• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

dad

Undefeated
It's an extraordinary claim that has a burden of proof. A burden, which hasn't been met.
Any claim that nature was any was is extrordinary to science because it don't and can't know either way! The record of the past is quite ordinary to Scripture and even history to some extent. Yours is the extraordinary claim.


It makes no sense to say that multiple independent dating methods which work in radically different ways from one another, would all converge on the same "incorrect" date.
Show the basis for dating any example. In the example we were looking at in the thread lately, Babel, let's see the basis for dates! Ha.

"from....to", meaning that there is stuff in between also. Which also matches the datings of all other independent methods.
Stuff between something in no way justifies fairy tales.

Once again, it makes no sense to say that all dating methods are wrong, yet all converge on the same dates.
In the case of Babel, demonstrably wrong dates.

Here's the problem: if they would get "real wrong real fast", then we would expect different independent dating methods to each come up with wildly different dates. But thats not what happens. What happens is that they all converge on the same dates.
That is about as impressive as saying guns on a firing range with scopes that are maladjusted all tend to miss the target to the left!

Sometimes, I really think that you are the most dedicated Poe troll on the entire internet.
What else could you think, being unable to free yourself from the bonds of your religious quackscience?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
OK, there are a LOT of misunderstandings here.

In Einstein's theory of relativity, reference is relative to the observer. Two people looking at the same event, from different references, can see two different things.

While this is true in both special and general relativity, you should be clear which you are using.

At the beginning of universe, all the matter and energy was condensed into a singularity, from which the big bang happens. Therefore, in the beginning the only reference for the universe was that of the singularity. This reference was extremely space contracted and extremely time dilated.
Wrong. Time dilation was NOT an aspect here.

There was no earth reference that point.The earth reference, by not yet existing was not a valid reference. It is not valid until that reference finally appears. It is hypothetical at the beginning. The earth reference at t=0 is hypothetical and a mythology connected to the earth being the center of the universe.

But we *can* project back along with local expansion and get a valid time dimension. This is what is typically done.

Since God created the universe, and therefore he had to be around during the singularity, God would have had to use the only reference available; singular, to set his clock. Since this reference was so close to a speed of light reference; based on General Relativity; GR, one day in t=0 reference could billions of year in the hypothetical earth reference that did not yet exist.

The 'singularity' is NOT a thing. It is a description of the geometry as we approach the BB from t>0. NOTHING was moving at the speed of light here.

According to science the evidence seems to indicate that the early universe expanded faster than the speed of light. This assumption now brings us into the realm of Special Relativity; SR, with velocity being greater that the speed of light. This creates an imaginary number in the math sense.

And applying SR is not appropriate here. The expansion is NOT a movement through space. It is an expansion of space itself. No imaginary numbers arise in this context.

And, once again, proper time along the expansion is an appropriate time and resolves all the issues you mention here.

The question becomes, did God maintain the singularity reference for his clock, or did he use the moving reference that was faster than the speed of light. Or did he use a composite of GR and SR reference affects, where GR is lowering snd SR is faster than the speed of light? The composite of GR which was expanding and SR which was faster than C, may have normalize back to the singularity reference. This was day one.

Um, GR generalizes SR. In essence, SR is the flat spacetime version of GR, which allows curved spacetime.

If you continue to read Genesis, the events that occur each day take less and less time. Forming all the animals take less time than forming the earth, which takes less time than forming the universe. This means that after the initial inflation, God was using a reference in the expanding universe. My guess he was using the reference of the atoms; alpha and omega.

All you have shown is that you don't really understand what GR is saying concerning the early universe.

And no, Genesis isn't consistent with it.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
Except they controlled it after Babel your dates are wrong and totally belief based.
The Chaldeans who ruled Babylon, the 3rd dynasty (late 7th century and early 6th century BCE), are the same people (eg Sumerians and Akkadians) who ruled Mesopotamia in the 3rd millennium BCE.

And the people who ruled Mesopotamia and Babylon in the 2nd millennium BCE, are not the same people, the Amorites (1st dynasty) and the Kassites (2nd dynasty).

