The Failure Of Evolution Theory . . . in a nutshell, information

[alang1216]

Or maybe you're making baby talk.

You disappoint me yet again.

If you were to read my article on abiogenesis you would know that (1) a living organism smaller than an amino acid, much less one smaller than an amine, is impossible, that (2) organic molecules cannot and do not link up in any substantially or sustainably significant chains in raw nature for variously complex reasons, and that (3) even if they could, that would still be light years away from living organisms.

Sorry to disappoint you again.

Don't feel too bad, most of what passes for discourse on USMB disappoints me. I do admit I don't recall your article on abiogenesis. Link? I'm most curious to see you prove something is impossible. Long chains of hydrocarbons are very common and naturally occuring, in fact we burn them in our cars. Not light years, billions of years.

My bad. I specified in my mind, but not in the post. I'm was thinking about those most pertinent to life. As for the article: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.

Too long. Feel free to summarize.

This is also way too long (with the comments) so don't expect even a summary.

You need to read the article or not, alang. It's a summarization of the most important experimental findings in abiogenetic research from Miller-Urey on.

I was not aware of the other, but do vaguely recall my discourse with an Objectivist some years ago.

I was actually trolling in that exchange, not at first, but later, after he failed to grasp the fact that I wholeheartedly agreed with him and Peikoff that “the actual is always finite”, or, more accurately, the actual value of the potentially infinite is always finite at any given moment in real being. But he kept insisting that the superlatively qualitative infinity of classical theism contradicted the quantitative infinities of mathematics, which is nonsense. But the real kicker was when another Objectivist chimed in at about that point insisting that 1/Infinity = 0, literally, which is also nonsense. The author of the piece you cited knew better, but wouldn’t correct his fellow Objectivist . . . so I basically went all Jupiter on them just for kicks.

I blessed them with a short story of sorts entailing a fictitious news report. It's a real hoot!

Hey, would you like to read it? It's not long at all and it's hilarious.

From what I've read, no one knows the environments of the early earth so no one can prove abiogenesis did or did not occur. I'm fine with that. I have only experienced the natural world so I'd lean toward a natural explanation of how life started even though I can't prove it. You don't have to accept it was natural but you also can't show me it was impossible. Like God himself, I can't prove He doesn't exist anymore than you can prove he does.

 

[Ringtone]

From what I've read, no one knows the environments of the early earth so no one can prove abiogenesis did or did not occur. I'm fine with that. I have only experienced the natural world so I'd lean toward a natural explanation of how life started even though I can't prove it. You don't have to accept it was natural but you also can't show me it was impossible. Like God himself, I can't prove He doesn't exist anymore than you can prove he does.

Sigh

I've already proved God exists to you via the incontrovertible imperatives of logic, mathematics and science. You just refuse to follow the ramifications of those imperatives. Ultimately, your lack of conviction comes down to your lack of faith that the pertinent imperatives of logic, mathematics and science are true. You generally adhere to them just fine . . . until you don't on matters of ultimate origin.

Once again, you really need to read my article. You haven't the faintest clue what's possible. You just opined in the above that maybe the earliest lifeform (microbe) was as small as an amine! That's akin to saying elephants can fly.

Actually, from geological deposits and the earliest fossils, we do know the environmental conditions that generally prevailed when life first appeared. The atmosphere was generally oxidizing, and the geological conditions were obviously conducive to microscopic lifeforms, the earliest of which were, apparently, cyanobacteria, arising no latter than 3.5 billion years ago and probably as early as almost 3.8 billion years ago.

The only definitively meaningful relevance early Earth conditions have on the matter go to their conduciveness to the existence and sustenance of microbial life. They ultimately have no definitively meaningful relevance to proving abiogenesis occurred. Objectively speaking, abiogenesis either occurred or it didn't. Period. Ultimately, the reasons abiogenesis can never be proven are (1) because precellular life cannot be coherently conceptualized as anything more than a hypothetical fuzzy-wuzzy and (2) because an instance of abiogenesis cannot be observed—not now, not ever!

(See post #194 for why, in which I sarcastically falsified toobfreak's idiotic notion of the latter.)

