ARCHIVE: Need some expert eyes here

[Woodbine]

Back to the peanut butter. I'm now trying to tackle Knight's "making a mountain out of a molehill" problem. But instead of a molehill, I'm using peanut butter (I couldn't find a molehill). This is a very hands-on experiment.

Be careful. Could lead to family break-down if you've ever seen Close Encounters.

 

[Johnny]

Johnny.... that is the most lame argument and I have already addressed it earlier on this thread but lets put it to bed shall we? (I realize you probably use it at parties and sound really smart in front of your friends)

Irrelevant insult defense.

Lets see if you can follow this simple set of statements....

- God is SUPERnatural (i.e., He is above/outside the natural laws).
- God is logical (i.e., He is not outside of logic).

I don't know of anyone who claims that God is outside of logic. I know I certainly don't.

Therefore your objection fails before it begins.

With all due respect, I think you need to re-read my post. My argument hinges on the fact that you believe God is logical and cannot act in illogical ways.

Let's cut away everything and make it really simple:

Questions for Knight:
(1) Can God violate inductive laws?
(2) Does God act in a logical manner?
(3) If your answer was "yes" to both of the above, then is it fair to conclude that inductive laws are not absolute laws of logic?
(4) Is the law of biogenesis an inductive argument?

This should help me identify where you disagree with me.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

We are not talking about a simple puddle of water, we're talking about the entire Earth.

:rotfl:

You do realize that proximity matters?

That life can come from non-life is a very unsupportable theory. Even Atheist Nobel prize winners like Dr. Crick (for DNA) completely rejected it. The burden of proof is clearly on someone trying to argue for it. Why should we believe it anymore than believing aliens left life here?

Statistically, it is impossible.

 

[zoo22]

Be careful. Could lead to family break-down if you've ever seen Close Encounters.

:sigh:

Tell me about it.

But damnit, Woodbine, this is SCIENCE, man!

 

[Stripe]

:mock:kame

 

[GuySmiley]

Science is not a fool-proof method of getting capital T Truth. It is incomplete. We are not talking about a simple puddle of water, we're talking about the entire Earth.

Sounds like Noah's flood!

 

[zoo22]

By the way, has anyone checked out this video, from another thread? (pertinent info about 2.5 minutes in).

Doesn't take a scientist to realize these experiments belong together!

Okay, maybe it does. ...So trust me.

(And thanks to Woodbine for the link!)

 

[Vision in Verse]

You do realize that proximity matters?
That life can come from non-life is a very unsupportable theory. Even Atheist Nobel prize winners like Dr. Crick (for DNA) completely rejected it. The burden of proof is clearly on someone trying to argue for it. Why should we believe it anymore than believing aliens left life here? Statistically, it is impossible.

Okay. You seem like you want to discuss it. Tell me, is the idea that life originated from the supernatural an assumption or not? Is the idea that life originated from non-life an assumption or not?

 

[PKevman]

Okay.

O.K.

You seem like you want to discuss it. Tell me, is the idea that life originated from the supernatural an assumption or not?

I know this question wasn't for me, but can I answer? The answer is NOT.

Is the idea that life originated from non-life an assumption or not?

Not-the question is flawed. We don't believe life originated from non-life. We serve the LIVING God. The LIVING God created more life.

 

[Vision in Verse]

I know this question wasn't for me, but can I answer?

Of course! All are welcome.

The answer is NOT.

Ok. How do you define an assumption?

Not-the question is flawed. We don't believe life originated from non-life. We serve the LIVING God. The LIVING God created more life.

Is God Supernatural?

 

[SUTG]

In both threads, SUTG is in the "'I don't know' bucket." Or maybe he doesn't want to know. :think:

I am definitely in the "I don't know bucket", and I'd put you and Knight in the same bucket, even though you would deny it yourselves.

I also do want to know, but wouldn't include you guys in that bucket. :chuckle:

Now that you are (hopefully) aware of the law of biogenesis, do you accept it as valid?

Depends on how you phrase the law and what you beleive it means. Wikipedia says "They showed that life does not spontaneously arise in its present forms from non-life in nature." Well, I don't believe that life in its present forms spontaneously arises from non-life, so I guess I can agree with that. (as do almost all evolutionists)

If I remember correctly, Pasteur left out some old meat testing whether maggots formed and discovered they did not. If your version of logic allows you to conclude"life only comes from life" from this, than I can design an experiment to 'prove' almost anything.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Okay. You seem like you want to discuss it. Tell me, is the idea that life originated from the supernatural an assumption or not? Is the idea that life originated from non-life an assumption or not?

