₦airaland Forum

@Mazaje and Busybein

Oya, time to make love don end it is now time to make war. Una no dey shame? how person go come religious forum come dey suppress him sugarstick.
abegi, make una careful jare.

Martian:
I beg to differ, even the affluent and comfortable ones in and out of nigeria are equally moronic when it comes to the religious figures.
They seem to think their success is not their own doing, that some invincinble man somewhere is the one pulling the strings, they are like puppets. I'm sick of it. I'm pretty comfortable, then my own mother is like " you think you're the one that made you successful, you better thank god before it all gets taken away from and it's too late" and I just want to , but she's my mother so I can't tell her how I feel about her god and pastor.
One of these days she going to push me hard enough, and I can't wait to tell that pastor what I think of him.

Martian, you have a point but that is why I added uncertainty into the mix, even Nigerians who are rich are not immune to the effects of poverty in their macro environment.

For example, even the rich in Nigeria are subject to the fear of insecurity such as Armed Robbery attacks and mass riots besides most of the ultra-rich have their hands in a lot of evil such as corruption and ideally should feel insecure but even they find succor in these pentecostal churches and actually bankroll a lot of the churches with tithes from their ill-gotten money.

You would recall the story of that Redeemed Pastor (also a Federal parastatal PS) who died some years back in one of those plane crashes and was discovered to have 3 wives as well as EFCC recovering some billions of naira from his acccount when the wives started squabbling over the money.

oyb:
in the end, i don't think there's much diff between adeboye( and other naija megapastors ) and leaders of existing and past successful cults - scientology, aum shrinkoyo( think thats the name of that japanese cult) etal. sadly the fact that nigeria is basically secular in name only means that there are no government gaencies on hand to tackle/investigate these crooks.

when the news did an expose on them a few years back, the replies were the typical knee jerk reaction 'touch not my anointed, etc'.

while nigeria may lag behind the western world in som many ways, in one way we are at par with them, we have multitudes willing to be led by the nose by a charismatic , smooth talking snake oil salesman leader. if this guy ever gets homicidal like jim jones, or the dude in uganda, na so all those peeps in his church go jejely commit suicide as instructed

You have a point there, but our people are dammned good self preservationists, other people they can kill but themselves they cannot.
If he gives such an order, that is when a lot of them will remember who their daddies are. I know some idiots will follow but the great majority of our people are somehow smarter than that.

mazaje:
where is that discredited hypocrite? . your points are very true duduspace.

Don't mind that guy jooo, trying to bring 2 parallel lines in alignment. Religion and science don't mix in any way or form, you either choose one or the other.

I know there are christians who are scientists but the sincere ones among them have their serious doubts and are either quiet about it or see it as filling a psychological need for some people and also helping in character development for kids and immatured adults(just like aesop fables or the stories of the tortoise in yoruba folklore).

Hypocrites like our dear friend ended up creating scientology as a religion only leading to even more confusion.

One thing the discussion did though was to expose his true nature, in trying to prove a point at all costs he descended to the same depths he was accusing others of. That guy is not even a true christian I'm sure, he must be one of those deceiver types.

@JJYOU

Is that you or your god talking?

If it is your god I will only laugh cos he has shown consistently that his words cannot be depended upon.
If it is you however, that is a totally different matter entirely because you can carry a bomb or start a Jihad or Crusade.
Bottomline is that I know we are safe from your god but are we safe from you?

huxley:
Lady,

Responding to you would be like talking with a 17th century infant.

Bye!

@Huxley

Take it easy with Lady, even if she didn't indicate that she is female I would know from her posts, she has got that emotional thing about her and most women do have to beleive in something if not God, their husbands, their children or even in some instances their best friends.

My sister who is a psychiatrist says it has something to do with the evolution of women in the biological role of women in nurturing and bearing babies while needing to have some type of support structure to lean on so that they are not overwhelmed.

She doesn't claim to be a "Mrs Know All" like our resident hypocrite though and most of her arguments are usually the emotional tirade types and she flares up when it seems you belittle something she has beleived in all her life or if you imply in any way that she is not smart(even when yu have alot of reasons to beleive so).

Still working on a strategy on how to make her realise what hogwash this whole religion thing is, I mean when yu do get the courage to really question the whole concept it becomes so simple and you wonder why you didn't face up to it all along, kind of like the story about the King who had no clothes on, all it took was a sincere youngster to point out the obvious.

@Bindex

You beat me to it, I am as well interested in narratives of the undeniable miracles.

@Image123 please we are waiting.

I am hoping that you have witnessed any or all of the followin:
1. Going200Km + on an empty tank
2. Changing the weather during winter in a temperate region
3. Expanding a bridge or turned your vehicle into James Bond mode when confronted with an impending accident.
4. Woken up a dead man
5. Changing of someone's height
e.t.c

savesoul:
@Dios slowpoke!