Look, I'm certainly not the best-informed writer on the topic of abiogenesis. I have no doubt that others could better summarize the most pertinent findings of the research since Miller-Urey for the laymen reader, though, given its scope, roughly 70 years of research, I don't see how one could do so more concisely. Arguably, the article is a small book that would take the average laymen at least two hours to adequately digest. I made it as simple for the laymen as I know how without reducing the matter to a cartoon.

Seventy years of research!

You're asking me to summarize the real-world ramifications of the findings on a message board. If you would just read the article, you would realize just how ridiculously naive that is . . . but don’t take offense. It took me nearly six months to research and write it in my spare time, followed by weeks of revisions. It's fair to say that at least 60% of my prior understanding of things was "through a glass darkly".

I don't conceal my underlying bias or my opinion of the findings, but that doesn't mean I don't accurately and objectively present the findings of the very best and most significant peer-reviewed research.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From what I've read, no one knows the environments of the early earth so no one can prove abiogenesis did or did not occur. I'm fine with that. I have only experienced the natural world so I'd lean toward a natural explanation of how life started even though I can't prove it. You don't have to accept it was natural but you also can't show me it was impossible. Like God himself, I can't prove He doesn't exist anymore than you can prove he does.

Sigh

I've already proved God exists to you via the incontrovertible imperatives of logic, mathematics and science. You just refuse to follow the ramifications of those imperatives. Ultimately, your lack of conviction comes down to your lack of faith that the pertinent imperatives of logic, mathematics and science are true. You generally adhere to them just fine . . . until you don't on matters of ultimate origin.

Once again, you really need to read my article. You haven't the faintest clue what's possible. You just opined in the above that maybe the earliest lifeform (microbe) was as small as an amine! That's akin to saying elephants can fly.

Actually, from geological deposits and the earliest fossils, we do know the environmental conditions that generally prevailed when life first appeared. The atmosphere was generally oxidizing, and the geological conditions were obviously conducive to microscopic lifeforms, the earliest of which were, apparently, cyanobacteria, arising no latter than 3.5 billion years ago and probably as early as almost 3.8 billion years ago.

The only definitively meaningful relevance early Earth conditions have on the matter go to their conduciveness to the existence and sustenance of microbial life. They ultimately have no definitively meaningful relevance to proving abiogenesis occurred. Objectively speaking, abiogenesis either occurred or it didn't. Period. Ultimately, the reasons abiogenesis can never be proven are (1) because precellular life cannot be coherently conceptualized as anything more than a hypothetical fuzzy-wuzzy and (2) because an instance of abiogenesis cannot be observed—not now, not ever!

(See post #194 for why, in which I sarcastically falsified toobfreak's idiotic notion of the latter.)

Look, I'm certainly not the best-informed writer on the topic of abiogenesis. I have no doubt that others could better summarize the most pertinent findings of the research since Miller-Urey for the laymen reader, though, given its scope, roughly 70 years of research, I don't see how one could do so more concisely. Arguably, the article is a small book that would take the average laymen at least two hours to adequately digest. I made it as simple for the laymen as I know how without reducing the matter to a cartoon.

Seventy years of research!

You're asking me to summarize the real-world ramifications of the findings on a message board. If you would just read the article, you would realize just how ridiculously naive that is . . . but don’t take offense. It took me nearly six months to research and write it in my spare time, followed by weeks of revisions. It's fair to say that at least 60% of my prior understanding of things was "through a glass darkly".

I don't conceal my underlying bias or my opinion of the findings, but that doesn't mean I don't accurately and objectively present the findings of the very best and most significant peer-reviewed research.

Actually, from geological deposits and the earliest fossils, we do know the environmental conditions that generally prevailed when life first appeared. The atmosphere was generally oxidizing

Are you sure?

 

[Ringtone]

Actually, from geological deposits and the earliest fossils, we do know the environmental conditions that generally prevailed when life first appeared. The atmosphere was generally oxidizing

Are you sure?

Yes.