Two different questions ... supernatural or from non-life?

I would say that both are posited, but only one is workable, though not calculatable. Neither are proven in the scientific lexicon.

Now, instead of changing the subject because it is uncomfortable, would you care to go back and address what I was speaking about?

 

[Vision in Verse]

Two different questions ... supernatural or from non-life?
I would say that both are posited, but only one is workable, though not calculatable. Neither are proven in the scientific lexicon.

What can really be "proven?" I learned that theories can only be supported by evidence, but never proven. Which one one is workable and why?

Now, instead of changing the subject because it is uncomfortable, would you care to go back and address what I was speaking about?

Oh.. I'm sure we'll get there. I stress that a certain continuity is imperative for the argument to be understood correctly.

"You do realize that proximity matters?
That life can come from non-life is a very unsupportable theory. Even Atheist Nobel prize winners like Dr. Crick (for DNA) completely rejected it. The burden of proof is clearly on someone trying to argue for it. Why should we believe it anymore than believing aliens left life here? Statistically, it is impossible." I'll keep this here for the sake of easier access.

 

[Skeptic]

I think the first video (the Chuck Missler video) makes a good point don't you?

It's kind of like saying that, since placing pieces of quartz and other minerals in a jar and shaking the mixture has never produced granite, therefore granite could never have been formed out of quartz and other minerals.

You do agree that life only comes from life right?

Since there is plenty of scientific research being conducted in this area, it would be entirely premature and irrational to conclude that life could never come from nonlife.

Are you certain that life cannot come from nonlife? If so, what is the empirical basis of your certainty?

Simply because we have never observed it does not mean that it could not happen under the right circumstances. ... Most scientists would agree that those circumstances are unlikely to ever be found in a jar of peanut butter.

 

[Greentree777]

I noticed that apart from the vitriolic reaction to the peanut butter argument, nobody could refute it. The banana one was hopefully meant to be amusing but missed its mark and didnt really make its point - it was more embarrasing than anything else and was illogical

 

[zoo22]

I noticed that apart from the vitriolic reaction to the peanut butter argument, nobody could refute it. The banana one was hopefully meant to be amusing but missed its mark and didn't really make its point - it was more embarrassing than anything else and was illogical

Although it is absurd, the banana video is meant to be serious. It's not a joke. It's from a pro-creationist video by Kirk Cameron. And btw, it wasn't only illogical, it was outright wrong; deceptive (or uninformed) as to the history of banana as we know it.

IMO, the peanut butter jar "experiment" idea is silly enough that it's not even worth discussing, although for the sake of science, I'm giving it my very best shot.

Frankly, I'm exhausted from it, it's wearing me down ... And in all honesty, the best I've been able to come up with is a serious appetite for peanut butter.

I've eaten at least 20 PB sandwiches since the inception of this thread, no kidding. This is no joke. I have peanut butter on my mind a good part of every waking day. I may go have one right now as a matter of fact. I've eaten it on English muffins, on whole grain bread, on potato bread (good, btw), on white bread, with honey, bananas, with jellies, jams... For the past two days I've been eating it with apricot jam, which is pretty good. Not overly sweet, unless you use too much.

I've learned a lot.

As far as it being an "experiment" to disprove evolution, I think most would agree it's silly.

But we might as well have some fun and enjoy life, have a good laugh, enjoy something as simple and wonderful as a peanut butter. For that, I thank Missler.

He's brought some joy to my life, and put a smile on my face.

A smile smeared with peanut butter.

 

[DoogieTalons]

PB on toast is my favourite, thick crunchy peanut butter melting over hot toast. Hmmmm

 

[zoo22]

Yeah for sure on toast, melting; very, very good. But I will say that through this journey, I've discovered that while I don't usually eat white bread, PB on white bread *untoasted* is pretty good. ...Also toasted though, yeah, very good... PB melting over toast.

 

[fool]

I noticed that apart from the vitriolic reaction to the peanut butter argument, nobody could refute it.

I refuted it.

 

[Vision in Verse]

What can really be "proven?" I learned that theories can only be supported by evidence, but never proven. Which one one is workable and why?
Oh.. I'm sure we'll get there. I stress that a certain continuity is imperative for the argument to be understood correctly.

"You do realize that proximity matters?
That life can come from non-life is a very unsupportable theory. Even Atheist Nobel prize winners like Dr. Crick (for DNA) completely rejected it. The burden of proof is clearly on someone trying to argue for it. Why should we believe it anymore than believing aliens left life here? Statistically, it is impossible." I'll keep this here for the sake of easier access.

Let's not forget.