What Universe do you live in?
The Universe that I live in, is almost nothing but H2 (Hydrogen) with some other atoms and molecules derived from those Hydrogen atoms due to nuclear reactions.
NH3, CH3 and H2 are the most common molecules in the Universe that I live in.
I give up, what are you talking about?
If you're going to just copy and paste material from a creationist website (with minor changes to conceal the source, like dropping "Strobel discovered" and changing molecular names to molecular formulas) instead of using your own words, it's considered plagiarism if you don't cite the source.
Freepers are invited to compare Leonine's passage above with:
But in the 1980s, NASA scientists proved "that the primitive earth never had any ammonia, methane, or hydrogen," Strobel discovered. Instead, NASA found it was composed of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. And as one scientist put it, "you absolutely cannot get the same experimental results with that mixture."And you even managed to mess up one of the formulas -- methane is CH4, not CH3. CH3 is ethane.
-- from "Pre-biotic Soup"?: The Case for Faith
Meanwhile, let's compare the website's version with Strobel's original:
"From 1980 on, NASA scientists have shown that the primitive earth never had any methane, ammonia, or hydrogen to amount to anything," he said. "Instead, it was composed of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen--and you absolutely cannot get the same experimental results with that mixture.Note how the creationist website changed "never had any...to amount to anything", into "never had any...". The original admits the existence of those compounds but implies that there weren't enough to matter, whereas the website (and Leonine's plagiarization of it) alters that to "never had any" at all, period. That's a significant and misleading difference.
-- from "The Case for Faith" by Lee Stobel, pp. 300
Also note that it carefully removed any reference to who was speaking and reduces him to an anonymous "one scientist". That was probably wise (albeit not very honest), because the speaker was Walter L. Bradley, who is not (as the altered passage tries to imply) either a "NASA scientist" or a respected organic chemist stating mainstream knowledge in his field. He is instead a creationist MECHANICAL ENGINEER. Organic and environmental chemistry is *way* out of his field.
In fact, I often amuse myself by tracking down the credentials of the various folks that creationists put forth as "experts" supporting their beliefs. About nine times out of ten it's either someone with no relevant background whatsoever (like a lawyer turned "science expert") or someone in a technical field working outside of their field of expertise (like say a mechanical engineer dabbling in organic chemistry, *cough*). Even the creationist sources seem to realize what a stretch this is, and often go to ludicrous lengths to try to explain why their out-of-field "experts" are actually appropriate authorities on the subject at hand. For example, one creationist website makes this claim about Bradley: "His work in polymer science gives him a background suitable to address origin of life questions." Ooookay.... Whatever you say, guys.
Evolutionary science, on the other hand, most often relies on primary sources, consisting of scientists working within their own field of expertise.
This of course doesn't mean that laymen or people working outside their field can't properly understand something in another field. But one has to wonder why creationist writers so often seem to rely almost *exclusively* only such "amateurs". And it doesn't inspire confidence when their hand-picked "experts" so often get even the easy stuff dead wrong. Bradley, for example, just two paragraphs before the above quoted passage, makes the following howler: "Oparin was smart enough to know that if you start with inert gases like nitrogen and carbon dioxide, they won't react." ROFL! Neither nitrogen nor carbon dioxide are "inert" gases. Carbon dioxide undergoes decomposition under a variety of conditions present locally on the prebiotic Earth, including high temperatures or high pressures (e.g. volcanoes), electrolysis (lightning, cosmic rays), ferrite mediated reactions (present in tidal pools), etc. Nitrogen likewise undergoes decomposition under various conditions, including alkaline ferrite reactions (again, prebiotic tidal pools) which results in the production of ammonia (!). Hey, I thought Mr. Creationist Expert Bradley claimed that there *was* no ammonia on "primitive Earth"?
Hmm, I guess that's what happens when you rely on a mechanical engineer to do an organic chemist's job... But then, the mechanical engineer gave the (incorrect) answers that the creationist writer was looking for, so I suppose that's what really matters.
And yet many textbooks still reference the Miller (nee Soviet) experiment--sounds like an agenda.
"Soviet"? What are you smoking? Harold Urey was born in Walkerton, Indiana, and was third-generation American.
As for textbooks referencing the Urey-Miller experiment, of course they do. It was a seminal experiment in organic chemistry, and proved for the first time that complex organic molecules could be formed by simple processes acting on basic inorganic compounds. At the time this was an enormous surprise and an eye-opening discovery. Prior to that it was thought that only the mechanisms of life could synthesis such compounds. The reviewer at the first science journal the paper was submitted to simply set it aside and ignored it, since he considered it too preposterous to be true. The findings of the Urey-Miller experiment revolutionized the understanding of organic synthesis and led to countless subsequent experiments and discoveries, and as such deserves to be covered in textbooks just as the Wright brothers' first short flight is covered in textbooks on aeronautics, and for exactly the same reason -- they proved what was possible and consequently created new fields of study, no matter how humble the beginnings or how modest the results compared to further developments (like jet fighters, etc.)
Creationists like to imply (or actually are misinformed enough to believe) that all abiogenetic research still relies on only the Urey-Miller experiment, but this is poppycock. Although Urey-Miller's original "soup" was likely not representative of Earth's actual early atmosphere, countless further developments have been made in the last 50 years advancing the field, which creationists seem blissfully unaware of (or unwilling to address). Instead, they just keep pounding on their straw man of "the 1953 Urey-Miller experiment didn't completely reproduce Earth's early atmosphere, therefore the entire field of abiogenesis relies on a lie and is bunk, so there, those evolutionists are so stupid, what's wrong with them". It's like trying to discredit McDonnell-Douglas engineers by harping on how inappropriate the Wright brothers' wood-and-fabric flier would be at Mach 2.5 (F-15 speeds).
Nice try, but no cigar.
For a taste of how the field has progressed since Urey-Miller half a century ago, check out for example On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells, or any of its five pages of references, or The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front.