Alright, since all that has happened in this "evolution-creation debate" is name-calling, maybe it would be more productive to use a point-counterpoint method of debate.
I think it would be appropriate to start with the origin of life.
It is commonly believed (because it is taught in our schools and colleges) that laboratory experiments have proved conclusively that living organisms evolved from nonliving chemicals. Many people believe that life has been created in the laboratory by scientists who study chemical evolution
The famous experiment conducted by Stanley Miller in 1953 is often quoted as proof of this. Yet the results of such experiments show nothing of the sort. These experiments, designed as they are by intelligent humans, show that under certain conditions, certain organic compounds can be formed from inorganic compounds.
In fact, what the intelligent scientists are actually saying is, "If I can just synthesize life in the laboratory, then I will have proven that no intelligence was necessary to form life in the beginning." Their experiments are simply trying to prove the opposite--that an intelligence was required to create life.
If we look carefully at Miller's experiment, we will see that what he did fails to address the evolution of life. He took a mixture of gases (ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor) and he passed an electric current through them. He did this in order to reproduce the effect of lightning passing through a mixture of gases that he thought might have composed the earth's atmosphere millions of years ago. As a result, he produced a mixture of amino acids. Because amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and proteins are considered to be the building blocks of living systems, Miller's experiment was hailed as proof that life has evolved by chance on the earth million of years ago.
Do you think Miller's experiment proved the origin of life? Are there any flaws in his experiment? If so, what?
Edit: I noticed Aglicano told me the burden of proof is on me. I guess it is. But my arguments are going to follow a progressive order. You don't need to prove integrals and derivatives to learn addition and subtraction. I will prove the "Bible" when I have established ground first. Of course I could have tried proving the Bible first, but obviously this isn't going to work in this forum.
I think it would be appropriate to start with the origin of life.
It is commonly believed (because it is taught in our schools and colleges) that laboratory experiments have proved conclusively that living organisms evolved from nonliving chemicals. Many people believe that life has been created in the laboratory by scientists who study chemical evolution
The famous experiment conducted by Stanley Miller in 1953 is often quoted as proof of this. Yet the results of such experiments show nothing of the sort. These experiments, designed as they are by intelligent humans, show that under certain conditions, certain organic compounds can be formed from inorganic compounds.
In fact, what the intelligent scientists are actually saying is, "If I can just synthesize life in the laboratory, then I will have proven that no intelligence was necessary to form life in the beginning." Their experiments are simply trying to prove the opposite--that an intelligence was required to create life.
If we look carefully at Miller's experiment, we will see that what he did fails to address the evolution of life. He took a mixture of gases (ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor) and he passed an electric current through them. He did this in order to reproduce the effect of lightning passing through a mixture of gases that he thought might have composed the earth's atmosphere millions of years ago. As a result, he produced a mixture of amino acids. Because amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and proteins are considered to be the building blocks of living systems, Miller's experiment was hailed as proof that life has evolved by chance on the earth million of years ago.
Do you think Miller's experiment proved the origin of life? Are there any flaws in his experiment? If so, what?
Edit: I noticed Aglicano told me the burden of proof is on me. I guess it is. But my arguments are going to follow a progressive order. You don't need to prove integrals and derivatives to learn addition and subtraction. I will prove the "Bible" when I have established ground first. Of course I could have tried proving the Bible first, but obviously this isn't going to work in this forum.
