ARCHIVE: Need some expert eyes here

[Jukia]

This is the kind of crap a great many people want taught in science class.

The teacher will get the kids to each bring a jar of peanut butter into class and check if there's anything crawling inside, if not then God wins!

Honestly, can Christians not see the harm in this mis-guided, uninformed waffle that gets broadcast in their name? For the non-theist it's incredibly funny but at the same time very worrying. When you watch these idiots make a fool of themselves (perhaps unwittingly) you realise that these same people are trying to redefine the science curricula.

Many Christians see this as TRUTH! Very sad

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Really? Well, he's making his point as effectively as you're making yours!

Excellent! :up:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That isn't all he is saying. He says something along the lines of "if evolution was viable then we would find new life in jars of peanut butter." This leaves three options:

1) He is ignorant of the theory of evolution.
2) His IQ is in the single digits.
3) He is lying.

Since #1 and #2 are very unlikely, I'd go on record as saying that he is lying. Why would he do this? As I mentioned in my earlier post, he is making $$$ off of the gullible. Just like a televangelist or an informercial salesman selling get rich quick schemes.

Hmmmm....... for atheistic evolution to be true we would in fact need life to come from non-life. (even if just once)

Agree or disagree?

 

[SUTG]

Hmmmm....... for atheistic evolution to be true we would in fact need life to come from non-life. (even if just once)

Either that, or life could have always existed.

You still have to be ignorant, stupid, or dishonest to say things like "if evolution was viable then we would find new life in jars of peanut butter." :idunno:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Either that, or life could have always existed.

Is that really scientifically possible? (without supernatural help of course)

You still have to be ignorant, stupid, or dishonest to say things like "if evolution was viable then we would find new life in jars of peanut butter." :idunno:

It's only a mechanism to make a point.

I probably wouldn't use that example but I still think it is a reasonable way to make a point that even you can't seem to disagree with.

 

[SUTG]

Hmmmm....... for atheistic evolution to be true we would in fact need life to come from non-life. (even if just once)

The same holds true for atheistic rocket science, atheistic physics, and atheistic climatology.

 

[aharvey]

You already know this but..... Misslers video was intended to be a scientific presentation.

Really? Well, he's making his point as effectively as you're making yours!

Excellent! :up:

:dizzy:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The same holds true for atheistic rocket science, atheistic physics, and atheistic climatology.

I used the term "atheistic evolution" to remove the possible obfuscation of someone (not you of course) asserting that theistic evolution wouldn't require such an event.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

:dizzy:

Do you have anything left to add to TOL aharvey or are you completely empty?

 

[SUTG]

Is that really scientifically possible? (without supernatural help of course)

Is what really scientifically possible? That life always existed? That life came from non-life?

It's only a mechanism to make a point.

What exactly is the mechanism? Videotape yourself making ignorant and idiotic statements?

I probably wouldn't use that example but I still think it is a reasonable way to make a point that even you can't seem to disagree with.

Huh? I can't do much of a better job of disagreeing than claiming he is mentally disabled, ignorant, or lying.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Huh? I can't do much of a better job of disagreeing than claiming he is mentally disabled, ignorant, or lying.

Why are you so afraid to simply address the points I am making?

If you are not going to engage me (or anyone else) why even participate on TOL?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I love threads like this.... they quickly remind me of how stupid I was when I was a God hating atheist.

 

[SUTG]

Why are you so afraid to simply address the points I am making?

Can you list them?

Here are mine:

1) When Chuck Missler says ""if evolution was viable then we would find new life in jars of peanut butter" this shows he is lying, ignorant, or has an extraordinarily low IQ.

2) He is lying is the most likely option.

 

[Vision in Verse]

You do agree that life only comes from life, don't you?

You keep saying that. I, for one, believe that life could not have existed 13.7 billion years ago, and I believe that life does exist now. So yes, life must arise from things that are not alive.

Look at living things. Plants. They take in sunlight, water, and minerals (all non-living things) and use them to live. We take dead things in to keep our lives going. We also know that organic molecules can form without life. We know that phospholipids can form without life. The only thing stopping a primordial prokaryotic cell from forming is time. Time + organic molecules + steady input of energy = life, eventually.

 

[Vision in Verse]

I love threads like this.... they quickly remind me of how stupid I was when I was a God hating atheist.

And now you're an atheist hating theist? Is that really a big change?

 

[aharvey]

Is that really scientifically possible? (without supernatural help of course)

It's only a mechanism to make a point.

I probably wouldn't use that example but I still think it is a reasonable way to make a point that even you can't seem to disagree with.

Hmm, so why can't one use that same example to refute the notion that life had a supernatural origin? I'm quite confident that any processes that would have led to abiogenesis would have more trouble generating life spontaneously in a jar of peanut butter than would a supernatural agent that could have created a fully functional universe in a matter of days.

That is, life spontaneously appearing in a jar of peanut butter could not possibly be explained by evolutionary theory, whereas it could easily be explained by the existence of a supernatural creator.

Thus, the absence of spontaneously generated life in a jar of peanut butter could not possibly illustrate anything about evolutionary theory, but if you insist on defending this bonehead example, you should realize that logically it makes a stronger case against supernatural creation than it does evolutionary theory.

 

[fool]

Darwin said God created life.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

1) When Chuck Missler says ""if evolution was viable then we would find new life in jars of peanut butter" this shows he is lying, ignorant, or has an extraordinarily low IQ.

Again, for the 10th time.... it seems to me he is simply making a point that we never ever (no not once) can scientifically demonstrate life coming from non-life (i.e., the presentation at the beginning of the video about only pre-existing life forming in the peanut butter container).

Life only comes from life.

Personally I think a better example would be dead animals but I do get the point about peanut butter as well.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You keep saying that. I, for one, believe that life could not have existed 13.7 billion years ago, and I believe that life does exist now. So yes, life must arise from things that are not alive.

Look at living things. Plants. They take in sunlight, water, and minerals (all non-living things) and use them to live. We take dead things in to keep our lives going. We also know that organic molecules can form without life. We know that phospholipids can form without life. The only thing stopping a primordial prokaryotic cell from forming is time. Time + organic molecules + steady input of energy = life, eventually.

Ugh.

Where to start....

Plants only come from other plants, that is a scientific fact you will just have to deal with it. People and other living creatures only come from other living creatures. While plants and animals use non-living matter to sustain themselves they never arise from non-living matter.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

And now you're an atheist hating theist? Is that really a big change?

Yes. It's an eternal change.

I would call that pretty big.