You cannot fit the Sumerian city-states and the Akkadian civilization in your post-Babel scenario, when the evidences point to different races controlling the region. Especially when no Genesis global flood and no Tower of Babel.

You are being so f###-up dishonest and ignorant, because you are making up so many different claims about times were measured differently, that you completely ignored all archaeological evidence.

By making up positive claims that contradicted all known archaeological evidence, then it is up to show evidence that they were different. You have produced zero evidence, but your tactics is to evade and dodge some more, by making even more stupid and dishonest claims.

You even ignore what the video are saying that posted up the link.

Not that stupid guy in the beginning the video or the even stupider host’s voice, but the Assyriology expert, Andrew George. He never claimed that the tablet was Genesis’ Tower of Babel, but that Nebuchadnezzar’s ziggurat was the source of Genesis story, not the other way around.

It was Nebuchnezzar II who had ziggurat built in Babylon, not built by Genesis’ Nimrod.

Pay attention to the video, Nebuchnezzar was 6th century king, not king in 2000 BCE.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
According to science the evidence seems to indicate that the early universe expanded faster than the speed of light. This assumption now brings us into the realm of Special Relativity; SR, with velocity being greater that the speed of light. This creates an imaginary number in the math sense.

Although, the balloon analogy that have been used by some astrophysicists and cosmologists to describe the Big Bang cosmology, isn’t entirely accurate. It will do.

Imagine the entire universe and space are equated with this balloon. And let’s say the completed deflated balloon is describing the universe at t=0 second.

So as air is blown into balloon, the balloon expands, with t>0. Therefore this is like space is expanding. Space isn’t moving through the universe, the expansion of the universe, is the expansion of space itself.

Everything within the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, etc, are expanding with space.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Any claim that nature was any was is extrordinary to science because it don't and can't know either way! The record of the past is quite ordinary to Scripture and even history to some extent. Yours is the extraordinary claim.



Show the basis for dating any example. In the example we were looking at in the thread lately, Babel, let's see the basis for dates! Ha.


Stuff between something in no way justifies fairy tales.

In the case of Babel, demonstrably wrong dates.

That is about as impressive as saying guns on a firing range with scopes that are maladjusted all tend to miss the target to the left!

What else could you think, being unable to free yourself from the bonds of your religious quackscience?

Ow dear.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
In Einstein's theory of relativity, reference is relative to the observer. Two people looking at the same event, from different references, can see two different things.

At the beginning of universe, all the matter and energy was condensed into a singularity, from which the big bang happens. Therefore, in the beginning the only reference for the universe was that of the singularity. This reference was extremely space contracted and extremely time dilated. There was no earth reference that point.The earth reference, by not yet existing was not a valid reference. It is not valid until that reference finally appears. It is hypothetical at the beginning. The earth reference at t=0 is hypothetical and a mythology connected to the earth being the center of the universe.

Since God created the universe, and therefore he had to be around during the singularity, God would have had to use the only reference available; singular, to set his clock. Since this reference was so close to a speed of light reference; based on General Relativity; GR, one day in t=0 reference could billions of year in the hypothetical earth reference that did not yet exist.

According to science the evidence seems to indicate that the early universe expanded faster than the speed of light. This assumption now brings us into the realm of Special Relativity; SR, with velocity being greater that the speed of light. This creates an imaginary number in the math sense.

The question becomes, did God maintain the singularity reference for his clock, or did he use the moving reference that was faster than the speed of light. Or did he use a composite of GR and SR reference affects, where GR is lowering snd SR is faster than the speed of light? The composite of GR which was expanding and SR which was faster than C, may have normalize back to the singularity reference. This was day one.

If you continue to read Genesis, the events that occur each day take less and less time. Forming all the animals take less time than forming the earth, which takes less time than forming the universe. This means that after the initial inflation, God was using a reference in the expanding universe. My guess he was using the reference of the atoms; alpha and omega.
You appear to have a poor understanding of the expansion. The expansion was very rapid, but this was not a movement through space. It was an expansion of space. I do not think there would be a complex number involved.

One should not try to fit God into science. You are treating God like a square peg and forcing him into a round hole.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
What is Agnosticism's take on it, please?

