A Question, Initially About Amino Acids, Evolves WAY Faster Than the Acids Did

Question from Barbara:

I just looked at one atheists’ answer for how amino acids can come together to form cells. The presumption was that the AA’s were already here. Where did the AA’s originate? “Out of thin air” is not correct: where did the air come from? All “backing up” has to lead to ID. 

Since no one thus far has unequivocally DISproven Biblical accounts and eye-witnesses, what if atheists simply thoughtfully, without presumption, STUDIED the Scriptures and humbly put the existence and role of GOD between themselves and GOD? For real. If claims cannot be proven untrue in a reasonable, applicable fashion; notwithstanding the historicity of actual dates, rulers, events, prophecies, and 180 degree life-change, how would one suppose to believe proponents of the naysayers of all GOD says, and has revealed about Himself? 

Just honestly study what atheism bases its worldview and their subsequent eternity exposing and even imposing. 

There MUST be proof of something, or this life and all its’ machinations are illogical and meaningless: a morbid, hopeless, dead way of seeing all of existence. 

What is a life without purpose? Where is meaningful purpose found? A purpose and meaning beyond the seen and comprehended.

Answer by SmartLX:

That amino acids were always there is, happily, one of the things atheists do not have to presume. The Miller-Urey experiment in 1952 is often criticised by creationists (and ID proponents, who are invariably creationists) for not replicating abiogenesis fully, but what it undeniably did was produce amino acids when a strong electrical jolt (representing lightning) was introduced into a chemical environment approximating the atmosphere of the early Earth. Over time it was discovered that it produced several times more types of amino acid than Miller and Urey even detected. Our understanding of the pre-life atmosphere on Earth has changed over time, as the linked article says, but ultimately not in any ways that challenge the likelihood of spontaneous amino acid production with lightning as the catalyst.

There are all manner of claims that have not been proven untrue. In the religious sphere alone, your attitude towards the Bible could be applied to the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita and the core texts of any number of other religions; they can’t conclusively be proven false simply because they’re too old and describe things impossible to witness or detect. This by itself is no reason to accept their claims.

When the non-devout do study the scriptures, which happens a great deal, you typically get laundry lists of serious concerns and not a lot more belief. One of the most famous of such responses is the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. Another is Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell (full and concise text in the link). The Bible, and most apologetics, are advocated to you as a Christian by your authority figures in the faith (whether your local preachers or online evangelists) as a means of reassuring those who already believe, because that’s about all they’re good for in terms of defending the faith.

You throw a lot of other truncated arguments in there, but these have already been considered – for instance refer here for my take on claims about prophecies. As for purpose and meaning, this comes up a lot so have a quick browse.

13 thoughts on “A Question, Initially About Amino Acids, Evolves WAY Faster Than the Acids Did”

  1. you got it upside down, the claimer of a positive has the burden to prove it, as in court the one who says that the accused did the crime, has to prove it
    YOU prove me that your BABBLE is true, i don’t have the burden of proving your positive claim.
    as for the scientists sitting on their arses and saying your babble is a gross lie, it is not true that they do nothing in order to find the real beginning of matter.
    and that is that IT IS POSSIBLE FOR SOMETHING TO SPONTANEOUSLY BECOME OF NOTHING, and you can turn upside down and inside out, but it is so, science proved it mathematically.
    now go and cry because there is no god for you when you die. nothing.

  2. Niki, you forget that the atheists are saying that God is a myth. So they have the burden to prove this. And since they have not done this, then God should still be in the running for The Creator of this Universe.
    And the Miller-Urey experiment is in the same boat as all the rest of the hypothesis of evolution, without proof. Without the possibility of being proven or not. Therefore it is a hypothesis which is yet to be validated. But can not be so it is invalid, since today all we see of how life comes is from another life that is already alive.


    Please SmartLx, read the whole thing and not just what is claimed. You know. You might as well print a retraction, telling everyone that there is no good reason not to believe in God. Because there is nothing that says that He is not. And everything that points to He is.

    And there are far, far more people who have found a relationship with Christ then the few who have lost there way. And I’d dare say quite a few more Atheists have studied the Bible and found a saving relationship with our Savior.

    Your arguments are built upon half truth’s. You give arguments that show what is expected but you don’t show the part that cause your arguments to be rejected.

    1. Firstly Gerald, the reason your posts occasionally aren’t being auto-published (going back years, now) is that the site is not recognising you as someone who has commented here previously. You may be using guest access, or slightly different details than you have used before. I get them all regardless, and I delete any duplicates after approving at least one copy.