[size=15pt]Can your brain contain the distance between the sky and the earth? If not, so it is the way of God to man's wisdom.[/size] [size=13pt]Foolishness, you are one of the fools![/size]

Which of the skies? troposphere?, lithosphere? ionosphere? the nearest star or the farthest star? the nearest Galaxy or the farthest? or they are the same to you?

@Mazaje

You've got to keep in mind that the guy is a pastor, if he starts hating God now and makes it public, where him garri go come tomorrow?

@Huxley

Poverty and uncertainty have turned most Nigerians into dunces hence the reason for their callin a charismatic pastor their "Daddy", it is so bad even entire families(including grandparents call the man Daddy) can you imagine, our people have even forgotten who their Daddies are.
But are we Nigerians generally so scared of the future? this might be one of the reasons why tyrants such as Abacha dominated our political sphere for so long.

davidylan:
What a stupid fool. Look up the flask i posted on page 4. Oh by the way carbon monoxide is CO just so you know.

Done and dusted with this thread and the raving dumb lunatics on it.

You are the one who is stupid and also a fool because yu still don't get the point I am making, CO was not one of the original gases the Miller Urey experiment started out with. and I've pointed out why you see it in the diagram in a previous post.
Read up my earlier post and you might get a flash of inspiration if yu are a hundredth as intelligent as you're posturing to be.

davidylan:
no i figured there was a lot more to do than continue providing exhaustive answers for glib brainless idiots. KAG hadnt even read the papers of an experiment she was touting . . . didnt know jack about photolysis of water, didnt understand that Miller would not add CO2 for his own personal reasons and continued parroting equations Miller did not endorse.

For all her issues, at least compared to you she understood a lot of the basic science.

Brainless buffon.

If there is anything this thread has shown me - Besides KAG, the rest of you have no right to tout science as an alternative to religion . . . at least until you understand it.

on the contrary, it has shown me that you are one of the quacks claiming to be  experienced professionals in Nigeria, possibly responsible for some of the drugs and pharmaceutical products that kill innocent people while attributing such avoidable deaths to nonexistent witches and wizards.
Who employed you by the way, I'm sure your recruitment process must have been like a scene from dumb and dumberer.
Just go through your posts again and see what a mockery you have made of yourself, while posturing as a tried and tested chemistry practitioner, meeen even without your added religious hypocrisy, I wouldn't even employ you to teach integrated science in a primary school.

KAG:
I most certainly did. See: "Actually, you are on to something. Miller was wrong in his estimation of the amount of carbon dioxide in the general atmosphere of the earth, and that was one of the major criticisms of the experiment in spite of its results. However, modern rediscovery of the Miller-Urey experiment suggests that it can be had both ways. That is, what is necessary would be small pockets of areas on earth - probably somewhere volcanic - would have a low level of CO2 and a high level of CH4."

I wonder why the dunce can't wrap his head round this, even someone who didn't go to college should be able to understand that the conditions on top of Mount Everest is completely different from the conditions at the bottom of the atlantic.

KAG:
Was that how you think Miller got carbon monoxide?

In his haste to discredit the experiment, he clearly forgot that carbon monoxide was not one of the initial gases the experiment started out with. So much for his independent thinking.

davidylan:
As for dudu and co . . . please find someone else to transfer your frustrations to.

Coward, ran out of concocted answers and glib remarks or couldn't stand the heat and ran out of the kitchen like a dog with its tail tucked between its legs?

mazaje:
duduspace you have done an excellent job in exposing that clumsy fraud for who he really is, the only straw he now has to grab is the*YAWN* straw which makes him look more petty and silly. davidylan all this long post from you only to be exposed as a fraud? what a shame am really loving this. ok i want you to go ahead and explain the jacob genetic engineering model. dudduspace you've done well ohh, thanks once again for exposing that shameless fraud, people should not engage christains when it comes to science until they tell us what they really understand as a rainbow, is it a phenomenon that causes a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the earth's atmosphere or a covenant between the biblical god and his people that appears in the cloud as written by the bible writers who wrote on stones and lived in caves? davidylan is talking about peer review when most of the christains i know here in europe do not believe in the seven day creation story, jacobs genetic engineering model, talking donkeysand the rainbow explanation as written in the bible etc. christains all have different conception and understanding of the biblical god yet this fraud of a pseudo scientist does not see that, all he sees is what is wrong with the MU experiment, which has explained far more than they mythical creation of light and sun through words of mouth(probably hebrew) by his imaginary child killer god. what a load of bull.

Thanks mazaje, I find Davidylan a very intriguing personality, I have a strong feeling he is intelligent enough to see reason in a lot of these posts but deliberately chooses to allow his religious beliefs overcome his logical thinking. As someone aptly pointed out, he has chosen the blue pill.

davidylan:
More evidence that you have NOT been following the train of argument but merely rushing in with your bias glowing like a lamp.

