Actually, I'm only saying that this thread isn't about the age of the Earth. It's about research subsequent to the Miller/Urey experiment. You're more than welcome to discuss the age of the Earth in any thread where it is the topic.
... but isn't every discussion inherently relative to BOTH the science and that science's relationship to Genesis?
I mean, I am misled otherwise by the site name, Evolution Vs Creationism.
The point being that, prior to Miller/Urey, the church and all people believed that organic chemistry was the realm of the divine, and though chemistry could manipulate the inorganic elements and compounds, the Vital Force was an essence which kept man out of Organic Chemistry.
Until Urea was synthesized, that remained the rule and paradigm.
Now at issue with the church people is whether the Life Force would suddenly appear should man assemble the same compounds in the same way as found in a living cell.
Miller/Urey does not answer that question, but merely suggests that under ideal environmental conditions, the chemicals could come together.
The experiment infers, but does not give any support to, the idea that this "coming together" would include that life ingredient that is clearly absent in the same chemical body which we see in every dead cell.
The supposition remains regardless of Miller/Urey, that life appears if the mere chemicals are gathered together.
All this discussion takes place during the evening of the Archean Era and the morning of the Proterozoic Era.
That is the point that I make.
That is, Miller/Urey supports what I say about Genesis.
In that this exact time when the Plants appeared by a Spontaneous Generation, according to Genesis, is the "third day."
What I am establishing is exactly that, that Genesis says life appeared at the same moment science also says it did.
It would have been ideal at that exact time according to the Bible and science. Evolution makes no head way against Genesis in this matter of Miller/Urey.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.