Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

shallow seas

Im not gonna call RL a "liar" per se. Hes trying to retain a belief system that is quickly imploding under the weight of counter evidence and this makes him even more of a zealot.

-noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
-verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.
-verb (used with object)
7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.

I guess Im naive but I really believe that RL BELIEVES what hes telling us. (Otherwise I think hed be gone by now).

I once accused him of similar motives by prejudging his means as a path to his ends. (Hes a Christian Evangelical leaning Young Earth CReationist who, if he followed all the lines of his rule book, hed have to admit that hes practicing deceit) Therefore I dont think that he sees that interpretation and he feels that his argument is righteous.

Course I could be all wet too.

Poor rl, claiming complex molecules couldn't continue to exist on the early earth....Don't even need an atmosphere, rl.

username wrote:

Poor rl, claiming complex molecules couldn't continue to exist on the early earth....Don't even need an atmosphere, rl.

I don't think I said they need an atmosphere.

My point is that the very environment proposed as having produced them would be as likely to destroy them as well.

The more complex, the less likely that they could survive in the open environment.

The good chemist who withdrew his article was making this very point.

The proposed environment of the early earth was not conducive to the survival of complex molecules.

My point is that the very environment proposed as having produced them would be as likely to destroy them as well.

Moreover, the assumed reducing atmosphere that Miller used did not contain oxygen, since the presence of this ingredient would oxidize any amino acids they hoped to produce.

Hey, rl, guess what? The early atmosphere of earth was in fact a reducing atmosphere

.....while nothing would happen in the absence of external energy sources (which is true), there WERE external energy sources (same as today), so to hypothesize nothing would happen because there weren't is completely contrary to fact.

Try though you seem to do to deny it ..... the sun has always been the largest source of energy.

.....And things don't just sit there in space, the way you seem to think. It's an extraordinarily hostile environment. Put you a thousand miles up without a spacesuit and you'd burst into billions of little bits, simply from intracellular pressure. Radiation, which permeates particularly near-stellar space is extraordinarily destructive too, as is absolute cold. Far more dangerous than virtually any planetary surface with an atmosphere. Yet all those complex organic chemicals are out there.

Recently, when the Miller/Urey experiment was retried, the operators did a d'oh when they ran it in an excess of free Hydrogen and came out with even more nifty prebiotic polymers

farmerman wrote:

Recently, when the Miller/Urey experiment was retried, the operators did a d'oh when they ran it in an excess of free Hydrogen and came out with even more nifty prebiotic polymers

Miller Urey type scenarios run with a number of bogus assumptions.

How many times do you really think the same little handful of chemicals would have been hit by lightning on the early earth, farmerman?

The concentration of amino acids implied (by a 'successful' MU-type experiment) in any sq yd of the early earth is so beyond likelihood as to be not worth discussing.

My point is that the very environment proposed as having produced them would be as likely to destroy them as well.

real life wrote:

My point is that the very environment proposed as having produced them would be as likely to destroy them as well.

real life wrote:

Moreover, the assumed reducing atmosphere that Miller used did not contain oxygen, since the presence of this ingredient would oxidize any amino acids they hoped to produce.

It seems at one point you felt Miller did use an atmosphere that wouldn't destroy them. Has the chemistry changed now? If so, please tell us how it change?

Hmm.. it seems you are now saying that amino acids COULD survive.

farmerman wrote:

Recently, when the Miller/Urey experiment was retried, the operators did a d'oh when they ran it in an excess of free Hydrogen and came out with even more nifty prebiotic polymers

Miller Urey type scenarios run with a number of bogus assumptions.

How many times do you really think the same little handful of chemicals would have been hit by lightning on the early earth, farmerman?

The concentration of amino acids implied (by a 'successful' MU-type experiment) in any sq yd of the early earth is so beyond likelihood as to be not worth discussing.