|
Post by awhina on Mar 8, 2017 6:09:29 GMT
You ignored actual peer-reviewed scientific studies that I linked to and articles that cited peer-reviewed studies in the homosexuality thread. Where's the peer-reviewed studies in either of your links? Oh, right, there are none, because they're just scientifically illiterate Creationist propaganda. Did you actually read them? I thought not.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Mar 8, 2017 9:19:46 GMT
You ignored actual peer-reviewed scientific studies that I linked to and articles that cited peer-reviewed studies in the homosexuality thread. Where's the peer-reviewed studies in either of your links? Oh, right, there are none, because they're just scientifically illiterate Creationist propaganda. Did you actually read them? I thought not. I did, they're the usual cherry picking, egregious b/s from creationists. The Harun Yahya one even cites an article by Miller called Current status of the prebiotic synthesis of small molecules (1986) that discusses all the different conditions that Miller used in his experiments, the idea that he only tested one set of precursors is laughable. He does indeed state that the original conditions he used were unlikely to be accurate but then goes on to evaluate all the other conditions he used. I suspect Yahya thinks no one is going to check his references. There's very little if any evidence that the prebiotic atmosphere was oxidising (oxidation refers to losing electrons, not necessarily Oxygen) or that there was appreciable amounts of Oxygen in the atmosphere, the question is about how reducing (gaining electrons) the atmosphere was. There's a long list of research groups who have made organic molecules, it's not just Miller and his work has been vindicated by other researchers. In fact analysis using more sophisticated equipment has shown that he made more compounds than originally thought. The point of these experiments is to show proof of principle and it's a fact that biochemists including Miller have shown that simple organic compounds can be synthesised in plausible prebiotic atmospheric conditions. And this is before we start talking about hydrothermal vents. For me the most interesting aspect is that the amino acids that are easiest to synthesise are the ones that were used in the fist simple genetic code.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 8, 2017 16:44:33 GMT
You ignored actual peer-reviewed scientific studies that I linked to and articles that cited peer-reviewed studies in the homosexuality thread. Where's the peer-reviewed studies in either of your links? Oh, right, there are none, because they're just scientifically illiterate Creationist propaganda. Did you actually read them? I thought not. Ruth did, and she just demolished your first link; which is precisely why I didn't bother to read them. I'm aware of Creationist propaganda tactics. They've been consistently pointed out by actual scientists.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 8, 2017 23:11:15 GMT
Did you actually read them? I thought not. Ruth did, and she just demolished your first link; which is precisely why I didn't bother to read them. I'm aware of Creationist propaganda tactics. They've been consistently pointed out by actual scientists. Thank you for your admission. Why should I read your links?
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Mar 8, 2017 23:40:29 GMT
Why should I read your links? Because maybe you can still learn a few new tricks.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 9, 2017 16:38:48 GMT
Ruth did, and she just demolished your first link; which is precisely why I didn't bother to read them. I'm aware of Creationist propaganda tactics. They've been consistently pointed out by actual scientists. Thank you for your admission. Why should I read your links? Because my links were links to actual science including peer-reviewed studies on the subject.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Mar 10, 2017 9:03:36 GMT
Ruth did, and she just demolished your first link; which is precisely why I didn't bother to read them. I'm aware of Creationist propaganda tactics. They've been consistently pointed out by actual scientists. Thank you for your admission. Why should I read your links? Does this mean you understand that Miller's experiments haven't been discredited and Pasteur's experiments have no bearing on current abiogenesis research?
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 10, 2017 9:11:00 GMT
Thank you for your admission. Why should I read your links? Does this mean you understand that Miller's experiments haven't been discredited and Pasteur's experiments have no bearing on current abiogenesis research? No it's not. Why do you cling so desperately to Miller-Urey? Is that because there is actually nothing else?
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Mar 10, 2017 9:22:35 GMT
Does this mean you understand that Miller's experiments haven't been discredited and Pasteur's experiments have no bearing on current abiogenesis research? No it's not. Why do you cling so desperately to Miller-Urey? Is that because there is actually nothing else? Miller's experiments are a tiny part of the ongoing OOL research. I'm not sure why people like you cling to believing they have been somehow discredited, although to be fair it's mainly crazy creationists who believe this. Scientists who are also religious have a more realistic view of them. Top tip, if you want a perspective on science from a Christian point of view you should try Biologos, they're a credible source of information, unlike Harun Yahya or CARM. They sum it up pretty well - plenty of interesting work and data (including Miller's work) but no overarching theory. No biochemist would say we are anywhere near working out the OOL. Do you seriously still think Pasteur's experiments on how microorganisms reproduce, done over a few days has any relevance to how those microorganisms might have appeared and evolved over billions of years? Seriously?
