Evolutionists, What Would Be Your Response if I Made the Claim That…?

Question by Michael Jackson Is Dead!: Evolutionists, what would be your response if I made the claim that…?
That the Miller and Urey experiment is not credible and should not be included in the textbooks?
The problem is that they used a mixture of: Methane, Amonia, water vapor, and hydrogen. There was no oxygen involved in the experiment.

I’m sure you know the arguments but Miller’s argument for not using Oxygen is that life could not evolve in oxygen (it will oxidize). But how could he have ammonia (destroyed from UV light) involved and say that there was no oxygen in the early atmosphere. But how could ammonia exist if there was no oxygen to create an ozone layer? Also the earth has always had oxygen, as seen in the Oxygen bubbles found in Amber.

There are several other fallacies in his experiment, as in the book “Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?” by Jonathan Wells. If there’s one thing I would ask you to do (besides answering this question ) is to read that book. After all, I’ve been told by Atheists on Yahoo! answers several times to “go read a book”.

On a side note (If you can explain the above) riddle me this: As you should know, the Evolution theory is as much of a theory as the Christian God is. Now, can you tell me why Evolutionists and Atheists go out of their way to Attack Christians.

Now, as you imagine, the answer section to my question should be filled with intelligent and crystal-clear answers. This is what you believe in! The answer should be as simple as “2 + 2 = 4”. So, if you can accurately answer the question I will give you the best answer award with a 5 star rating of your answer. I will also provide you with my e-mail address so we (If you would like) could discuss Evolution. (<---Not necessarily debate) One more thing (If you have room): Do you really think this experiment should be included in the textbooks? Best answer:

Answer by Jason
the miller experiment was just an interesting demonstration, it proves nothing. There was no substantial level of oxygen on the early earth because it was all absorbed by the rocks (silicates and such). the oxygen found in amber bubbles means nothing because amber is fossilized tree sap. trees came much later than the evolution of life (trees are living, duh). but the whole amber thing sounds alot like what some pro creationist idiot would tell you, and it probably sounded pretty good too

it’s an insult to evolution to say creationism is as much a theory as evolution is, creationism has no testable hypotheses therefore by definition it is not a theory. Creationism is a belief system, evolution is science. if you choose to BELIEVE in creationism that’s your choice. but don’t try to claim it has any scientific merit because it doesn’t in any way.

let me explain this as clearly as I can: real science is about taking a theory, testing it, and discarding the null hypothesis in order to form a better theory. creationist science is all about finding things that support a shaky hypothesis while discarding the mountains of contrary data as soon as they find a little sound byte that sounds like it supports them.

and for the record; I’m a Christian, not an atheist. I just think creationism is a joke. the bible is a book of stories meant to give guidance to people if they are faced with a similar circumstance, that way they’ll know what is the right thing to do. it is not a history text book, it is not a geology textbook, it’s not a biology textbook, and it’s not an astronomy text book. those who try to use it as those things are foolish

Give your answer to this question below!