- the debate has been centered around "photolysis of water" as another source of oxygen since i was trying to argue a case for why it sounds impractical for Miller to claim that primitive earth had bodies of water and water vapor but no oxygen. The argument is NOT about photolysis at all but about photlysis of water ONLY.

- The debate about monoatomic oxygen resulted from the first equation from the wiki page. Since CO₂ was not part of Millers elements, the wiki equation cannot be correct. Now if we assume that monoatomic oxygen was important for Miller's work then were did it come from since there is no carbon dioxide anyway?

Only two logical options - water and carbon monoxide. Water is the only logical source here.

Pay attention to detail bro . . .

I disagree, it is you who needs to pay attention to the points others are making, in fact there are a number of routes to the existence of monoatomic oxygen (without the presence of CO2 right there before your eyes but since you can't see them, I will point out just one. The light generated from the sparks could have caused some photodissociation of any O2 arising from any of the various reactions going on within the mix.
I wouldn't expect you to see that anyway since you are only interested in summing the experiment up to a single equation.

davidylan:
This is so convoluted and vague i have no clue what this means. Water could have existed in other forms? Which ones? we know vapor and ice . . . what else?
So the MU experiment happened only in specialized areas? How? Did you read Millers papers at all?

Knowing your innate tendencies, I'm not sure if this is a genuine misconception or an attempt to distort issues, we were talking about oxygen here and not water.

davidylan:
Urey specifically postulated that 10% of the oceans then were made of organic compounds . . . a practical impossibility anyway since that would mean they would contain 100 times as much pollutants as the worst sewer on earth.

Not a practical impossibility at all, we are talking about an environment completely unlike what we have now. Are you that narrow minded to only see one view of things while discarding all other possibilities? that is definitely not a scientific reasoning and totally torpedoes your claim of an independent mindset, you are only rehashing an extensive paper you've gotten from somewhere which supports your theistic beliefs.

davidylan:
Are water bodies also absent from particular places?

Irrelevant, I never said that

davidylan:
I say, sometimes if u don't understand an issue don't force yourself to post.

At the least, I understand the difference between elements and compounds which you obviously dont but hey, I see you posting here so I am definitely qualified to post.

davidylan:
I'm genuinely confused. Which are you arguing for or against?

I'm arguing that the MU experiment is no sham that you are making it out to be, had a very good scientific basis, has not been discredited as you claim and forms a solid foundation for further experiments in the research into the origins of life.

davidylan:
The MU experiment used CO and that is even indicated on the diagram i posted . . .

You should be confused cos it seems your limited thinking faculty occasioned by your religion induced mental blocks cannot wrap around the point I'm making but I'll break it down once again,
1. CO was not one of the gases used in the experiment, you have attested to this in an earlier post as the gases used were CH4, NH3, H2 and H20.
2. That diagram shows CO in the mix and you happily accept that, but it only shows it becos it is assuming that you are either too dumb to question how it got there or smart enough to figure out that it could have been generated in any of the reactions occuring between the gases in the mix.
3. If yu understand or accept how CO got there, why the sudden lack of understanding as to how CO2 got there (or is it yur hypocrisy makin a buffoon of you again?)

davidylan:
Have you read Millers papers? I guess not because every element that was used in the experiment was explained in detail. Even gases that were not used have sections where he explains his rational for leaving them out.
Seriously get to read the paper first before making yourself sound like an idiot.

Yes I have read the paper and I do acknowledge that a more intelligent/knowledgeable and less biased person could explain it in clearer details to me but that person is definitely not you.
It is rather surprising to me that with your boastful claims of knowledge and experience in the chemical field coupled with my basic secondary school knowledge, I'm sounding less of an idiot than you are.
The question is, could it be because of your having an innately limited intelligence or is it a religion imposed self limitation?

davidylan:
Again this is a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters. Yeah CO2 is a compound made up of carbon and oxygen . . . even an idiot can see that. Are you suggesting that CO somehow formed CO2 in the tank or what and so justifying the wiki equations? That's pretty much absurd.
When you combine carbon with oxygen you get carbon monoxide not carbon dioxide.

Sorry, there is no fluid being muddied here except those in your brain, why is it so difficult for you to understand that CO will not remain as CO if some form of oxygen is present in the tank (by this, I don't mean only O2)?  have you ever studied carbon monoxide poisoning?

You might also want to correct that blanket statement I have made bold for you before you are expelled as a member of whatever chemical society you belong to in Nigeria, even a secondary school student understands that carbon monoxide only arises from partial oxidation of carbon.

davidylan:
I shall have to excuse your poor grasp of logical grammar . . .

This was my exact statement - this is the most probable equation to explain Miller's formation of glycine using his inorganic elements.

