Thread: On Climate Change and Evolution

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Oh yes yes, the good ol' Cambell's Primordial Soup, a mysterious recipe made by uh ? - rain, which came down on uh uh? Hey, we really did come from rocks.

Or, then again there's the 'Panspermia' 'theory', ya extraterrestrials 'seeded' the planet with something or some kind of organic material. Na it must have come from the cooled off molted ROCK crust of the planet.

If you've a better recipe, lets hear it!

Or, then again there's the 'Panspermia' 'theory', ya extraterrestrials 'seeded' the planet with something or some kind of organic material. Na it must have come from the cooled off molted ROCK crust of the planet.



[/QUOTE]

REALLY!! i thought that show on tv "my favorite martian" was fake. now you go and tell the thing was for real.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Oh yes yes, the good ol' Cambell's Primordial Soup, a mysterious recipe made by uh ? - rain, which came down on uh uh? Hey, we really did come from rocks.

Or, then again there's the 'Panspermia' 'theory', ya extraterrestrials 'seeded' the planet with something or some kind of organic material. Na it must have come from the cooled off molted ROCK crust of the planet.

For the "Cambell's Primordial Soup," to borrow your language, scenario, I have seen it replicated in labs. It is also detailed in middle school level science textbooks. In order to be fair, I would suggest you share all the information; there was a lot more than "rain and rocks" around at the time. The experiment was carried out by Miller and Urey, and it is well documented.

I made no mention of the earth being "seeded" with organic material, nor of extraterrestrials, so I'm curious as to why you included that in your post.

Ya, their experiment was a total failure that they finally quit on because they couldn't get the results that they needed.

(Ya, I just threw that in to appeal to those in the scientism community that accept that doctrine.)

(Man! dangit! now I gotstuh kross bak ovur an' git re-indoctrinated I meen re-edjuhmuhkated)

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

Again, I realize this is my ignorance, and having read and attempted to participate in this thread, it's something I will begin to look at more closely.

That's cool. I recommend somewhere along the line you check out these YouTube channels which have great information.

YouTube - cdk007's Channel
YouTube - DonExodus2's Channel

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Ya, their experiment was a total failure that they finally quit on because they couldn't get the results that they needed.

(Ya, I just threw that in to appeal to those in the scientism community that accept that doctrine.)

(Man! dangit! now I gotstuh kross bak ovur an' git re-indoctrinated I meen re-edjuhmuhkated)

I read the article I linked before posting it, and I've just re-read it. In my reading, I'm seeing that amino acids and the building blocks for nucleic acids were found, which indicates to me that organic matter was created from inorganic matter. To me, that sounds like the experiment supports the "Cambell's Primordial Soup" scenario, which I suppose would make it a successful experiment. There are also further description's of other experiments which have provided more support to the "Cambell's Primordial Soup" scenario.

Could you please point out where in the linked article, or any other source you may have, where the experiment was found to be a failure, where they did not "get the results that they needed," and where the experimental setup was abandoned?

Did you read the article before commenting on it?

Originally Posted by jcd

That's cool. I recommend somewhere along the line you check out these YouTube channels which have great information.

YouTube - cdk007's Channel
YouTube - DonExodus2's Channel

Thanks for the links. I will look through them this evening.

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

I read the article I linked before posting it, and I've just re-read it. In my reading, I'm seeing that amino acids and the building blocks for nucleic acids were found, which indicates to me that organic matter was created from inorganic matter. To me, that sounds like the experiment supports the "Cambell's Primordial Soup" scenario, which I suppose would make it a successful experiment. There are also further description's of other experiments which have provided more support to the "Cambell's Primordial Soup" scenario.

Could you please point out where in the linked article, or any other source you may have, where the experiment was found to be a failure, where they did not "get the results that they needed," and where the experimental setup was abandoned?

Did you read the article before commenting on it?

Sorry Bro, I didn't notice you link to any article, but this stuff is so old, they used a sealed system, they want people to believe that something like what they did would occur in nature, but why can't they just show an example in nature?, and of course they used a controlled environment with a purposeful guided intelligence not a random event happening naturally, they used ammonia methane hydrogen and water vapor which they assumed existed in the primordial environment which many scientists do not believe to be so (not sure if anyone actually proved it or not), and they came up with a jar of goop which was 85% tar 13% carboxylic acid and 2% amino acid, consisting of only 2 of the minimum 20 which would be required to possibly form some simple protien, problem - the tar and carboxylic acid would bond to the amino acids if the process continued and destroy it and they are both toxins, and as I said they used a sealed environment and excluded oxygen (I wonder why) most scientists would think that there was oxygen in the atmosphere. This is one of many old debunked distractions that are used to prop up failing theories. After that and since then over a half a century, why didn't they or someone else especially with technological advances continue their experiment? Because for one thing the chemicals that they used don't naturally work together so they used an electrical zapp to help things along, to continue it they would have to continue zapping their mixture which would definitely destroy any amino acids that had formed. They knew what would happen.

They did prove that an intelligent being working with things in an intentional way and an environment that they control can make things happen.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Sorry Bro, I didn't notice you link to any article, but this stuff is so old,

I don't see how the age of research has any effect on the outcome of that research.

they used a sealed system,

It would have to be sealed in order to control what is in the experiment, which was to approximate the environment they were attempting to recreate as accurately as possible

they want people to believe that something like what they did would occur in nature, but why can't they just show an example in nature?

Such an environment may not exist naturally (I'm not sure if it does or does not) in an area that is possible to experiment on

, and of course they used a controlled environment with a purposeful guided intelligence not a random event happening naturally, they used ammonia methane hydrogen and water vapor which they assumed existed in the primordial environment which many scientists do not believe to be so

As in most science, there are often disagreements. I would have to do further readings into what was most likely in the atmosphere at the time, unless you can direct me to your own sources

(not sure if anyone actually proved it or not), and they came up with a jar of goop which was 85% tar 13% carboxylic acid and 2% amino acid, consisting of only 2 of the minimum 20

A quote from the linked article "In 2008,^[7] a re-analysis of Miller's archived solutions from the original experiments showed 22 amino acids rather than 5 were actually created in one of the apparatus used."

which would be required to possibly form some simple protien, problem - the tar and carboxylic acid would bond to the amino acids if the process continued and destroy it and they are both toxins

I'm not seeing references to tar or carboxylic acid, but I am seeing nitrites. "However, the early Earth may have had significant amounts of iron and carbonate minerals able to neutralize the effects of the nitrites"

, and as I said they used a sealed environment and excluded oxygen (I wonder why) most scientists would think that there was oxygen in the atmosphere. This is one of many old debunked

I would love to see where this experiment has been debunked. Please do link me or point me in the right direction

distractions that are used to prop up failing theories. After that and since then over a half a century, why didn't they or someone else especially with technological advances continue their experiment?

The experiments have been continued. There are references to other experiments in the Wiki article.

Because for one thing the chemicals that they used don't naturally work together so they used an electrical zapp

As stated in the article, "sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor"

to help things along, to continue it they would have to continue zapping their mixture which would definitely destroy any amino acids that had formed. They knew what would happen.

They did prove that an intelligent being working with things in an intentional way and an environment that they control can make things happen.

I don't see any evidence for your conclusion, but I would love to hear your reasoning that brought you to that conclusion.

And again, all of my responses to your statement were just from that one Wikipedia article. So I can't help but ask you again, did you read it? What is the source of your information?

Oh, my apologies, I referenced the experiment but did not link the article, but did not link to it. It is here: Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia