Kay 17: ^^
I don't just see how an intelligent being can operate/manipulate without an environment. An intelligent being must work within an environment, he must first understand how the environment works and then manipulate it to fit his own desires.

Hence the environment functions and can be understood independently from the intelligent being.
Miller's experiment focuses on whatever combination of chemical compounds possible at that time, in which life building blocks can arise. His selective method of singling out particular compounds is to that end. Miller's aim is understanding his environment.
Its like mixing hydrogen with oxygen just to see its end product (water apparently).

Kay 17: To clear a few things.
Most theists frequently make heavy weather about chance.

Probability is the consideration for hidden variables, it does not mean they violate immutable physical laws. A projectile is still governed by physical laws, yet there are variables which we can't compute em all. So u wldnt know the exact points it wld land.

The experiment was successful, because its results are: it is probable for building blocks of life to arrive in this certain condition.

Kay17:
^^
The search is still on, and a probable natural process is not far off.

Obadiah77:


How far about it?

Kay17:


you want a forecast or a prophecy?

Obadiah77:


both

Kay17:


unfortunately it is none. it is mere hope

DProDG:
The OP can't even tell the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, #Fail

DProDG:
The OP can't even tell the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, #Fail

EvilBrain1:
Also, he's using the argument from ignorance: We don't fully understand how life first arose on this planet, therefore goddidit.... with maaagic!

Kay17:
unfortunately it is none. it is mere hope

Emusan:


Who told you?

DProDG:


You did

Emusan:
When considering how life began, there are only two options. Either life was created by an intelligent source (God) or it began by natural processes. [size=5pt]The common perception presented in many textbooks and in the media is that life arose from nonlife in a pool of chemicals about 3.8 billion years ago.[/size] The claim by evolutionists is that this formation of life was the result of time, chance, and natural processes. [size=5pt]One widely used example of how life could have formed by natural processes is the Miller-Urey experiment, performed in the early 1950s.[/size]
Miller’s objective was not to create life but to simulate how life’s basic building structures (amino acids ) might have formed in the early earth. [size=5pt]In the experiment, Miller attempted to simulate the early atmosphere of earth by using certain gases, which he thought might produce organic compounds necessary for life. Since the gases he included(water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen) do not react with each other under natural conditions, he generated electrical currents to simulate some form of energy input (such as lightning) that was needed to drive the chemical reactions. The result was production of amino acids. Many textbooks promote this experiment as the first step in explaining how life could have originated. But there is more to this experiment than what is commonly represented in textbooks.
When we examine the purpose, assumptions,and results of the Miller experiment, there are three critical thinking questions that can be raised:
1. How much of the experiment was left to chance processes or how much involved intelligent design?
2. How did Miller know what earth’s early atmosphere (billions of years ago) was like?
3. Did Miller produce the right type of amino acids used in life?
The Method Used
In the experiment, Miller was attempting to illustrate how life’s building blocks (amino acids) could have formed by natural processes. However, throughout the experiment Miller relied on years of intelligent research in chemistry. He purposely chose which gases to include and which to exclude. Next, he had to isolate the biochemicals (amino acids) from the environment(mostly in the presence AIR) he had created them in because it would have destroyed them. No such system would have existed on the so-called primitive earth. It appears Miller used intelligent design throughout the experiment rather than chance processes.
The Starting Ingredients
How did Miller know what the atmosphere was like billions of years ago? Miller assumed that the early earth’s atmosphere was very different from today. He based his starting chemical mixture on the assumption that the early earth had a reducing atmosphere (an atmosphere that contains no free oxygen).[/size] Why did Miller and many other evolutionists assume there was no free oxygen in earth’s early atmosphere? As attested below, it's well known that biological molecules (specifically amino acid bonds) are destroyed in the presence of oxygen, making it impossible for life to evolve. In the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the primitive earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals, that chemical evolution rates would have been negligible.
Therefore, in order to avoid this problem, evolutionists propose that earth’s first atmosphere did not contain any free standing oxygen. We must ask ourselves, “Is there any evidence to support this claim, or is it based on the assumption that evolution must be true?”
There is no scientific proof that Earth ever had a non-oxygen atmosphere such as evolutionists require....

DProDG:
The OP can't even tell the difference between [size=14pt]abiogenesis and evolution,[/size] #Fail

Emusan:


If you don't FULLY understand how life first arose on this planet, how come you agree with the theory of evolution that ONLY SINGLE CELL started it all?

EvilBrain1:
Because Darwins evolution explains everything that happened after the first life showed up.

All of Darwins predictions have turned out to be true, the theory agrees with discoveries Darwin wasnt aware of (eg Mendelian inheritance) and oerfectly explains new discoveries that Darwin never even dreamed of and is supported by a mountain of observatuonal and experimental evidence, more than any other theory in all of science. Of course, nobody is claiming that evolution is the be all, end all;

but its vastly superior to any other explanation for life on earth including the God did it with magic theory that religious people prefer.

And by the way, evolution doesnt deal with how life first appeared, that field is called Abiogenesis. You should look it up, there have been a lot of very interesting discoveries in recent years.

Emusan:
This is your initial statement.
Whereas what the OP is talking about is EVOLUTIONIST not evolution itself.
SMH seriously for you...and the funny part of it you will be claiming you're more intelligent that the Religious people when you couldn't differentiate between EVOLUTIONIST and Evolution.

Emusan:


Atheist also have hope.

Emusan:
When considering how life began, there are only two options. Either life was created by an intelligent source (God) or it began by natural processes

Emusan:

Yet we have not seen transition of one animal to another animal.

Emusan:


I can't just stop laughing...WHEN THIS THEORY DOESN'T explain how life showed up in the first place you still find it superior to God who created the FIRST life.

Emusan:


When you don't even know how the first life showed up

Yet you still called it THEORY.

I can't just stop laughing...WHEN THIS THEORY DOESN'T explain how life showed up in the first place you still find it superior to God who created the FIRST life.

You and your brother/sister still hold the same view about my post.

Like I replied to his/her post, I didn't address the THEORY of evolution BUT what EVOLUTIONIST says about origin of life.

Hope you can get the gist now?

Yet we have not seen transition of one animal to another animal.

LucemFerre:


"Know thy enemy"

Evolutionists think Change-of-kind kind of evolution takes millions of years... How old are you?

LucemFerre:



Then again, why do you separate a "creator" from "natural process?"