Regards
Agnosticism is only concern with the philosophical questions of the existence of any deity.

It doesn’t concern itself with science or with history.

Agnosticism, atheism, theism, deism and all other -ism, have nothing to do with science. So such questions about agnosticism, not agnostics, are irrelevant.

Some agnostics may have careers in science, while others work in business, in arts, and in trades. None of these careers have anything to do with agnosticism.

Would you ask the same type of question, like, “What is Agnosticism’s take on baking bread?”
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Yes, an error, 20, not 200, an extra zero was added.
Right, that was all it was. Just a 'typo'...
Not grasping the basics ? About abiogenesis ? Wrong.

Precious how you omit most of what you replied to. Hits a bit too close to home, I suppose.



For crying out loud, even Wikipedia demolishes your naive complaints:

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

"After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] More recent evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a composition different from the gas used in the Miller experiment, but prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple to complex compounds under varying conditions.[8]
...
Other experiments
This experiment inspired many others. In 1961, Joan Oró found that the nucleotide base adenine could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. His experiment produced a large amount of adenine, the molecules of which were formed from 5 molecules of HCN.[15] Also, many amino acids are formed from HCN and ammonia under these conditions.[16] Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA nucleobases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.[17]

There also had been similar electric discharge experiments related to the origin of life contemporaneous with Miller–Urey. An article in The New York Times (March 8, 1953:E9), titled "Looking Back Two Billion Years" describes the work of Wollman (William) M. MacNevin at The Ohio State University, before the Miller Science paper was published in May 1953. MacNevin was passing 100,000 volt sparks through methane and water vapor and produced "resinous solids" that were "too complex for analysis." The article describes other early earth experiments being done by MacNevin. It is not clear if he ever published any of these results in the primary scientific literature.[18]

K. A. Wilde submitted a paper to Science on December 15, 1952, before Miller submitted his paper to the same journal on February 10, 1953. Wilde's paper was published on July 10, 1953.[19] Wilde used voltages up to only 600 V on a binary mixture of carbon dioxide (CO2) and water in a flow system. He observed only small amounts of carbon dioxide reduction to carbon monoxide, and no other significant reduction products or newly formed carbon compounds. Other researchers were studying UV-photolysis of water vapor with carbon monoxide. They have found that various alcohols, aldehydes and organic acids were synthesized in reaction mixture.[20]

More recent experiments by chemists Jeffrey Bada, one of Miller's graduate students, and Jim Cleaves at Scripps Institution of Oceanography of the University of California, San Diego were similar to those performed by Miller. However, Bada noted that in current models of early Earth conditions, carbon dioxide and nitrogen (N2) create nitrites, which destroy amino acids as fast as they form. When Bada performed the Miller-type experiment with the addition of iron and carbonate minerals, the products were rich in amino acids. This suggests the origin of significant amounts of amino acids may have occurred on Earth even with an atmosphere containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen.[21]

...
Some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have contained fewer of the reducing molecules than was thought at the time of the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere.[22] Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules. The experiment created a mixture that was racemic (containing both L and D enantiomers) and experiments since have shown that "in the lab the two versions are equally likely to appear";[23] however, in nature, L amino acids dominate. Later experiments have confirmed disproportionate amounts of L or D oriented enantiomers are possible.[24]

Originally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly ammonia and methane. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO2 with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N2. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2. The hydrogen atoms come mostly from water vapor. In fact, in order to generate aromatic amino acids under primitive earth conditions it is necessary to use less hydrogen-rich gaseous mixtures. Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been made in variants of the Miller experiment.[8][25]

...
The University of Waterloo and University of Colorado conducted simulations in 2005 that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen—implying a much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules. The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only one percent of the rate previously believed based on revised estimates of the upper atmosphere's temperature.[26] One of the authors, Owen Toon notes: "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept... I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again." Outgassing calculations using a chondritic model for the early earth complement the Waterloo/Colorado results in re-establishing the importance of the Miller–Urey experiment.[27]

...
In 2008, a group of scientists examined 11 vials left over from Miller's experiments of the early 1950s. In addition to the classic experiment, reminiscent of Charles Darwin's envisioned "warm little pond", Miller had also performed more experiments, including one with conditions similar to those of volcanic eruptions. This experiment had a nozzle spraying a jet of steam at the spark discharge. By using high-performance liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry, the group found more organic molecules than Miller had. They found that the volcano-like experiment had produced the most organic molecules, 22 amino acids, 5 amines and many hydroxylated molecules, which could have been formed by hydroxyl radicals produced by the electrified steam. The group suggested that volcanic island systems became rich in organic molecules in this way, and that the presence of carbonyl sulfide there could have helped these molecules form peptides.[36][37]
...



