Modern day Primordial Soup?
This is a picture of the Grand Prismatic Spring, which is located in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming.
Ever heard the question: If evolution is true, why are there not any living examples today? Here we have the perfect set up for life to form, evolve, and walk out of the water. Bacteria already exists here, and thrive. But, there is no life beyond the bacteria living there. This spring is the perfect example of most of the conditions for early earth. But yet it is limited to supporting only a certain type of life. Where are the mutations required for bacteria to change into higher life forms? Evolution would have us believe the evolution is as easy as baking a cake. Evolution would also have us believe that mutations go on even today. But I see nothing emerging from the spring.
Primordial soup is basically where evolutionists claim, through abiogenesis, that life formed and emerged. The Stanley Miller experiment was supposed to be a modern experiment that supported the view of the building blocks of life being formed, then evolving to higher life forms. But even Miller ran into problems making his experiment work. These problems are never talked about in scientific circles, nor are they mentioned in any school text books. Why? Evolution, and abiogenesis that started it, has had so many holes shot into it. That to raise more doubt through reporting all the evidence, would make people realize that it may not be true. Explaining the evolution theory has become more of a selling technique. Like a used car sells man who refuses to tell you all the problems of the car he is fixing to sell you. Evolution works very much in the same way. Sell the idea, just don't mention all the problems involved.
The Stanley Miller experiment: I'm going to leave a few links as examples of how science will leave out important information about certain aspects of the Stanley Miller experiment. First I will leave a link that goes to another section of this site that explains all these problems. Then I will leave links to other sites that like to not mention these problems as a means to sell the theory, by not revealing the whole truth about it.
Problems with Stanley Miller experiment. Next are links from sites promoting this experiment as evidence. Notice the sells pitch, and denial that any problem is not really that great, and is basically overcomable (easy as baking a cake). Also notice that most pictures, of the actual experiment, exclude the part where Miller had to filter out the toxic material that was made along with the building blocks of life.
http://www.answers.com/topic/miller-urey-experiment
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html
Here is a movie in mpg, where Miller is actually explaining his experiment. Notice, as you watch the movie, how Miller never discusses the problems involved, and never shows the cheat he used to filter off the toxic parts of the results of this experiment.
http://www.ucsd.tv/miller-urey/miller1.mpg
Let's ponder something..... How would you feel if I sold you a car that has a blown head gasket. That you had to replace at an expense of 1000 dollars? In fact, I implied there was nothing wrong with the car, even though I never actually said it. You took me at my word, in what I hid from you. And now your spending even more money, because the truth came out. Do you think you were deceived, or that it was ok, and all cars should be sold that way?
This is how science works on a lot of evidence, or experiments where evolution is involved. In fact, it's a crying shame that scientists from other fields, don't stand up to what is smearing the name of science. But then again, everytime someone has tried to stand up to evolutionists, they were considered frauds from that point forward. Their careers ruined, and their name smeared. Some have even gone as far as to go after other family members, and smear them as well. Covering for a lie is a full time job. And some people take it to seriously.