Excerpt:

But the real problem for the synthesis of amino acids in a reducing atmosphere is that in spite of the latter’s abundance of free electrons, it would not have provided an ozone layer to protect the amino acids produced in it. If the electrical energy that induced their synthesis in one instant did not reduce them to their basic elements or induce harmful reactions in the next, the entire range of UV light’s wavelengths would have slapped them silly. And biologically useful organic compounds do not form in oxidizing atmospheres.​

​

Perplexing.​

​

That’s why the outgassing calculi of the 2005 study based on the chondritic model of planetary formation, which at first blush seemed to revive the reducing atmosphere hypothesis, wouldn’t resolve the problem of an abiogenic account for life’s origins. In any event, the isolated credibility of the chondritic, outgassing calculi do not explain away the incontrovertible geological evidence that evince an oxidizing atmosphere for early Earth. 3​

​

Perplexing.​

​

It seems that the only atmospheric model that would be favorable to the prospects of abiogenesis would entail some sort of synthesis of the two possibilities. But even if the chemical constituents of abiogenesis were profitably given over to the thralls of a semi-reducing atmosphere all those many years ago, we see no evidence of that today. The geological record would contain an overflowing abundance of nitrogen-rich mineral deposits. It doesn’t.​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually, from geological deposits and the earliest fossils, we do know the environmental conditions that generally prevailed when life first appeared. The atmosphere was generally oxidizing

Are you sure?

Yes.

Excerpt:

But the real problem for the synthesis of amino acids in a reducing atmosphere is that in spite of the latter’s abundance of free electrons, it would not have provided an ozone layer to protect the amino acids produced in it. If the electrical energy that induced their synthesis in one instant did not reduce them to their basic elements or induce harmful reactions in the next, the entire range of UV light’s wavelengths would have slapped them silly. And biologically useful organic compounds do not form in oxidizing atmospheres.​

​

Perplexing.​

​

That’s why the outgassing calculi of the 2005 study based on the chondritic model of planetary formation, which at first blush seemed to revive the reducing atmosphere hypothesis, wouldn’t resolve the problem of an abiogenic account for life’s origins. In any event, the isolated credibility of the chondritic, outgassing calculi do not explain away the incontrovertible geological evidence that evince an oxidizing atmosphere for early Earth. 3​

​

Perplexing.​

​

It seems that the only atmospheric model that would be favorable to the prospects of abiogenesis would entail some sort of synthesis of the two possibilities. But even if the chemical constituents of abiogenesis were profitably given over to the thralls of a semi-reducing atmosphere all those many years ago, we see no evidence of that today. The geological record would contain an overflowing abundance of nitrogen-rich mineral deposits. It doesn’t.​

What's the link to your "proof"?

Or did you come up with that on your own?

 

[Ringtone]

What's the link to your "proof"?

Or did you come up with that on your own?

Of course, several years ago, I just made up what was common knowledge at the time I wrote the piece to screw with your mind today.

You do realize that I'm not talking about the very earliest atmospheric conditions, right? Rather, I'm talking about the atmospheric conditions that generally prevailed briefly before, in geological terms, life appeared. We know today that the atmosphere was more oxidizing early than we previously thought possible, and we have recently pinned down, even more definitively, it's increasingly oxidizing development going back even earlier than 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago. Indeed, it was generally oxidizing as early as a half a billion years after the Earth's formation.

But I do thank for pointing out to me that I didn't directly annotate that particular observation . . . because, after all, at the time I wrote the piece, that was common knowledge among the learned. That's not a slight against you. On the contrary, my audience is the layman. My failure to directly annotate that is a blunder.

I'll have to revise it yet again, damn it!

Setting the Stage for Life: Scientists Make Key Discovery About the Atmosphere of Early Earth | News

Image courtesy of NASA

news.rpi.edu

| EarthSky

Scientists studying tiny ancient meteorites have found evidence that Earth's atmosphere used to contain much more carbon dioxide, and maybe less nitrogen, than it does now.

earthsky.org

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What's the link to your "proof"?

Or did you come up with that on your own?

Of course, several years ago, I just made up what was common knowledge at the time I wrote the piece to screw with your mind today.

You do realize that I'm not talking about the very earliest atmospheric conditions, right? Rather, I'm talking about the atmospheric conditions that generally prevailed briefly before, in geological terms, life appeared. We know today that the atmosphere was more oxidizing early than we previously thought possible, and we have recently pinned down, even more definitively, it's increasingly oxidizing development going back even earlier than 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago. Indeed, it was generally oxidizing as early as a half a billion years after the Earth's formation.