1. the use of the phrase "most probable" immediately shld suggest to an objective person with eyes that it is possible there are various other chemical ways of generating glycine but based on the combination of compounds and elements in Miller's flask . . . the equation looks the most plausible.

Miller himself did not give us an equation for his findings.

It is you turning logic on its head cos if (1) is what you truely meant, why then all the blabbing about the low k value of your equation making it impossible in real life if you really considered the fact that it could have happened in another way such as the wiki equations?

Yes, Miller did not give us an equation of his findings because even he didn't know at that time what exact reactions were taking place, I mean the poor bloke was sincerely curious as to the possibility of organic matter arising from inorganic matter. It is you and your fanatical theists making it out as if he started out from the onset to disprove the existence of God.

davidylan:
Have YOU also considered why Miller used sparks? Answer the question yourself . . .
Again similar to KAG . . . they just read stuff on the surface and start crowing about "errors". CO₂ is a compound.

Glad to see that you've finally learnt something, the difference between elements and compounds. If you also want to know why Miller used the sparks, I'll tell you if you ask more politely.

davidylan:
If you werent so woollen headed you shld know that your deliberate attempt to muddy the waters comes from the fact that you could not realise that the wiki equations add a compound that was not a part of Millers mix.

charlartan and hypocrisy mode once again, CO was not part of Miller's experiment but you are willing to accept its existence in the equation but totally unwilling to accept the progression of CO to CO2 when the conditions for that progression exist in the simulated scenario.

@Bindex

That was some horror you had to pass through, and shows what evil people perpetuate in the name of religion. I was also caught in the 2002 crisis in Kaduna (the Miss World crisis) and had to drive through about 2Km of hostile people who were basically smashing our car all around us(I wish I could show you a picture of the car after our travails). I'm sure if the car had stopped, we would have been killed.

To cut a long story short, I was a reasonably strong beleiver at the time and the mob that surrounded us instructed us to shout (Allah Akbar) while we were in the car which I did with much energy (I was scared stiff staring death in the face).  Matthew my friend who was driving nudged me that it wasn't necessary shouting it but only to wave my hands showing solidarity with them (I didn't see any difference so I kept on shouting anyway).

Well, I got saved shouting Allah Akbar at the time and attributed it to God but I now attribute it to chance since I could either have been saved by God (who refused to save the people in your narrative who kept on calling his name even in the face of danger) or Allah who orchestrated the entire mass slaughter to begin with (and that is the God Olabowale is encouraging someone to try).

@Scylla
You are on a journey like Huxley rightly pointed out, life itself is a journey anyway, the only difference between us and the theists is that we are brave enough to acknowledge that we don't know the beginning of that journey (even though scientists are still studying and have come up with probable scenarios) nor the end of the journey while the theists are content in the psychological comfort of concoted stories that are turning out to be a blatant lies (which wouldn't be a big deal if not for the fanaticsm, hypocricy and all other vices with which they go about it and the attendant evil they perpetuate in the names of their various religions).

As someone rightly pointed out, they have chosen the blue pill.

davidylan:
Another goon just jumps in to say whatever he likes:
1. I am well aware that photodissociation of oxygen occurs . . . unfortunately KAG whom you were cheering on had no clue.

That is a bare faced lie, she only pointed out that it was not what you were taking it to be i.e. your pointing out only the photodissocation of water while leaving out the other effects of the phenomenon including the fact I just pointed out that it could also result in the generation of monoatomic oxygen.

davidylan:
2. The issue for the last 2 pages has had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with what you posted above. Rather i brought up the issue of photodissociation to show why it is very unlikely that water and water vapor exists without oxygen being present.

I don't recall anyone disputing that, the subject of dispute was the possibility of its existence in other forms as well as the possibility of its absence from particular places where reactions similar to those in the MU experiment could have occured.

davidylan:
Before asking me to undergo laser eye surgery please read my last post where i specifically posted a photo of Millers flask and its constituents. There is no CO₂ in his flask but the Wiki equation that KAG has been bleating about starts with CO₂.

As I said, you are blind to anything that doesn't support your view because if I follow your reasoning, then the entire diagram is wrong because the MU experiment never had CO as one of the materials used.
This only shows that you are not thinking, as the diagram is not an exact representation of the experiment rather it is a simplification which is what KAG has been pointing out to you but your mind simply cannot comprehend. The diagram is only implying that CO must have been produced at some stage in the reactions.

davidylan:
Did not introduce any new elements into the mix? Blind hypocrite.

Goodness gracious, see what religion does to otherwise smart people, is CO₂ an element or a compound resulting from the combination of 2 elements?

davidylan:
You don't seem to have any idea what you are talking about here.
Abbreviating the MU experiment into a single equation? Where? when?

