point?

Hard evidence for 'life from non-life' ....and it is beside the point.?

The next questions following from that knowledge is where the proof and fact and hard evidence is still being discovered.

But then that's all you can do isn't it. Prevaricate around the things yet to be discovered and dismiss all the things that are. Desperately trying to make room for your religious beliefs like that is rather sad.

 

Yeah, really. Probably because you and Gabby say it repeatedly.

 

Hi, Stu..

So the universe is everything we call god.

If the universe is everything we call god then what we call god is included in the universe. If the universe exists then everything included in the universe exists therefore what we call god exists.

God as universe, universe as god.

 

Stu doesnt like it when you use his own words against him.