      Anyway, regarding the four points of the AiG response to Miller-Urey, which I did read through:
      Oxygen in the atmosphere – According to New Scientist, a fair percentage of scientists do think the early Earth had a reducing atmosphere with very little oxygen. Only a small part of it needed to have such an atmosphere, in a place where for example the oxygen had not yet reached or been burned away. The evidence of oxygen at the time is very localised in any case, and indicates oxygen in lava, not the air. Therefore it is stated only as a possibility.
      Cyanide – See the chemistry of the experiment: the reaction is a two step process. The hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is formed in the experiment in step one, and changed into other compounds (including amino acids) by the end of step two. The amount of carbon monoxide created is very small.
      Destroyed by electricity – The trap to prevent successive jolts destroying the new acids was there because the jolts were continuous to speed up the process. The natural process was dependent on lightning strikes, which were scattered and sporadic, giving the resulting vapour time to condense and move on. Even if some was destroyed, the lightning would not have the intelligence to retrace its steps and erase all of its work.
      Karl Popper and genetic code – This has nothing to do with the Miller-Urey experiment because no genes are involved. AiG is just chucking in a generic argument from complexity here.

      1. Thank you for the suggestions. I re registered. I don’t know if this is the reason why I’m am seeing my posts.

        But to the point. You can not be now with it to understand that you nor anyone who makes up, dreams up, or invents hypothesis about what has happened way before anyone was present. So the assumption that the percentage of O2 was different way back when then it is today, is just another untried hypothesis, with an unproven process, of how life came to be.

        Now, would you mind showing me the evidence that the inventors of this hypothesis have gone back in time and measured the amount of O2 back in the beginning. Unless there is this, then we have to use what is available as a factor to help us to know the past. And that is the percentage of O2 today. And since there has never been a recorded change of O2, then it would be more logical to assume that the percentage of O2 that is present today, would more than likely be what was back then. https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/primordial-soup/the-primitive-atmosphere/

        Now correct me if I’m wrong, I think the idea that life started under the ocean in or near to an underwater volcano, is one of the current idea as to how life started.
        O2 was part of what the O2 was made up of when life started was it not.

        So it looks as if the search to explain off a failed validation for a hypothesis, is still leaving the evolutionists rushing about like the proverbial chicken with it’s head cut off.

    2. Ah, shit, not AGAIN…YOU !!!

      I told you not to address me any more, because you cause PIMPLES to appear on my skin, my ALLERGIC, anti-theist, or, more to the point, anti-Gerald reaction.

      You probably do it on purpose, in spite.

      Bad boy.

      Oh, WHATEVER…

      To the point again.

      The THEISTS were and still are the FIRST to have made a POSITIVE claim about ‘god’, i.e. that THERE IS ‘GOD’, so it is THEY who have BURDEN OF PROOF of THEIR FIRST IN ORDER, positive claim, that there is ‘god’.

      But, you are either SLY OR STUPID, in trying to turn around atheists’ retort to theists’ positive claim that there is ‘god’, their retort which said, REPLIED to theists, on THEIR FIRST positive claim that there is ‘god’, saying, ONLY REPLYING to the theists by saying
      ”GOD’ IS A MYTH’.

      That ATHEISTS’ RETORT, their REPLY to theists to their positive claim that there is ‘god’ cannot, by any logical and honest discutant, be treated as a NEW, now of atheists, positive claim, that ”god’ is a myth’

      We, atheists, NEVER made ANY .P O S I T I V E. claim about ‘god’, we just refute the theists’ positive claims about the existence of ‘god’, nothing less, nothing more

      So, you CHOSE whether you were just SLY or STUPID or BOH, by claiming that atheists’ retort, reply to theists on their first positive claim that there is ‘god’, by saying ”god’ is myth’, which is, of course, not atheists’ positive claim, but just their answer, reply, explanation of how theists came to the idea of nonexistent ‘god’, following myths, not a new positive claim of atheist.

      So, come on, Gerald, tell us, YOU decide whether this attempt of your throwing dust at atheists eyes makes you


      1. Please consider this. When this nation began, most everyone was a believer in God in one way or another. So no one even thought about needing anymore “proof” for God. They knew that since the Heavens and the earth was created that God did it.

        It wasn’t until recently that someone got the idea that everything could have begun in another way, and true to form, did so without providing any proof. And so it has gone for hundreds of years.
        “There is no God”. “How do you know?” “We don’t but we don’t believe there is.” “But look how everything is designed, like all of the inventions we have today, how could life not have been designed?” “We don’t know but maybe!” “Maybe? Is that a scientific term?”. “Oh, we are including it in what can be considered as proof”.

  3. Again STUPID, but NOT SLY, this time.

    You were RIGHT UP TO the words “they ‘KNEW'”,


    i continue your ‘thought’,


    The fact of the world having EXISTED, (not been CREATED) does NOT at all call for the CONCLUSION that someone CREATED it.

    It was SELF-created, by itself, scientifically, i.e. MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN FACT, but this notion, of SELF ‘creation’, is too difficult for you to grasp, not that you have the COURAGE to grasp it, either.

    OH, SHIT,



    HOW DO . Y O U . KNOW THERE . I S . ONE!!!


