7 replies to this topic

[ikester7579]

I have been bringing this experiment up a few times during debates here. And the more I thought about it's problems, the more of them I thought up. So before I forget them, I made a youtube video about it. Hope you enjoy.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.c...></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.c...olor2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Adam Nagy]

I like it for content and graphics but you need a voice over or music on your videos.

[Yorzhik]

I have been bringing this experiment up a few times during debates here. And the more I thought about it's problems, the more of them I thought up. So before I forget them, I made a youtube video about it. Hope you enjoy.

Those are decent points. I've always had a more general problem with Miller Urey that all OOL experiments must contend with. That being the reactions had to stop at a certain point because equilibrium was reached. Since equilibrium was reached, despite the addition of energy, there could be no building of proteins past a certain point. It's a problem all OOL experiments have run into.

[ikester7579]

Yeah, they are scientifically sound. And is why no one has tried to debunk them here or on youtube. The best that can be done on youtube is mocking creation and all creationist. I have already had to block one person because they refused to justify their debunk scientifically.

The more I dive into research about these different things concerning the scientific side of evolution, and apply the already known findings of each aspect. I am finding that there are so many problems that are hidden (not told), that it's like a wealth of info that is very eye opening.

[jason78]

Stanley Millers experiment has been repeated since. Later runs of the experiment have been analysed with better, more precise equipment.

Why isn't any of this mentioned?

[ikester7579]

Stanley Millers experiment has been repeated since.  Later runs of the experiment have been analysed with better, more precise equipment.

Why isn't any of this mentioned?

For the same reason none of the other was mentioned. Is it okay for one side to leave important things out but not the other? I'm only trying to play te game the same way I see it played by others.

[Arch]

For the same reason none of the other was mentioned. Is it okay for one side to leave important things out but not the other? I'm only trying to play te game the same way I see it played by others.

So you see this whole thing as a game that is to be won or lost? I thought you were a truth seeker?

[Adam Nagy]

Does anybody have information regarding the other experiments and how many times it was repeated and what the variations were and who was involved?

As far as I know this wasn't some experiment that received huge amounts of ongoing funding. I think to be accurate, it would be useful to know the additional occurrences of this experiment and what they sought to 'improve' after Stanly's experiment.