Miller/Urey Experiment          Now, there is something else you need to know before we go on with this story. There is something Charles Thaxton calls the Swiss Cheese effect, which is an analogy used to describe the problems with communication and research between the different scientific disciplines. Imagine you are a little mouse wondering throughout a huge piece of Swiss cheese. Now, all around you there are holes in the cheese (holes in your evolution theory, if you will). In your own field, say chemistry, you can see the problems that chemistry has in proving evolution. But if you were to pop up your head out of the top of the Swiss cheese you would see across what appears to be a smooth surface. If you see another mouse pop up its head (a scientific expert from another field) and he says, "Sure, evolution is real. It really happened, I have proof," and another little mouse somewhere else in the cheese says the same thing, then the first little mouse has enormouse pressure to find this basic "truth" in his own little world. So looking for the truth and documenting the true evidence becomes a lost cause, and proving evolution becomes the goal. The thing is this first little mouse will say we all evolved from simpler life forms, just to keep in the "in crowd", but all the other mice look at the chemist and say, "Well if the chemist says it's true, then I must have been right too." You see, a scientist in one field usually can't see the problems with evolution theory in the other scientific disciplines, so they all have to rely on each other's opinions (or research if you choose to call it that). And everyone is saying it's true, so everyone continues to say it's true, knowing they all have problems in their own fields. But, if somebody says it's not real, then that little mouse gets kicked out of the block of cheese to fend for himself.

          Continuing, only another chemist would be able to spot the problems with the Miller/Urey experiment, and who is going to challenge the "scientific method"? Well, this experiment really has nothing to do with science; it is merely a scientific attempt to prove what atheistic scientists want to believe, so they can continue getting paid. Here are the problems discovered by other chemists who don't have to worry about getting fired nor are they indoctrinated in the world view of atheists:

Oxygen was deliberately excluded from the experiment. No one can know for certain that oxygen was absent on earth 4.5 billion years ago, but this was a necessary assumption for the experiment to work. You see, oxygen is an oxidizer (duh), which means oxygen breaks down these amino acids formed in the experiment. So, in order for the experiment to work oxygen had to be excluded for evolution to be given credence. We have about 21% O2 in our atmosphere now, and only 1% concentration would be enough to kill Miller and Urey's experiment. Besides, it's rather difficult to have water molecules forming if there is no oxygen to begin with. There two major types of amino acids, or enantiomorphs. There are D-type amino acids and L-types. The amino acids created in this experiment are isolated, random concentrations of both types. In nature these amino acids would be neither concentrated nor isolated to themselves. They would be of a proportional quantity as the L-types found right along side them. It is interesting to note that the D-type amino acid is not found in the human body.

Other sites: Evolution of Truth Leadership U Creation Mythology