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 10, 2017 9:47:02 GMT
No it's not. Why do you cling so desperately to Miller-Urey? Is that because there is actually nothing else? Miller's experiments are a tiny part of the ongoing OOL research. I'm not sure why people like you cling to believing they have been somehow discredited, although to be fair it's mainly crazy creationists who believe this. Scientists who are also religious have a more realistic view of them. Top tip, if you want a perspective on science from a Christian point of view you should try Biologos, they're a credible source of information, unlike Harun Yahya or CARM. They sum it up pretty well - plenty of interesting work and data (including Miller's work) but no overarching theory. No biochemist would say we are anywhere near working out the OOL. Do you seriously still think Pasteur's experiments on how microorganisms reproduce, done over a few days has any relevance to how those microorganisms might have appeared and evolved over billions of years? Seriously? You are still refusing to get the point about Pasteur.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Mar 10, 2017 15:21:14 GMT
Miller's experiments are a tiny part of the ongoing OOL research. I'm not sure why people like you cling to believing they have been somehow discredited, although to be fair it's mainly crazy creationists who believe this. Scientists who are also religious have a more realistic view of them. Top tip, if you want a perspective on science from a Christian point of view you should try Biologos, they're a credible source of information, unlike Harun Yahya or CARM. They sum it up pretty well - plenty of interesting work and data (including Miller's work) but no overarching theory. No biochemist would say we are anywhere near working out the OOL. Do you seriously still think Pasteur's experiments on how microorganisms reproduce, done over a few days has any relevance to how those microorganisms might have appeared and evolved over billions of years? Seriously? You are still refusing to get the point about Pasteur. The Bat's stubborn refusal to expire IS DRIVING US INSANE!
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Mar 10, 2017 19:16:42 GMT
Miller's experiments are a tiny part of the ongoing OOL research. I'm not sure why people like you cling to believing they have been somehow discredited, although to be fair it's mainly crazy creationists who believe this. Scientists who are also religious have a more realistic view of them. Top tip, if you want a perspective on science from a Christian point of view you should try Biologos, they're a credible source of information, unlike Harun Yahya or CARM. They sum it up pretty well - plenty of interesting work and data (including Miller's work) but no overarching theory. No biochemist would say we are anywhere near working out the OOL. Do you seriously still think Pasteur's experiments on how microorganisms reproduce, done over a few days has any relevance to how those microorganisms might have appeared and evolved over billions of years? Seriously? You are still refusing to get the point about Pasteur. Like every Biochemist and Cell Biologist on the planet, I understand the point of Pasteur's experiments, but do tell me what you think the point of them was ........
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 10, 2017 20:14:26 GMT
Miller's experiments are a tiny part of the ongoing OOL research. I'm not sure why people like you cling to believing they have been somehow discredited, although to be fair it's mainly crazy creationists who believe this. Scientists who are also religious have a more realistic view of them. Top tip, if you want a perspective on science from a Christian point of view you should try Biologos, they're a credible source of information, unlike Harun Yahya or CARM. They sum it up pretty well - plenty of interesting work and data (including Miller's work) but no overarching theory. No biochemist would say we are anywhere near working out the OOL. Do you seriously still think Pasteur's experiments on how microorganisms reproduce, done over a few days has any relevance to how those microorganisms might have appeared and evolved over billions of years? Seriously? You are still refusing to get the point about Pasteur. You're the one failing to get the point. I explained it to you elsewhere.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Mar 14, 2017 8:35:22 GMT
Miller's experiments are a tiny part of the ongoing OOL research. I'm not sure why people like you cling to believing they have been somehow discredited, although to be fair it's mainly crazy creationists who believe this. Scientists who are also religious have a more realistic view of them. Top tip, if you want a perspective on science from a Christian point of view you should try Biologos, they're a credible source of information, unlike Harun Yahya or CARM. They sum it up pretty well - plenty of interesting work and data (including Miller's work) but no overarching theory. No biochemist would say we are anywhere near working out the OOL. Do you seriously still think Pasteur's experiments on how microorganisms reproduce, done over a few days has any relevance to how those microorganisms might have appeared and evolved over billions of years? Seriously? You are still refusing to get the point about Pasteur. Like every other Biochemist/Cell Biologist on the planet, I understand the point of Pasteur's experiments but I'm interested to know why you think I don't and what you think the point of them was?
|
|