But I do thank for pointing out to me that I didn't directly annotate that particular observation . . . because, after all, at the time I wrote the piece, that was common knowledge among the learned. That's not a slight against you. On the contrary, my audience is the layman. My failure to directly annotate that is a blunder.

I'll have to revise it yet again, damn it!

Setting the Stage for Life: Scientists Make Key Discovery About the Atmosphere of Early Earth | News

Image courtesy of NASA

news.rpi.edu

| EarthSky

Scientists studying tiny ancient meteorites have found evidence that Earth's atmosphere used to contain much more carbon dioxide, and maybe less nitrogen, than it does now.

earthsky.org

So what? That doesn't preclude abiogenesis. What a bunch of garbage.

 

[Hollie]

From what I've read, no one knows the environments of the early earth so no one can prove abiogenesis did or did not occur. I'm fine with that. I have only experienced the natural world so I'd lean toward a natural explanation of how life started even though I can't prove it. You don't have to accept it was natural but you also can't show me it was impossible. Like God himself, I can't prove He doesn't exist anymore than you can prove he does.

Sigh

I've already proved God exists to you via the incontrovertible imperatives of logic, mathematics and science. You just refuse to follow the ramifications of those imperatives. Ultimately, your lack of conviction comes down to your lack of faith that the pertinent imperatives of logic, mathematics and science are true. You generally adhere to them just fine . . . until you don't on matters of ultimate origin.

Once again, you really need to read my article. You haven't the faintest clue what's possible. You just opined in the above that maybe the earliest lifeform (microbe) was as small as an amine! That's akin to saying elephants can fly.

Actually, from geological deposits and the earliest fossils, we do know the environmental conditions that generally prevailed when life first appeared. The atmosphere was generally oxidizing, and the geological conditions were obviously conducive to microscopic lifeforms, the earliest of which were, apparently, cyanobacteria, arising no latter than 3.5 billion years ago and probably as early as almost 3.8 billion years ago.

The only definitively meaningful relevance early Earth conditions have on the matter go to their conduciveness to the existence and sustenance of microbial life. They ultimately have no definitively meaningful relevance to proving abiogenesis occurred. Objectively speaking, abiogenesis either occurred or it didn't. Period. Ultimately, the reasons abiogenesis can never be proven are (1) because precellular life cannot be coherently conceptualized as anything more than a hypothetical fuzzy-wuzzy and (2) because an instance of abiogenesis cannot be observed—not now, not ever!

(See post #194 for why, in which I sarcastically falsified toobfreak's idiotic notion of the latter.)

Look, I'm certainly not the best-informed writer on the topic of abiogenesis. I have no doubt that others could better summarize the most pertinent findings of the research since Miller-Urey for the laymen reader, though, given its scope, roughly 70 years of research, I don't see how one could do so more concisely. Arguably, the article is a small book that would take the average laymen at least two hours to adequately digest. I made it as simple for the laymen as I know how without reducing the matter to a cartoon.

Seventy years of research!

You're asking me to summarize the real-world ramifications of the findings on a message board. If you would just read the article, you would realize just how ridiculously naive that is . . . but don’t take offense. It took me nearly six months to research and write it in my spare time, followed by weeks of revisions. It's fair to say that at least 60% of my prior understanding of things was "through a glass darkly".

I don't conceal my underlying bias or my opinion of the findings, but that doesn't mean I don't accurately and objectively present the findings of the very best and most significant peer-reviewed research.

“I've already proved God exists to you via the incontrovertible imperatives of logic, mathematics and science.”

Yes. You are emotionally attached to that silly, cut and paste “....imperatives” slogan.

Why would you believe that your gullibility and fawning attachment to silly slogans is proof of anything but fear and ignorance?

 

[Ringtone]

Too long. Feel free to summarize.

This is also way too long (with the comments) so don't expect even a summary.

By the way, I copied and pasted that piece of satire on the board: Objectivist Cult Member Says Composition Not Relevant to Science (Satire)

 

[alang1216]

From what I've read, no one knows the environments of the early earth so no one can prove abiogenesis did or did not occur. I'm fine with that. I have only experienced the natural world so I'd lean toward a natural explanation of how life started even though I can't prove it. You don't have to accept it was natural but you also can't show me it was impossible. Like God himself, I can't prove He doesn't exist anymore than you can prove he does.

