Actually, Nightfall, Miller-Urey did not produce life and even its claim to simulate the atmosphere of the Early Earth is debatable. Producing a few amino acids is a long way from abiogenesis.
I didnt say it did. If youll observe the question I quoted, it only references the soup . Which I believe is what we see in said experiment, that organic soup . Not life.
Quite right, I was not paying enough attention to the question you quoted. Sorry. The former post has been edited with my apology.
Which means a rainfall of 30 feet per hour. Can you imagine what that kind of rainfall would have done? For forty days?! Were talking erosion the likes of which you and I cant comprehend. Wave bye bye to the face of the planet, because its going away. All of this happened, what? 4500 years ago according to the Bible? So how about some evidence of this massiverainfall rate?
As for the fossil thing, maybe you can expand?
Nightfall, if you're interested in such speculation, try looking into some of the more serious creationist websites. Sounds like you are unaware of any of the theorizing that has been done in that vein. Interestingly, your boiling water idea is not far from creationist theories on the flood. Try the following links.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asphttp://www.icr.org/index.php?module=topicsI don't know what the rate of rainfall might have been, but we certainly believe the landscape was quite completely changed, meaning that the evidence you ask for is the entire crust of the Earth. In fact, a change in landscape may have been as much cause as effect. First of all, it is thought that the mountains of the antedeluvian world were much smaller than today, meaning that the amount of rainfall is much less than you propose. An honest-to-goodness geophysicist, Dr. John Baumgardner,* has done a lot of work in this area, and hypothesizes that the ocean floor subducted very rapidly beneath the continental plate (many creationists accept the idea of Pangea) causing very large faults in the ocean floor. These faults released large amounts of magma, which did indeed cause boiling water, the vapor thereof returning to earth in a forty-day rainfall. Whether that is a good theory or not, I cannot evaluate without more scientific training. He also has theorized that the asteroid blamed for dinosaur extinction may have actually been part of the cause for this "runaway subduction."
For you funny guys out there, yes we all know that subduction leads to orogeny.
More generally, though, creationists believe that the Flood is a much better explanation for the various strata in the Earth's crust and for formations like the Grand Canyon. They point to the rapid changes in the topography around Mt. St. Helens, after its eruption, rapid formation of stalactites and stalagmites and coal deposits, etc. Fossils are very interesting. Before Darwin, it had been believed that fossils were the result of Noah's flood. I also laughed when I first heard that idea, but creation scientists have resurrected it. As fossils only form under certain conditions and the Flood is thought to meet those conditions and explains the vast numbers of fossils, sorted in the order in which various forms of life would be caught up in the flood. From Wikipedia:
Fossilization is actually a rare occurrence because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment such as at the bottom of a lake. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.
*Some will take this as an appeal to authority. Don't bother. I merely point out Baumgardner's credentials because some have the mistaken impression that all creationists are anti-scientific neanderthals dragging their Bibles around on the ground with their long arms, and meeting in their little churches to escape the "overwhelming evidence" that somehow makes evolution such an obvious conclusion for everyone else.