You can excuse my oversimplification of the issue, but you did say

2 CH4 + NH3 + 2 H2O  ↔ H2N.CH2.COOH + 5 H2

this is the most probable equation to explain Miller's formation of glycing using his inorganic elements.
Unfortunately this reaction yields a very very low K value . . . way too low yield.

Are you not implying that this is the only way the formation of glycine could have come about? and if you are have you considered why the sparks were needed to get the results the MU experiment obtained? why don't we just mix these components together, apply some heat and get this your result if the path from inorganic components to organic material was really that simple and straightforward?

davidylan:
I mean you really don't have to post if you have no understanding.

Sounds hollow coming from someone who is supposedly professional in the chemical field who cannot differentiate between an element and a combination of elements, whoa I don't even claim to be a chemist of any sort and I'm seemingly displaying more aptitude than you are. I would be very scared of buying any of your employer's products.

@Davidylan

Just to point out your demons of selective application of scientific principles yet again, you deliberately forgot to mention that Photodissociation is also responsible for further splitting up O₂ into individual atomic oxygen atoms (hence responsible for the production of Ozone when such monoatomic oxygen particles recombine with free oxygen).

If you will take off those religious bigoted glasses you are wearing or better still, go for an optilase type brain surgery (to remove your religion induced mental blocks) you would see that the wiki article never implied that those were the exact sequence of reactions.

Even with my limited knowledge of Chemistry, I can see that there were a couple of reactions and recombinations going on within the mix, some of those reactions I presume were forward and backward transitions (such as free oxygen being split into atomic oxygen and then recombining again) due to the rapidly changing and intense ambience and heat at the point of the sparks.
I beleive that you are not too hypocritical to see that the equations did not introduce any new elements into the mix?

You are also making an hasty assumption while being totally unscientific in abbreviating the MU experiment into a single equation (just because it seems to justify your position of it having a low k value or whatever babbling yu're coming up with).

SCYLLA:
@duduspace

I am not sure God exists, plus the bible just seems to be full of irregularities, I also wonder that I would have been a muslim if I was born into the sultan of sokoto's family and I feel it is all relative.
I loved your reply though, I will mull over it.

Thanks.

My pleasure Scylla, I know the situation yu're in very well cos I've been there and possibly still resolving some of the issues you've come up with for example how do I explain to my aged grannie that I'm not sure of God's existence again? the dear old soul would go to an early grave thinking I've gone mad so I just say Amen when she prays for me.

As Bawomolo pointed out, you're not really an Atheist going by the precise definition of the word. Agnostic would more likely define you and I would say that most of us referred to as Atheists on the forum tend more towards an Agnostic view even though we are usually considered to be in cahoots with the Atheists by the theists.

Martian:
The dude is highly dusturbed.

Man, yu're right and I can't even begin to quantify how much but on a scale of 1-10; I'll give him a score of 20.
The line between insanity and genius they say is very thin, Kuns might just be a living proof of that assertion.

Martian:
The truth is no one knows for certain about anything and that's my reason for being anti-religion. If you ever have a chance, look into a clear night sky with night vision googles and see just how many stars you can see.
We can't be alone out here and the religions' belief in the inerrancy of their holy books is just too small minded.

True word, a big pity they are either too stupid, fearful, greedy or hypocritical to see it or admit it.

@Scylla

Your post throws up some questions:

1. What do you mean by "borderline atheist"? is it

a. that you are not really sure if God exists or not?
b. that you have come to the conclusion that the bible is largely untrue but still beleive in the possibility that God exists?

You would need to resolve this within yourself and decide on a course of action. Resolving issues with your family and friends will be much easier after you have broken the ice and everyone understands how you have arrived at such a decision. Some of them would even see reasons with you and share their uncertainty in the truth of the bible with you.

Your girlfriend will only need to understand things from your point of view, a man always has to be able to take responsibility for his decisions. If you love her so much and don't want to lose her, you can for her sake still continue to go to church sporadically but make it clear to her why you choose to do this and if she loves you as much as you seem to love her she will definitely want to put you out of the misery of going against your convictions.

There is a lot of hypocrisy/tolerance I've noticed in many of these so called sisters anyway as I know quite a number who even have muslim boyfriends.

The greatest disservice you could do yourself however is to live a life of deception, you only end up hurting yourself and a lot of others in the process.

NB: You can see the bible as being predominantly a lie yet agree with a lot of its principles and precepts and live by them particularly those taught by Jesus, it is up to you to sift the wheat from the chaff.

My prayer for you is that you become wise enough to see the lies that have been fed you in the name of religion and that you have the courage to be able to take them for what they are hence breaking free from their thought paralyzing influences, not necessarily so that you stop beleiving in God but so that you fully understand why you need to or chose to as the case might be.

Amen.

davidylan:
again i get tired of the same offtopic, vitriollic rants. What has all the bull above got to do with the issue of Miller-Urey

Pardon me, I somehow always manage to forget that your mind is only polarized in the religious axis.

davidylan:
Perhaps when you can post a completely independent opinion on Miller-Urey then you can make use of words like "intelligent".