Sigh

I've already proved God exists to you via the incontrovertible imperatives of logic, mathematics and science. You just refuse to follow the ramifications of those imperatives. Ultimately, your lack of conviction comes down to your lack of faith that the pertinent imperatives of logic, mathematics and science are true. You generally adhere to them just fine . . . until you don't on matters of ultimate origin.

I beg to differ, you've proved nothing. You made a case for a creator but the nature of that creator is completely unknown. You have never even attempted to connect that creator to the God of the Bible.

 

[james bond]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

If evolution was fact, then I could give you examples. But it doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy that would be needed for expansion of the universe. It's a question of what came first -- energy or matter? And someone like you doesn't have a clue.

 

[james bond]

The hyper-religious make a mistake in presuming that their standard "... because I say so", nonsense is a valid argument. They make no case to support their claim that natural processes are somehow deficient toward their supernatural gods.

It's the Darwin and later scientists says so argument.

You guys can't explain how the sun came to be. The sun couldn't have started by itself.

The Christians have the whole explanation and science backs it up.

 

[Blues Man]

The Failure Of Evolution Theory
by Christian von Wielligh


Excerpt:

For neo-Darwinism to be plausible, it must overcome the problem of the origin of new biological information. Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism (even if it was a simple single-celled organism). And secondly, it must be able to give an accurate account of how existing organisms gain new information, because without it they cannot evolve into more advanced forms with new body plans.​

​

Neo-Darwinists place their trust in random mutations (aided by natural selection) to generate new information. But mutations, which are copying errors, cause the loss of, or corrupt, existing genetic information. Small-scale changes due to mutations are insufficient to cause evolution, and various experiments have shown that large-scale changes are harmful and lead to the early deaths of organisms.​

​

So it’s not surprising that the examples of evolution by mutations that are included in our textbooks and presented by the media comprise of the loss of information. And although mutations can sometimes be beneficial, such as the defective gene in Tomcod fish that enable them to live in PCB-polluted water, such small-scale changes does not cause creatures to evolve into new types of creatures. A fish with mutations is still a fish.​

​

Natural selection is also often used in an attempt to convince us that evolution actually happens. But this too cannot generate new information. It can only ‘select’ traits from a pool of existing genetic information (that may include mutations) to produce an assortment of animals of the same kind. Darwin’s Galapagos finches with their various beak sizes, is such an example. Although variations occur between these finches, they’re all still finches. They didn’t evolve into something new.​

Read More

Also, get a copy of The Collapse of Darwinism: How Medical Science Proves Evolution by Natural Selection is a Failed Theory

Excerpt:

Most people intuitively understand that Darwin's theory of evolution-natural selection acting upon random mutations-is a wholly inadequate theory for the creation of a human being. And most people feel unprepared to debate those scientists, professors, and scholars who use their academic authority to defend Darwinism, often bullying and belittling those of us who dare doubt Darwin.​

​

Now, Bredemeier identifies and succinctly encapsulates why Darwinism fails. Using anatomy and physiology as only a physician can, Bredemeier exposes the errors and false logic that Darwinian acolytes continue to employ as they protect their mortally wounded theory. Any reader with a high school or college education will become armed with straightforward examples of exactly why Darwinism fails.​

​

From anatomy and physiology of the human body-including neuroscience, genetics, embryology, and other fascinating fields of the increasingly numerous biological sciences-Bredemeier provides indisputable and damning evidence for which academicians, scientists, and even Nobel laureates, who zealously defend Darwinism, have no adequate answer.​

not all mutations are copy errors. Some can be caused by external forces such as radiation, environmental toxins or even such things as varying food and water levels.

 

[james bond]

So what? That doesn't preclude abiogenesis. What a bunch of garbage.

Christians already disproved abiogenesis. You haven't found any life whatsoever on Mars. Adam named animals. What did Perseverance get you? You get to name rocks for your millions of dollars haha. Another so-called Fort Fun Indiana and OP fact claims bite the dust.

