The broader point, again, is that some virus-like "thing" could have evolved a metabloism-like capability if there was some advantage to it. That possibiliy is all that is needed for abiogenesis to happen.
Church people have been schooled in the ways to argue against the theological hypothesis, that God used evolution as his method of creating the diversity of life we see today. They think they do god a service by resisting and denigrating the Science Theory.
But they fail to acknowledge things like the clear Genesis statement which say God Spontaneous Generated first life, no real difference in the Abiogenesis of what Science espouses.
The Church people are at the cross road of either accepting that God created all life for one early spark which spread a virtual fire of different and complex species thereafter, or sticking to the rather dull insight that God meticulously, individually, and separately used an almost infinite number of Spontaneous Generations, one for every species on Earth, past and present.
I encourage the church people to realize that God is better than that. God would use a process like Evolution rather than the drawn out and ardulous individual Spontaneous Generations, one after another over seven long Eras of "days."
Panda: Your image only shows 6 Eras of "days". Also, the Phanerozoic can be split up into 3 eras: Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic - like in your image. So why is Archean not split up into Neoarchean, Mesoarchean, Paleoarchean and Eoarchean also?
Hi Mr panda...
The "first day" of the seven was BEFORE the Earth had congealed into a ball shaped solid, and was merely a spinning accretion disk, void of shape and darkness was upon the flat face of the rotating conglumearation of huge rocks.
Though a quick google often misleads readers who see the CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHIC CLASSIFICATION which is one of the three typical charts that specify the geological rock layers, the actual six layers which separate the Time between cataclysmic events like meteoric extinctions numbers six GEOCHRONOGRAPHIC CLASSIFICATIONS.
The International Commission on Stratigraphy:
See this International Commission on Stratigraphy link to the chart above: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
Chronologic measurement: The geologic time scale provides a system of chronologic measurement relating stratigraphy to time that is used by geologists, paleontologists and other earth scientists to describe the timing and relationships between events that have occurred during the history of the Earth.
No. The breakdown that merely lists one layer after the next is what that chart shows, making no distinction between what six major events which are used by scientist as the Geological Clock.
The Geological Clock is an application of the geology, and it measures six major events which separate piles of rocks from other piles of rocks.
The six events punctuate the rote listing of rock layers, some of which were massive extinction caused by large meteoric hits on Earth.
"Geologic time scale From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"This clock representation shows some of the major units of geological time and definitive events of Earth history.
The Hadean eon represents the time before fossil record of life on Earth; its upper boundary is now regarded as 4.0 Ga (billion years ago). Other subdivisions reflect the evolution of life; the Archean and Proterozoic are both eons, the Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic are eras of the Phanerozoic eon.
The geologic time scale is a system of chronological measurement that relates stratigraphy to time, and is used by geologists, paleontologists, and other earth scientists to describe the timing and relationships between events that have occurred throughout Earth's history.
The table of geologic time spans presented here agrees with the dates and nomenclature set forth by the International Commission on Stratigraphy, and uses the standard color codes of the United States Geological Survey."
We are talking about the age of the earth and how we measure the time using the Geological clock...
I don't know how a discussion of the age of the Earth began in a thread about the Miller/Urey experiment, but it should really be taking place in a thread where it would be on topic. Since you're taking a numerological approach, which I don't recall seeing before, I suggest proposing a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.
I nust started posting here after a long recess of a few years, and I jumped in to these discussion with comments based upon where you people have taken the discussion.
I notiuced immediately that most of these thread started n2009 and 2006 or before.
It seems senseless to me that I should respond to the topic in the OP, since that author is long gone.
People criticoizing facts that I present, and directly challanging me to defend what I posted is how we get into a discussion about the number of "days" marked in the rocks as a Clock marking off the division of time since the formation of the earth.
Do you want to encourage free open intercourse between us, or pick one person or the other, and tell them specifically, to shut up and take the ignorance of the criticism without educating them????
As far as Miller/Urey is concerned, much evidence for the theory is in the rocks, specifically with the rather recent realization that first life forms appeared in the Archean Era, just as son as the Earth had become solid.
I would also complain that this site advertises Science Vs Creation as its drawing card So, showing uninformed people that, indeed, there have, scientifically, been seven "days" or durations of Creation is quite justifiable, IMHO.
It is my complaint that these people want to google geology, look at few charts, and then post again and again that what I am teaching them is incorrect as if such a cursory study of the subject warrants the space THEY are using.
Perhaps I ought post permission to respond before answering back?
Certainly digressions onto relevant side issues are often necessary, but the age of the Earth is not a relevant side issue of subsequent research following the Miller/Urey experiment.
So you are sayingthat unless somewhere in this thread someone has implied directly that this experiment has relevance to Genesis I should just assume its a discussion between science people and not really part of the site namesake about the relationship the discussionmight or might not have concerning Creationism?
If that is the case, then, my apology. I find that the Spontaneous Generation in Genesis is supported by Abiogenesis and Miller/Urey, so I will exit the discussion.
[qs] My apology for offending you. Certainly I have been learning, so teaching does exist here.
I will leave you emminent authorities to this thread as the audience seems limited to your rather narrow point of view about how Miller/Urey relates tio the geology of the early planet planet and whether genesis suggests that the Spontaneous Generation of Bacteria took place during that third "day" of the Archeozoic Era. had I had the time to support that claim.
Talk among yourselves and I will try to find a thread that is more directly related to my Science V Creationism.
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.