At least update your archived retorts.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Agnosticism is only concern with the philosophical questions of the existence of any deity.

It doesn’t concern itself with science or with history.

Agnosticism, atheism, theism, deism and all other -ism, have nothing to do with science. So such questions about agnosticism, not agnostics, are irrelevant.

Some agnostics may have careers in science, while others work in business, in arts, and in trades. None of these careers have anything to do with agnosticism.

Would you ask the same type of question, like, “What is Agnosticism’s take on baking bread?”

The agnostic position on baking bread is that it is better to use a kitchen scale rather than measuring cups for determining how much flour to use. One gets far greater accuracy that way.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
So if the flood was about 2300 to 2500 BC (depending on interpretation of Scripture)

It wasn't. The biblical flood never happened. It's a myth.

That would place Babel somewhere around 106 years later

Also a myth.


With the convergence of historical and biblical data, we see that a big change happened after that time.
That change would include a rapid separation/break up of the super continent that existed till that time.

Ow dear..............................................

Pangea began to break apart 175 million years ago dude, back when dino's still roamed the planet. Not 3000 years ago. For crying out loud........

Not to mention that if they would have moved that much in such a small period of time, it would have literally obliterated everything, to the point of leaving earth as a barren wasteland.

Basic physics.
For goodness sake, even at the extremely low pace that tectonic plates move today, they STILL cause extreme earthquakes and tsunami's like the ones in Japan and Sumatra in recent years.
Imagine what it would be like if you increase their speed with the factor of a million.

ps: here's where you invoke the ultimate cop-out of "my god can do anything!"

This facilitated the languages and religions and mankind spreading out all over the world. Animals also. From this time on we would have our nature along with our radioactive decay processes. So we cannot use those processes dating back beyond this time, and as mentioned, even as we approach this time, the ways science collaborates dates, such as tree rings or coral...would be rendered useless for dates

Funny though, how multiple independent dating methods, employing vastly different methodologies for dating, still all converge on the same dates eventhough they are all "useless" for some magical reason.

:rolleyes:


If trees wit rings grew in weeks, obviously we could not use dendrachronology as a dating mechanism.

And if the Eiffel Tower would fit in my back pocket, I could take it home with me when I visit Paris.
But the fact is that the Eiffelt Tower doesn't fit my pockets and tree rings don't grow in weeks.

If you wish to claim they can grow in weeks, or could grow in weeks, you're going to have to come up with some serious evidence to support that.

I'm not holding my breath. In fact, I anticipate another blatant shifting of the burden of proof when you respond with something like "prove that they didn't grow in weeks".

So your dates are erroneous.

And your BS is irrational, evidenceless and bullsquirt.

With the plate activity and uplift, and etc it is possible and even likely looking at the geological make up of the area, that the tower was subducted/pushed under. So expecting to see the actual tower sitting there now is not a realistic or sound proposition.

Another thing that isn't realistic, is that such geological activity could take place in such a short period without obliterating literally everything.

Combine that with the evidences of language confusion legends from different parts of the world, and Scripture, and we have a solid case for the even being quite real.

You don't even have an internally consistent case, let alone a "solid" one.

Except they controlled it after Babel your dates are wrong and totally belief based.

Since this king was long after Babel, any towers he was involved in were mere memory shadow replica attempts.


False. Clearly Thor destroyed this puny tower while he was fighting the Ice Giants.
Haven't seen any Ice Giants lately, have you? Off course you haven't - Thor killed them all.
So the fact that Ice Giants don't exist anymore, is proof that Thor exists and killed them.
Reality agrees with Thor!