I've already done that but I can't help it if your undestanding of independence is different from that of the dictionary and is possibly tucked somewhere in your holy book.

davidylan:
1. Miller's conditions, from recent evidence, has been met by very strong dissent among several leading scientists who themselves are not even christian. I posted 3 (THREE) academic papers earlier . . . 2 of them from Nature Review (any scientist here shld know that nature review is about one of the world's if not the world's number one science journal) . . . all three peer-reviewed that debunk Miller's claims with very strong evidence.

Do you people pay attention to facts?

Atimes you do sound intelligent like a scientist, atimes you sound like Kuns and atimes you sound like those bible waving charlartans which is why I came to the conclusion that you are capable of appreciating the doubts your religion's story throws up but simply unwilling to acknowledge them hence my calling you an hypocrite.

1. Those articles did not debunk MU, they only pointed out assumptions in the experiment they didn't totally agree with and I did attest to this when I pointed out that there was an healthy discuss going on about the experiments.
2. There are other equally peer reviewed papers which support the MU experiment which you will find in the same wikipedia page that discusses the experiment(so don't stupidly ask me for them).

davidylan:
2. Research has advanced - sorry but which "research" exactly? Do you believe that if other scientists had been able to successfully generate amino acids from primordial elements we would still be talking Miller-Urey today?

There you go into charlartan mode again, we will continue to talk about Miller-Urey long after you and I are long gone because it was a pioneering effort just like Newton's laws or Charles Babbage's Difference Engine, even though Newton never went to space and Babbage never browsed the internet but they opened the human mind to possibilities in motion and computing with their novel thinking.

davidylan:
You crow about the bible being not subject to peer review . . . the biggest fraud however is that you and KAG have CONSISTENTLY produced hopeless websites that are NOT peer reviewed in support of your shaky theories. Before you cast stones make sure you don't live in glass houses.

I'm flattered and I'm sure KAG would be if you are attributing as much authority and authenticity to our writings as you do to the Bible, only problem is that we were just expressing our opinions while you claim that the bible is unquestionable.
2 major points you should note though:

1. While the wikipedia is not peer reviewed, it's sources are usually given and are often peer reviewed articles and other authoritative sources, the same of which you can't say for your bible.

2. You are actually the first to harp about peer review here possibly in some psychological attempt to reinforce your distorted babblings as superior opinion.

davidylan:
The problem with Miller's experiment is not one of distrust . . . rather it is one that is built on unquestionably limited knowledge as at the time he was designing it.

I was tempted to agree with you on this until you used the phrase "unquestionably limited knowledge" as you have no way of knowing this (so much for your independent opinion). The general consensus at present supports the MU experiment with a recent publication in the science daily actually indicating that some of his experiments which were not published even yielded more organic matter.
You are definitely not going about your argument in a scientific manner at all, the title of the MU experiment was "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions", note the use of the word "Possible" he never said it happened exactly that way. Science deals with possibilities first and never considers anything absolute as new knowledge/understanding may emerge over time.

davidylan:
Actually it goes both ways. You wont have any idea who Miller is if not that his experiment is just one more weapon in your fight against religion. Going by your poor responses on him it is clear you don't have any basic understanding of the issue . . . its simply something else for you to parrot.

There you go manifesting your religion polarized mind again, you speak for yourself as I was simply looking for an alternative and more beleivable explanation to our origins when the 7 day creation story by a mythical being I was brought up with became an insufficient explanation to my sincerely curious mind.

davidylan:
What is new? They post tomes and 95% is insults no sense.

Here comes the hypocrite, I fully understand it making no sense to you since you are often clueless in that department but in what way was it insulting?

davidylan:
duduspace . . . again the sheer dearth of intelligence with you guys never ceases to amaze me. Anyone can copy and paste from here:

http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Miller-Urey_experiment

I keep repeating, enough of this shoddy job of pasting rubbish from anonymous non-peer reviewed websites. Perhaps you shld start reading from Miller's two papers i posted earlier to get a better appreciation of the experiments you pretend to talk about. sheesh!

It is you showing a complete lack of intelligence in your failure to look beyond points which seem to support your point of view and cowardice in facing up to an insecurity which stems from the fear that your baseless beliefs will somehow turn out to be untrue.

I have indeed read the papers you posted, but I've been able to place them within the context of the larger picture. The MU experiment (which took place in the 1950s) was a breakthrough in the production of organic amino acids from inorganic material in conditions similar to what the earth's environment might have been like in the past. Research has advanced from this earlier experiment and other interesting results have been obtained (which you seem clearly incapable of studying and appreciating).

There is also an active and healthy discuss going on about the interpretation and validity of those results, the same of which cannot be said for your cock and bull bible story which was at a time supposed to be a mystery understandable only by the clergy and not subject to any peer review whatsoever.

