Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific


What part of, “See Johnson et al (2008)” do you have a problem with?

If you don’t want to read the original paper, there are a number of pop-science articles online about the retesting which you can find with ordinary Google.



You either don’t know the answer or do not want to tell us what was added.


Your mind reading powers have failed you,buffalo. You do not know what I think. Go and read the paper if you want to know what happened. It is described there.



Hmmmm - another strike.,.


in real life there is no tapped reservoir; the whole system remains open to any sparking

you say 22 amino acids were produced according to a 55 post experiment re-evaluation. Share the data with us including the % of each of the 22 amino acids


Still does not want to disclose what was added.


The reservoir is the planet. And if you want to know how many amino acids there were you need to check web sites other than the creationist ones that you are using. They will not give you all the information you need to make educated comments.

What they will do is bend the truth, add comments that are not supported by the facts and omit anything that does not support their agenda.

Here is one article that mentio s the additional acids: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/science/17LIFE.html

Now if you post anything that contradicts what you have been told, could you please let us know where you are getting the information from so we can ascertain its validity.


Unless I’m mistaken it was eye of newt and toe of frog.

Listen, nobody wants to play 20 questions. If you have something useful to say then bring it to the table and surprise us.


And to possibly prevent you wasting our time yet again, check out the results of a further experiment done circa 2007.

‘Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were also turning the water acidic—which prevents amino acids from forming. Yet primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals that neutralized nitrites and acids. So Bada added chemicals to the experiment to duplicate these functions. When he reran it, he still got the same watery liquid as Miller did in 1983, but this time it was chock-full of amino acids. Bada presented his results this week at the American Chemical Society annual meeting in Chicago.’ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/primordial-soup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated/


Close… but no cigar


James Ferris, a prebiotic chemist at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., doubts that atmospheric electricity could have been the only source of organic molecules. “You get a fair amount of amino acids,” he says. “What you don’t get are things like building blocks of nucleic acids.” Meteors, comets or primordial ponds of hydrogen cyanide would still need to provide those molecules.


So now you are quoting someone who is actively looking at the science of abiogenesis and has suggestions for how it all started.

I’m not sure why you feel the need to quote people who are certain that it was a natural phenomenon and are proposing any number of ways how it could have happened.


it’s because I am able to deal with truth wherever it comes from

Abiogenesis simply means “without life generation” or not possible


I guess you opted out of the classics when you went to school.


examine the etymology of “biogenesis” after Pasteur, and consider what the “a” in abiogenesis means


1870 September 17, Thomas Henry Huxley:

‘And thus the hypothesis that living matter always arises by the agency of pre-existing living matter, took definite shape; […] It will be necessary for me to refer to this hypothesis so frequently, that, to save circumlocution, I shall call it the hypothesis of Biogenesis ; and I shall term the contrary doctrine—that living matter may be produced by not living matter—the hypothesis of Abiogenesis’.


As I said “without life genesis” - turns out to have been an utterly nonsensical proposition from atheists (that no lab test has been able to demonstrate) so fantasy, not science
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange


So you don’t think that God could have set things up so that it happened naturally? That is, according to rules that would align with sciencific laws?

Now I don’t want to put words into your mouth, but as God is omnipotent then your only answer could be: ‘Yes, He could have arranged it that way, but we haven’t been able to discover the exact method yet’.

At which point we will be agreeing with each other.


But that’s not what scripture says, @Bradskii. It says he created all the animals (each one) according to their (its) own kind
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange


Then I’m really not sure why you bother checking out all your creation sites and digging up information that you think disproves abiogenesis. It really is beyond me why you are wasting your time (and some of mine) in this nonsensical charade.

It really would be to everyone’s benefit if you simply said something along the lines of: ‘Scripture says that God created all the kinds as per Genesis so I am unwilling and even unable to even contemplate any other explanation’.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.