Like this, @Yusa.

Ok

It all has to be that short?

Well, anyways.

@Cobra Commander That experiment doesn't prove anything about life coming from non-life

I genuinely don't see how you aren't getting my point

TLDR knowing why life exists is irrelevant

ultimately true

Wrong, it's everything.

Do you really want me to argue that?

Knowing why life exists is everything

I'm still horrified that Yusa lives in a world where bacteria are running around the size of rats and stuff

An actual nightmare

@Yusa Mee6 deleted my dick because it was too long aswell

Yusamac you haven't been able to explain why that matters, all you've done is asserted it.

@Cobra Commander Alright, so first off, the Miller-Urey experiment uses a few assumptions about earth's early atmosphere. This is very dangerous because earth's ancient atmosphere is not observable, has not been observed by anyone, and is technically not repeatable.

uh yes it is, ice core samples are a thing.

How do you know that those "ice core samples" are from when the world began

the ice core samples contain bubbles. In those bubbles are little samples of astmpospheres, 10, 100, 10,000, 100,000 years ago.

How do you know that they are that old?

Cause we can test them chemically

Radiometric dating

also by the depth from which they are extracted, not unlike tree rings.

Science dosen't lie

@Cobra Commander Radiometric dating is unreliable and is based off of assumptions.

You can also use geological history to infer what the atmosphere was like at a given time

"infer"

No it's not, and I know you're conflating carbon dating as being the entirety of radiometric dating

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Reconstructing_ancient_climates

there's not one single tool or method to any of this. It's a massive collaboration requiring the hard work of scientists of multiple disciplines.

And if you successfully debunked any of it, you would win a Nobel Prize.

Yeah

GG @!.MESSIEH, you just advanced to level 2!

@Cobra Commander All of those methods are based on assumptions and scientists admit that they are not necessarily the truth. Also, people have devoted their lives to debunking it and they have debunked many of the methods used

not to the satisfaction of peer review.

Science adapts to the best standing evidence.

From the second sentence on wikipedia's Radioemtric Decay page: "The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a known constant rate of decay"

I don't think you have any idea about this subject if you think this is debunked.

Alright, so I need to go, but here are my closing arguments:

First, @Puerto Rican Nelson You are wrong. The majority of people actually believe in a God creating the universe. Imagine how much more would be convinced if we had fair media attention. There is so much evidence that evolution is statistically impossible, but we don't get a fair chance to share it.

No they don't

Most dont i whould say