All hail the Alvader!
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
So the textbook does not teach that abiogenesis is likely to have occurred ? That is your opinion and it is flawed.

Why do you simply ignore the questions I ask ? Because the answers undermine your position.

You group the few caveats so that they make a bold statement. Actually you know that they are sprinkled through the text, so that they are delivered surrounded by abiogenesis material.

Churchill once said ¨ the truth must be protected by a bodyguard of lies´. In this case the truth is diluted by a bodyguard of hypotheses.

Why should anything on abiogenesis, or any other ideas about the origin of life be in the book ? None of it is scientifically verifiable.

You see what you choose to see, without consideration of context or obvious intent.

But you are going stick to and continue your talking points, regardless of what the textbooks actually say. That´s too bad.

What does it mean when the text says, ¨it is not easy to obtain obtain data¨

Ok, great - abiogenesis is totally wrong.


Surely so brilliant a scholar as yourself cannot possibly think this gives weight to naive middle eastern creation myths...?

And another odd thing - you seem cool with these texts:

...here are some Christian home school textbooks that assert life was created by a deity via magic only a few thousand years ago despite there being no research to support this -
Compassclassroom 'Devotional Biology' , Wise; BJU Press 'Biology'; Abeka 'Biology: God's Living Creation'. Funny - most of them have no authors listed....

Why do you require concrete evidence for one, but not the other? Not going to pretend to be unbiased, are you?
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
The agnostic position on baking bread is that it is better to use a kitchen scale rather than measuring cups for determining how much flour to use. One gets far greater accuracy that way.
Or they would sit on the fence, regarding to preference of baking white, whole grains or rye.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
The past was not recorded in the Bible. Some unknown writer(s) compiled a bunch of stories told around campfires by ignorant Jews and scribbled them down.

If you want to use the term "recorded" then you have to show who recorded what.

Who recorded God creating Adam? No one.
Who recorded Adam eating from the fruit of the tree? Eve? Did she make notes?
Who recorded Cain killing Abel? No one.
Who recorded the Flood? No one.
You thought God wasn't there??

So, you are saying that God physically wrote down all the events in Genesis.

To whom did he give His writings.

How/when did those people compile the stories into a book called Genesis.

Remember, your silly ideas and guesses are not sufficient. You need to show supporting evidence.

Please don't duck and dodge again.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Note also that it IS HERE when we see the light!!!!! Note that science doesn't even know what time is, let alone what it is like in deep space! Note that they still cite certain time periods involved in deep space, but that this is based solely on earth time (solar system and area). Of course things will operate and exist a certain way WHEN they get here!!
I see you are still on your journey down the rabbit hole. That is one of your most incomprehensible comments yet.

As usual, you ask for evidence, evidence is provided, you reject the evidence. So noted.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Ok, great - abiogenesis is totally wrong.


Surely so brilliant a scholar as yourself cannot possibly think this gives weight to naive middle eastern creation myths...?

And another odd thing - you seem cool with these texts:

...here are some Christian home school textbooks that assert life was created by a deity via magic only a few thousand years ago despite there being no research to support this -
Compassclassroom 'Devotional Biology' , Wise; BJU Press 'Biology'; Abeka 'Biology: God's Living Creation'. Funny - most of them have no authors listed....

Why do you require concrete evidence for one, but not the other? Not going to pretend to be unbiased, are you?
You are obsessed by Creationists. Why ? I have never brought Creationism up, never described it. My posts have been directly related to abiogenesis.

Why do you have to keep bringing creationism up ? Strange.

There is no scientifically verifiable evidence for creationism or abiogenesis. That is the whole point.

Accepting one, or the other, is a matter of belief and faith.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
You are obsessed by Creationists. Why ? I have never brought Creationism up, never described it. My posts have been directly related to abiogenesis.

Why do you have to keep bringing creationism up ? Strange.

There is no scientifically verifiable evidence for creationism or abiogenesis. That is the whole point.

Accepting one, or the other, is a matter of belief and faith.

Is Abiogenesis, “science”?

No, it isn’t.

