Article ~ Why the Miller–Urey Research Argues Against Abiogenesis

Nope, don't feel like reading the article and addressing all the points. Sometimes you gotta filter your reading by considering the source.

The RationalWiki article has references. I especially like this:

"(It should be added that, in a signed letter published in David Duke's National Association of White People newsletter, he stated that “reverse racial discrimination was clearly part of the decision,” so even according to himself it cannot have been solely because of his religious beliefs.[12])"

I don't like the sound of this character, but I don't like RationalWiki either. If you follow the link to the source, you'll see that the quotation has been altered.

Despite whatever links that Bergman may or may not have to racist groups, that doesn't detract from the OP article's points whatsoever.

Or maybe you just don't want to read the article.

You're right, I don't. I don't trust Bergman or "Answers in Genesis."

~~ Paul

I don't like the sound of this character, but I don't like RationalWiki either. If you follow the link to the source, you'll see that the quotation has been altered.

Yes, it was. However, that's not why I find this particular factoid amusing. I just love "National Association for the Advancement of White People."

~~ Paul

Yes, it was. However, that's not why I find this particular factoid amusing. I just love "National Association for the Advancement of White People."

Strangely, the RationalWiki article gets the name of the association wrong too.

I don't like the sound of this character, but I don't like RationalWiki either. If you follow the link to the source, you'll see that the quotation has been altered.

My thoughts exactly.

God did it with a mere thought. Created life, the Universe, and especially Homo sapien sapiens. It's all accurately documented in the Book of Genesis. After all The Bible is not just a book that explains how to get to heaven, it is also a book of science. I'm half expecting Valmer to claim the Earth is pancake flat.

God did it with a mere thought. Created life, the Universe, and especially Homo sapien sapiens. It's all accurately documented in the Book of Genesis. After all The Bible is not just a book that explains how to get to heaven, it is also a book of science. I'm half expecting Valmer to claim the Earth is pancake flat.

lol, I'm no Christian, nor am I religious in any way.

The OP article is interesting because it argues that the Miller-Urey experiment has many flaws. It contains no pushing of religion whatsoever, surprisingly, considering the website it's on.

Instead of attacking the messenger, read the article.

lol, I'm no Christian, nor am I religious in any way.

The OP article is interesting because it argues that the Miller-Urey experiment has many flaws. It contains no pushing of religion whatsoever, surprisingly, considering the website it's on.

Instead of attacking the messenger, read the article.

And yet you source a creationist as credible one I recall is associated with Ken Ham and his site Answers in Genesis.  The very same man whom is the genius behind the fundamentalist biblical theme park featuring a walk though  life size Ark portraying how Noah with God's guidance built it and gathered all the animals two by two. The very same park that incredibly yet faithfully claims dinosaurs and humans co-existed and you think physicalists should give any credance to the article you linked? So you'll have to excuse my unabashed sarcasm but the answer is no.

lol, I'm no Christian, nor am I religious in any way.

The OP article is interesting because it argues that the Miller-Urey experiment has many flaws. It contains no pushing of religion whatsoever, surprisingly, considering the website it's on.

Instead of attacking the messenger, read the article.

Thankfully, I don't see most of Steve001's posts because I have him on ignore but I can see them when they are quoted in a reply. This reply to you shows precisely why he is on ignore and will remain so.

As for the messenger, I believe he deserves scrutiny (as does anyone who claims to write with authority). I don't like his conclusions (available for such scrutiny on websites and YouTube) which seem to be that Genesis is the only true story of our origins (not to mention any white supremacist affiliations he might have) but that doesn't mean he can't make a valid point along the way. Nevertheless, I'd suggest there are better sources which challenge the Miller-Urey experimental findings which might carry more weight in the court of public opinion.

Which then opens the question as to why I should prefer one creationist (Meyer or Behe, for example) over another. The fact is that both Meyer and Behe (and others at the religiously funded Discovery Institute) have distanced themselves from Creationism (as in the Biblical or Young Earth variety) and have maintained that they do not deny evolution or the generally accepted timeline (billions, rather than thousands of years). They even accept natural selection as an integral part of the process but maintain there is evidence of design within that process. Hardly a reversion to Genesis.

All of which doesn't mean that RationalWiki should be taken as an authoritative source and I'm surprised that Paul should do so. If you are going to claim religious bias as a reason to dismiss Bergman then you should recognise that RW is among the most biased sources on the internet.

Remarkably, none of the skeptics have addressed anything relating to the actual substantive content in the OP. Was it just yesterday Linda was complaining about proponents being unwilling to have a discussion of issues, in favor of "[putting] down 'the skeptics' with varying degrees of rabidity"?