I find it odd that a man of science would trust a book that arose from a politicoreligious convention ordered by an emperor while he distrusts and denigrates experiments following proper scientific procedure, I however will not find such a disposition odd in a man of deception.

Unfortunately, you cannot see this because it threatens your pat creation story and belief in God.
I am of the opinion that you might not question the MU experiment so much if you didn't see it as being antagonistic of your religious beliefs, mind you the experiment is not a silver bullet that proves the inexistence of God, it is the whole body of knowledge out there that has disproved the bible story (at the least literarily) so that all you are left with is recourse to schizophrenic babbles you call colourful names such as revelations and mysteries which of course appeals only to the most gullible of men who we unfortunately seem to have a lot of in our dear country.

@Davidylan

Before you start questioning KAG further, I can't help but point out that your selective reading demons have come haunting once again. You clearly forgot to either read other portions of the Wikipedia article on the Miller Urey experiment or in your hurry to discredit it deliberately left them behind.



You questioned KAG's statement about other experiments giving similar results to the MU experiment and here is your answer.

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, which molecules were formed from 5 molecules of HCN.[11] Also, many amino acids are formed from HCN and ammonia under these conditions.[12] Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA nucleobases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.[13]

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 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.

K. A. Wilde submitted a paper to Science on December 15, 1952, before Miller submitted his paper to the same journal on February 14, 1953. Wilde's paper was published on July 10, 1953.[14] 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 [15].

More recent experiments by chemist Jeffrey Bada at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (in La Jolla, CA) 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. However, the early Earth may have had significant amounts of iron and carbonate minerals able to neutralize the effects of the nitrites. 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.[16]

To Address your concerns about primitive earth conditions, here is your answer

Earth's early atmosphere
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. 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.[17] However, in nature, L amino acids dominate; later experiments have confirmed disproportionate amounts of L or D oriented enantiomers are possible.[18]

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 produced in variants of the Miller experiment.[19]

More recent results may question these conclusions. 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 possibly 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.[20] 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.[21]

To Address your concerns about the presence of oxygen, here is your answer


However, when oxygen gas is added to this mixture, no organic molecules are formed. Opponents of the Miller–Urey hypothesis seized upon recent research that shows the presence of uranium in sediments dated to 3.7 Ga and indicates it was transported in solution by oxygenated water (otherwise it would have precipitated out).[22] These opponents argue that this presence of oxygen precludes the formation of prebiotic molecules via a Miller–Urey-like scenario, attempting to invalidate the hypothesis of abiogenesis. However, the authors of the paper are arguing that this presence of oxygen merely evidences the existence of photosynthetic organisms 3.7 Ga ago (a date about 200 Ma earlier than previous estimates[23]) a conclusion which while pushing back the time frame in which Miller–Urey reactions and abiogenesis could potentially have occurred, would not preclude them. Though there is somewhat controversial evidence for very small (less than 0.1%) amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere almost as old as Earth's oldest rocks, the authors are not in any way arguing for the existence of an oxygen-rich atmosphere any earlier than previously thought, and they state: ". . . In fact most evidence suggests that oxygenic photosynthesis was present during time periods from which there is evidence for a non-oxygenic atmosphere".[22]

Conditions similar to those of the Miller–Urey experiments are present in other regions of the solar system, often substituting ultraviolet light for lightning as the driving force for chemical reactions. The Murchison meteorite that fell near Murchison, Victoria, Australia in 1969 was found to contain over 90 different amino acids, nineteen of which are found in Earth life. Comets and other icy outer-solar-system bodies are thought to contain large amounts of complex carbon compounds (such as tholins) formed by these processes, darkening surfaces of these bodies.[24] The early Earth was bombarded heavily by comets, possibly providing a large supply of complex organic molecules along with the water and other volatiles they contributed. This has been used to infer an origin of life outside of Earth: the panspermia hypothesis.


To show you that active research continues in this area unlike your creation story which has been debunked as being a blatant lie a long time ago and to which your fellow fanatics can only come up with convoluted tales trying to bring it in alignment with recent scientific discoveries

Recent related studies
In recent years, studies have been made of the amino acid composition of the products of "old" areas in "old" genes, defined as those that are found to be common to organisms from several widely separated species, assumed to share only the last universal ancestor (LUA) of all extant species. These studies found that the products of these areas are enriched in those amino acids that are also most readily produced in the Miller–Urey experiment. This suggests that the original genetic code was based on a smaller number of amino acids – only those available in prebiotic nature – than the current one.[25]

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. Interestingly, 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.[6][26]

davidylan:
thank you, my dear resident illiterate. Its easier to bleat than to think.

Shut up bonehead, yu're crappin my style, can't you be original for once?

besides, don't recall any mention of davidylan in my post but it is cool to know that you now realise that you are an hypocrite. There might be hope for you yet.

