[quote name='Fiz']it didn't come from nothing. all the elements existed from before the big bang. they've recreated life in laboratories under the same conditions of primordial earth.
Scientists have tried all the experiments testing their theories . . . shooting electricity through protein goo; they have tried to create the protein chains that make life possible and have been unsuccesful, especially when starting with absolutely nothing.[/quote]
sorry you're wrong
As for the Miller-Urey experiment, see my post in the other thread. Many scientists now believe that the atmosphere composition used by Miller and Urey is far from what the early atmosphere was like.
As a matter of fact, check out the wikipedia link that you provided. The following quote matches a lot of what I said about the belief that the early atmosphere was not like that used in Miller's experiment.
[quote]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.[/quote]
These are all theories right now, but what makes Miller's anymore correct than others? Nothing.
Edited by Bama Panther, 06 December 2008 - 01:46 PM.