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

If evolution was fact, then I could give you examples. But it doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy that would be needed for expansion of the universe. It's a question of what came first -- energy or matter? And someone like you doesn't have a clue.

Correct. Biological evolution doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy.

Did you believe biological evolution was supposed to explain what was before the beginning of life? That is a complete lack of understanding of the process of evolution.

 

[Hollie]

The hyper-religious make a mistake in presuming that their standard "... because I say so", nonsense is a valid argument. They make no case to support their claim that natural processes are somehow deficient toward their supernatural gods.

It's the Darwin and later scientists says so argument.

You guys can't explain how the sun came to be. The sun couldn't have started by itself.

The Christians have the whole explanation and science backs it up.

Evolution does not deal with ''how the sun came to be''. I'm guessing your madrassah was not real rigorous in the science curriculum.

Christians have the ''...because the gods say so'' explanation but that is not an explanation for anything.

You can't explain how your gods or any of the other gods before your gods came to be, Your gods couldn't have started by themselves. So no, nothing ''backs up'' your appeals to magic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Christians already disproved abiogenesis.

Liar.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You guys can't explain how the sun came to be. The sun couldn't have started by itself.

Good god this is stupid. Yes dummy, we can explain how the Sun came to be. This is 8th grade science material.

 

[Ringtone]

The Failure Of Evolution Theory
by Christian von Wielligh


Excerpt:

For neo-Darwinism to be plausible, it must overcome the problem of the origin of new biological information. Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism (even if it was a simple single-celled organism). And secondly, it must be able to give an accurate account of how existing organisms gain new information, because without it they cannot evolve into more advanced forms with new body plans.​

​

Neo-Darwinists place their trust in random mutations (aided by natural selection) to generate new information. But mutations, which are copying errors, cause the loss of, or corrupt, existing genetic information. Small-scale changes due to mutations are insufficient to cause evolution, and various experiments have shown that large-scale changes are harmful and lead to the early deaths of organisms.​

​

So it’s not surprising that the examples of evolution by mutations that are included in our textbooks and presented by the media comprise of the loss of information. And although mutations can sometimes be beneficial, such as the defective gene in Tomcod fish that enable them to live in PCB-polluted water, such small-scale changes does not cause creatures to evolve into new types of creatures. A fish with mutations is still a fish.​

​

Natural selection is also often used in an attempt to convince us that evolution actually happens. But this too cannot generate new information. It can only ‘select’ traits from a pool of existing genetic information (that may include mutations) to produce an assortment of animals of the same kind. Darwin’s Galapagos finches with their various beak sizes, is such an example. Although variations occur between these finches, they’re all still finches. They didn’t evolve into something new.​

Read More

Also, get a copy of The Collapse of Darwinism: How Medical Science Proves Evolution by Natural Selection is a Failed Theory

Excerpt:

Most people intuitively understand that Darwin's theory of evolution-natural selection acting upon random mutations-is a wholly inadequate theory for the creation of a human being. And most people feel unprepared to debate those scientists, professors, and scholars who use their academic authority to defend Darwinism, often bullying and belittling those of us who dare doubt Darwin.​

​

Now, Bredemeier identifies and succinctly encapsulates why Darwinism fails. Using anatomy and physiology as only a physician can, Bredemeier exposes the errors and false logic that Darwinian acolytes continue to employ as they protect their mortally wounded theory. Any reader with a high school or college education will become armed with straightforward examples of exactly why Darwinism fails.​

​

From anatomy and physiology of the human body-including neuroscience, genetics, embryology, and other fascinating fields of the increasingly numerous biological sciences-Bredemeier provides indisputable and damning evidence for which academicians, scientists, and even Nobel laureates, who zealously defend Darwinism, have no adequate answer.​

not all mutations are copy errors. Some can be caused by external forces such as radiation, environmental toxins or even such things as varying food and water levels.

True.

 

[james bond]

Christians already disproved abiogenesis.

Liar.

It used the scientific method. You can't beat that even with your lies.

The scientific method backs up natural selection which God created, but not evolution by natural selection. Miller-Urey was turribly flawed.

Can we just add what Perseverance does not find to the dung pile? You spent billions of taxpayer dollars to name rocks.