Totally irrelevant, all of your comments.
When the point is: "this experiment does not provide evidence for X", then responding to that by explaining how that is wrong and how it is in fact evidence for X... is anything but "irrelevant".
If amino acids are found in meteors, I would say they exist in nature.
That doesn't demonstrate a pathway to how they can form through natural chemistry.
Nore do you need to find them in meteors to know that they exist in nature. We knew they existed in nature the second we identified the first one ever. That doesn't address how it got there.
Miller Urey addressed at least one possible pathway on how they can get there.
So now comes the ice illustration. If you lived in the Arizona desert where I live, in the summer, you could go out and sit under a nice shady mesquite tree every day, and watch for the natural process of ice formation to occur. every day in March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November. You would Never see it. The process COULD occur, but it never does, THE CONDITIONS ARE INCORRECT FOR IT TO HAPPEN.
So?
This has nothing to do with the point of the analogy.
The point of the analogy was demonstrating how your insinuation that the amino acids that formed in the experiment, was an example of "intelligent design", is completely bonkers.
The only thing design, are the controlled conditions of the experiment - just like the controlled conditions inside a freezer. The stuff that happens inside,
is natural chemistry.
The chemical reaction isn't designed, neither is the resulting molecule.
Just like the process of freezing isn't designed and neither is the resulting ice.
Miller Urey created a process by which these things were created.
No. They created an
environment in which that process
naturally took place.
Just like a freezer creates an
environment in which the
natural process of freezing naturally takes place.
The process is the natural reaction of chemicals, in a certain ratio, with gasses in a certain ratio, with the temperature at an optimum level, in equipment specially designed to get a specific result, in an atmosphere now considered non representative of the early earth.
Under these conditions chemical reactions occur. I have no problem with this.
You aren't aware of follow up experiments since then, which achieved the same results?
I seem to remember quite clearly that
@tas8831 raised this several times with you, but you seem to be hellbend on ignoring it.
Nevertheless, I never made any claims concerning this and it is not relevant to the simple point I'm making, which is: we didn't know how amino acids could form naturally. Miller urey demonstrated at least one path in which they could. That, in and of itself, makes the process of natural genesis of life a little more plausible, as it demonstrate a way in which some building blocks
could form naturally.
I do have a problem with a designed and very specific mixture of chemicals and gasses, apparently non representative of the early earth, very carefully controlled and adjusted, creating matter that is an ingredient in an extremely complex thing called life being called evidence of abiogenesis.
Honestly, I think the primary problem you have is reconciling certain scientific topics and ideas, with your religious beliefs.
You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge the simple point I'm making, that demonstrating *a* pathway in which amino acids can form through natural chemistry, IS evidence in support of a natural genesis of life, as it shows how at least some building blocks COULD form naturally. It doesn't make it a lot more plausible, but it does make it more plausible nonetheless.
Can you at least bring yourself to acknowledge as much?
The experiment is illustrative of mans ingenuity in creating these "building blocks of life ΅.
It is not illustrative of abiogenesis, or the natural creation of these blocks. It cannot be, the conditions are wrong.
Yes, chemicals under certain conditions create amino acids.
Natural chemistry.
Those conditions did not exist on early earth.
You said yourself we find these molecules in space rocks. So it doesn't even have to happen on earth, stricly speaking.
And once again:
@tas8831 has already addressed this with a lot more knowledge of the material then I have.
I am not stubborn, just logical. Miller Urey created amino acids, using conditions not found on early earth, therefore the result does not represent what occurred in nature.
Before Miller Urey, it was unknown how it could occur and creationists even doubted that it in fact could occur at all, under ANY conditions.
Miller Urey demonstrated at least one way how to do it. Follow up experiments, with different conditions, produced amino acids also. Space rocks even bring them to earth from outer space.
It makes natural abiogenesis more plausible. Deal with it.