Pastor AIO:
However I admit that I should probably never have got involved as I know very little about chemistry. I was just reacting to what Davidylan said because it struck a chord with me, and it's an issue that I've being aware of way before I even knew about Nairaland.

You have my sincere apologies, mistook you for an ally of our resident hypocrite.

@Huxley

You are very right, infact this led to a UK politician (forgotten his name) having to claim agnosticsm when the pressure on him became so much and his political future was threatened by his atheist beliefs.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=213004.msg3288749#msg3288749 date=1230700874]1 I have never heard of atheophobia
2 Your post is quite ridiculous
3 When Religious fight you, we fight for our own right, and natural law also. Most atheists want morality to go down the drain, some may not even recognise that they do, we don't want our earth to become ruined by lawless people. example of this is the fight for gay marriage and acceptance of homosexuality in society, and abortion rights. sorry but homosexuality in the human species in unnatural and i haven't been informed when life begins if not at conception.[/quote]This is not totally true Lady, not all atheists support all those things you stand against; in fact some christians support these things.

I also don't beleive most people (athests and christians) who are pro-choice are foetus murderers like most of you religious folks make them out to be, there was a case in Ireland some years back that didn't make much sense where a foetus was diagnosed with a medical condition (didn't have a head) and the doctors couldn't abort the foetus becos the "Catholic" laws of the country prohibited it. The poor girl wanted to go abort the foetus in the UK and her passport was siezed.

@Kuns

This is some sick shit yu're into, possibly a lot worse than the other religions we've been talking about.

For someone who claims to be so enlightened you are sounding so stupid to beleive this mumbo jumbo. I do respect your search for knowledge but when you start beleiving in an individual who concocts up interesting stories while molesting children, then you've really lost it man.

Have you ever thought you could make a very interesting movie about your so called knowledge? sort of like an extended version of "Forrest Gump" with an apt title like "Confusion Galore". You could be the leading man and I'm sure you would win an oscar cos your delivery would be so convincing.

davidylan:
we're talking miller-urey and u're talking big bang?

Besides the big bang is just as mythical as you claim the creation is. To call it reasonable is to betray ur bias.

There lies your problem, your God given excellent ability to see only your view of things, have you forgotten that this thread started with thought provoking questions for atheists? of which a lot of those questions had to do with creation?
Please, note that some of us actually follow the thread rather than just jumping in to foolishly oppose other views at all costs even when they sound reasonable.

The big bang is in no way mythical, incomplete it may be but it sounds much more reasonable than your ludicrous "And God Said".

Just imagine this,

Davidylan walks into his room and says "Let there be light" _{forgetting to flick the switch}
and there was pitch darkness.

No wonder why he is so confused, he is yet to figure out the light switch.

jayon:
Fool didnt elijah of the bible ran faster than the Chariots of Ahab with bare foot or didnt Philips ran up to the ethopian man, read ur bible

Why the man come dey use car then? why him no kuku dey waka up and down since him leg fast pass car? or more importantly why nobody else dey there to verify this thing?

bindex:
Are you implying that Jacob is a fraud? This looks like fraud to me , but what really is the message behind or meaning of this? The old testament is really a disgrace to open minded Christains.

Exactly Bindex, it is akin to modern day armed robbers going to church to do thanksgiving after a successful robbery. E don tey wey dem don dey take God deceive people.

Pastor AIO:
The nail could not be hit more squarely on the head. And it is not just Nairaland. But the whole of Nigeria. The entire education system is based on cramming and regurgitating impressive sounding words. But ultimately very little understanding. Actually it is a global problem, but it is especially concentrated in Nigerians. We too like grammar, at the expense of common sense.

See frying pan calling kettle black, pray what is your solution for the education system? to be based on cramming your stupid holy book like you have done?

And what is your definition of common sense? "suffer not a witch to live" is that not what your holy book says and some even more stupid people have crammed it and are killing and maiming innocent children in the east, are you sure you aren't one of them?

Please shut that your lying mouth, most of us have seen glimpses of your "improved education system" and we don't like what we see. Pastor my foot, extortionist is more like it.

@KAG

Please fire on joo, we dey gbadun you, I hope all my daughters (if I have any) will be smart like you and not some pretty empty heads that some useless pastor will be fibbing every weekend.

Take no notice of all these religious bigots, if you were a member of their church they will be bringing all their kids to you daily for you to lay hands on them because they will claim you have some sort of "intellectual anointing".

Davidylan is the most hypocritical bloke I've ever encountered in my life time, I wonder how someone could pick holes in a reasonable (even if incomplete) theory like the big bang while finding nothing wrong in an unreasonable and absolutely spurious tale of a 6 day creation by a mythical being whose supposed attributes and actions are a contradiction any way you choose to look at them.