However. There have been some evidence supporting Abiogenesis, which means, as a hypothesis, Abiogenesis is falsifiable. So Abiogenesis is (small) step in the right direction.

The thing is that there it required more evidence than what they have now.

And then there is matter that there are more than one hypothesis in Abiogenesis. Which of these different models are true about the origin of life on Earth, haven’t been decided.

Abiogenesis is a working falsifiable hypothesis, but not a scientific theory.

You don’t seem to understand what I have been saying, because I have said this before.

To date, Abiogenesis hasn’t been debunked, this is why Abiogenesis is still in contention of being potential scientific theory. In fact, Abiogenesis is faring better than some highly theoretical physics models, eg String Theory, super-symmetry (better known as Superstring Theory), multiverse model, etc.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
There is no scientifically verifiable evidence for creationism or abiogenesis. That is the whole point.

The comparison is spurious because there is plenty of evidence against literal biblical creationism and there is plenty of evidence surrounding abiogenesis that tells us quite clearly that life arose somehow at a specific point in time and that what led up to it, and what followed it, were driven by natural processes.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Right, that was all it was. Just a 'typo'...


Precious how you omit most of what you replied to. Hits a bit too close to home, I suppose.



For crying out loud, even Wikipedia demolishes your naive complaints:

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

"After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] More recent evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a composition different from the gas used in the Miller experiment, but prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple to complex compounds under varying conditions.[8]
...
Other experiments
This experiment inspired many others. In 1961, Joan Oró found that the nucleotide base adenine could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. His experiment produced a large amount of adenine, the molecules of which were formed from 5 molecules of HCN.[15] Also, many amino acids are formed from HCN and ammonia under these conditions.[16] Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA nucleobases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.[17]

There also had been similar electric discharge experiments related to the origin of life contemporaneous with Miller–Urey. An article in The New York Times (March 8, 1953:E9), titled "Looking Back Two Billion Years" describes the work of Wollman (William) M. MacNevin at The Ohio State University, before the Miller Science paper was published in May 1953. MacNevin was passing 100,000 volt sparks through methane and water vapor and produced "resinous solids" that were "too complex for analysis." The article describes other early earth experiments being done by MacNevin. It is not clear if he ever published any of these results in the primary scientific literature.[18]

K. A. Wilde submitted a paper to Science on December 15, 1952, before Miller submitted his paper to the same journal on February 10, 1953. Wilde's paper was published on July 10, 1953.[19] Wilde used voltages up to only 600 V on a binary mixture of carbon dioxide (CO2) and water in a flow system. He observed only small amounts of carbon dioxide reduction to carbon monoxide, and no other significant reduction products or newly formed carbon compounds. Other researchers were studying UV-photolysis of water vapor with carbon monoxide. They have found that various alcohols, aldehydes and organic acids were synthesized in reaction mixture.[20]

More recent experiments by chemists Jeffrey Bada, one of Miller's graduate students, and Jim Cleaves at Scripps Institution of Oceanography of the University of California, San Diego were similar to those performed by Miller. However, Bada noted that in current models of early Earth conditions, carbon dioxide and nitrogen (N2) create nitrites, which destroy amino acids as fast as they form. When Bada performed the Miller-type experiment with the addition of iron and carbonate minerals, the products were rich in amino acids. This suggests the origin of significant amounts of amino acids may have occurred on Earth even with an atmosphere containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen.[21]

...
Some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have contained fewer of the reducing molecules than was thought at the time of the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere.[22] Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules. The experiment created a mixture that was racemic (containing both L and D enantiomers) and experiments since have shown that "in the lab the two versions are equally likely to appear";[23] however, in nature, L amino acids dominate. Later experiments have confirmed disproportionate amounts of L or D oriented enantiomers are possible.[24]

Originally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly ammonia and methane. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO2 with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N2. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2. The hydrogen atoms come mostly from water vapor. In fact, in order to generate aromatic amino acids under primitive earth conditions it is necessary to use less hydrogen-rich gaseous mixtures. Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been made in variants of the Miller experiment.[8][25]

