Evolutionists, What Would Be Your Response if I Told You That…?

Question by Michael Jackson Is Dead!: Evolutionists, what would be your response if I told you 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 tehabwa
Uh, never heard of that experiment. It has NO relevance to the question of how life came to be so diverse, which is what evolution explains.

Before plants changed the atmosphere, it lacked the amount of FREE oxygen it now has. It was over a billion years of plants taking in CO2 and expelling O2 that gave us the pre-industrial atmosphere (which we’re now changing, unfortunately).

Why would I read a book that asks an obviously bogus question? The evidence for evolution is vast, varied, in fact, overwhelming. It’s not myth — though many people believe false things about it that could be called myths (for instance, see New Scientist’s page on common myths about evolution or UC Berkeley’s “Understanding Evolution” site).

Uh, evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory, which means it’s a collection of principles and facts and lines of reasoning; it is supported by evidence. Christianity is not a scientific theory — there is NO evidence or facts supporting it. It’s also inherently inconsistent.

I don’t go out of my way to attack Christians. What I see is believers going out of their way to attack atheists. AND I see believers trying to force their religions on everyone else — which I vehemently oppose. Many Christians try to force laws on everyone based on their religion; and try to prevent science from being taught to the young — both of which are reprehensible and anti-American.

Some atheists resent Christianity because they were emotionally abused as children in the way their religion was imposed on them; they tend to be bitter about it.

Since I know nothing about the experiment in question, I don’t know whether it should be included in texts, or, if so, what should be said about it if it were. it is, as I said, completely irrelevant.

That we don’t (yet) know exactly how first life emerged does NOT prove some Sky Bully did it. It just means we don’t (yet) know.

We DO have an increasingly good account for how life went on after it first appeared: it’s called Evolution.

Add your own answer in the comments!