    OR, S H U T . U P . FOR GOOD,

    And then you continue with your idiocy,


    ps. i hate you please don’t write to me and please anyone not to advice me on how to talk to this idiot, try yourself to talk some sense in him and you will see the frustration i have. he spoiled my day. i promise not to read his shit here addressed not only at me but at anybody here

    there are so many LOGICAL FALLACIES that he makes that i suggest he undergoes an I.Q. test

    i will put some MOZART on to soothe me from the idiot i was exposed to

    1. By the way, Mozart did not write any symphonies. They were all made from spilt ink on paper. They were not created by him but by an accident. (smile).
      Now on to your disrespectful way you responded to me. It is beneath you. But you don’t seem to realize this.
      But is it the fact that I point out the errors of your post, or that I am addressing you directly?
      If it is because I put your name on my post, I can not do this. But if it is because I point out the error of your posts, then the only thing that will stop that is if you either write what is true, or just not write anything at all.

  4. both wrong

    science, true, cannot go back to the past, but has its methods, means
    of knowing what the EARLY, BABY UNIVERSE’S atmosphere was like

    Early Universe was A YOUNG UNIVERSE, A BABY, as it were, so its OXYGEN level was DIFFERENT THEN, FROM what it is NOW, AS A GROWN UP UNIVERSE, as it were

    I again suggest that you leave science to scientists and other knowledgeable, in the field, people and owners of adequate I.Q.s

    so, now read and learn about HOW THE UNIVERSE CAME TO BE
    (without the ‘god’ of yours, of course, just natural phenomena)



  5. Niki, all of what you have commented, is still completely hypothetical. And all of the processes that are being suggested to may have been the processes that explains the way things are, are meaningless scientifically until they are ran to demonstrate that the end results of those process really do end with what is.

    And this is what is wrong with all of the hypotheses, that are said to be what evolution is. Because they, none of them, have been verified to produce the results of what is today.

    And since we have today an O2 rich biosphere, and it is only assumed that it was not as such, how ever long ago, then we only have today, to use as a deciding factor of deciding what the percentage of O2 was. And so it is more logical, that we assume that the percentage of O2 was the same from the time the earth became.

  6. SmartLX, I asked this Gerald creature, an ‘IT’, not to speak to me many times so far, but he keeps harassing me with his idiotic texts addressed at me as responds to my posts.

    I understand he is a ‘god’ manic, but, what’s too much, is too much.

    Hasn’t he got any self-respect?

    What do I have to do to stop him from answering my posts and generally speaking to or about me here, is there a way for me to escape this man here, or do I have to leave this site, so that I forget that there is such an idiot on the world, who says that MOZART did not write his symphonies, he did not mention his about 1000, officially 626 pieces, that MOZART blotted the paper in front of him on his working desk, with, that take almost full 20 days and nights to listen to them all, but his notes, says G are only stains of ink on paper, just to SPITE me, knowing how much I LOVE MOZART, to stop him from answering my posts here, please someone help me…

  7. I so much hate this idiot Gerald that as soon as I see his name addressing me I become almost psychotic and cannot think well. This just happened, a while ago.

    But, now that I feel a little better, I reread the idiocies he wrote to me again today, thinking that


    to say such a thing about MOZART, so I paid attention this time to the word SPILT (SPILLED) milk on paper A C C I D E N T A L L Y.


    And then, as I just said, I paid attention to the word ‘ACCIDENTALLY’, and I realized that G was insinuation at ‘god’as creator, i.e. that, as much as MOZART’S music has its creator, MOZART himself, likewise the WORLD around us has one too, ‘god’.


    However MEAN this G is, there is a SILVER LINING to this comparison of his about MOZART’S MUSIC with THE WORLD.


    But, unfortunately for G, the resemblance stops there.




    I sent the link of the WIKI article on’INITIAL SINGULARITY’ here, but seems that G is an exception to the rule that a FOOL may be born with IDIOTIC GENES, but that GOOD ENVIRONMENT can make it less fool in the process of its living in it.

    Unfortunately for G, he, having been born with LOWLY on I.Q. GENES, either had BAD ENVIRONMENT too, or even GOOD one, that he may have had, could do nothing for him.

    In G’s case


    so that the article on ‘INITIAL SINGULARITY’, he either did not read, or, if he tried to read it, it caused him to start yawning immediately, and then he, in spite of me, printed it on paper, and used it to wipe his shit.


  8. Barbara – Amino acids have been found in deep space. Google “Murchison meteorite”. Google “amino acids in space”. There are all kinds of finds about amino acids existing in outer space. And not just animo acids for that matter. Sugars, complex organic molecules, and even alcohols exist out there. The mix of stuff that makes up living things seems increasingly likely to have originated in space and fell to Earth.

    Also, it is important to note that there is nothing about amino acids, sugars, organic molecules, etc that violates the laws of chemistry. All such configurations can exist in this universe, so the fact that they do exist is entirely within the rules of the universe.

    Your objection about amino acids existing in living things has no validity.

Comments are closed.