...
The University of Waterloo and University of Colorado conducted simulations in 2005 that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen—implying a much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules. The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only one percent of the rate previously believed based on revised estimates of the upper atmosphere's temperature.[26] One of the authors, Owen Toon notes: "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept... I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again." Outgassing calculations using a chondritic model for the early earth complement the Waterloo/Colorado results in re-establishing the importance of the Miller–Urey experiment.[27]

...
In 2008, a group of scientists examined 11 vials left over from Miller's experiments of the early 1950s. In addition to the classic experiment, reminiscent of Charles Darwin's envisioned "warm little pond", Miller had also performed more experiments, including one with conditions similar to those of volcanic eruptions. This experiment had a nozzle spraying a jet of steam at the spark discharge. By using high-performance liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry, the group found more organic molecules than Miller had. They found that the volcano-like experiment had produced the most organic molecules, 22 amino acids, 5 amines and many hydroxylated molecules, which could have been formed by hydroxyl radicals produced by the electrified steam. The group suggested that volcanic island systems became rich in organic molecules in this way, and that the presence of carbonyl sulfide there could have helped these molecules form peptides.[36][37]
...



At least update your archived retorts.
Right, that was all it was. Just a 'typo'...


Precious how you omit most of what you replied to. Hits a bit too close to home, I suppose.



For crying out loud, even Wikipedia demolishes your naive complaints:

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

"After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally rehydrogen-rich gaseous mixtures. Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been made in variants of the Miller experiment.[8][25]

..[36][37]
...



At least update your archived retorts.
So what ? This isn´t new to me, and doesn´t change the fact that Miller Urey used an environment and components, like purified water, that did not exist on the primitive earth. Further, many OOL researchers believe that lightning was not present in the early atmosphere.

Miller Urey could have produced mars bars , and it would not mean they existed on the primordial earth, since Miller Urey created an environment that did not reflect that of the early earth, unless the early atmosphere idea's have changed, again.

Your quotation is rife with coulds, which means could not is applicable in each case.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Is Abiogenesis, “science”?

No, it isn’t.

However. There have been some evidence supporting Abiogenesis, which means, as a hypothesis, Abiogenesis is falsifiable. So Abiogenesis is (small) step in the right direction.

The thing is that there it required more evidence than what they have now.

And then there is matter that there are more than one hypothesis in Abiogenesis. Which of these different models are true about the origin of life on Earth, haven’t been decided.

Abiogenesis is a working falsifiable hypothesis, but not a scientific theory.

You don’t seem to understand what I have been saying, because I have said this before.

To date, Abiogenesis hasn’t been debunked, this is why Abiogenesis is still in contention of being potential scientific theory. In fact, Abiogenesis is faring better than some highly theoretical physics models, eg String Theory, super-symmetry (better known as Superstring Theory), multiverse model, etc.
The evidence some claim supports abiogenesis is hard to see that way, since the abiogenesis process is unknown.
The evidence, is extremely simplistic when compared to abiogenesis , like a bolt is representative of an automobile, only much more complicated.

Since you mentioned the multiverse, one OOL researcher (Koonin) says there has not been enough time for abiogenesis to have occurred, but he believes in the multiverse, where everything that could happen has happened.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
The comparison is spurious because there is plenty of evidence against literal biblical creationism and there is plenty of evidence surrounding abiogenesis that tells us quite clearly that life arose somehow at a specific point in time and that what led up to it, and what followed it, were driven by natural processes.
If there is ¨plenty of evidence", you ought to cite it. I think you are wrong. The evidence equates to a few cuts on the outermost surface of an onion, when the goal is through all of the layers to the center of the onion.

Further, like each of the surface cuts, the experiments stand alone, with little linkage to other experiments, and certainly no linkage to abogenisis, since no one has a clue as to what it is.

Certainly something happened at a point in time, but you have no idea as to whether it was driven by natural forces, you believe it was, thatś all.

What if life on earth is the result of paraspermia (sp?), planted by space aliens ?

How has science disproved a supernatural explanation of life ?

Science can have no relevant relationship or knowledge of the supernatural. A system designed to investigate and determine natural processes cannot apply to the supernatural, it is totally blind in that respect, just as science is blind to abiogenesis, but they will keep trying.
 
Top