ARCHIVE: Need some expert eyes here

[Vision in Verse]

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.

What about primordial prokaryotic cells? Do they "only" come from primordial prokaryotic cells?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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.

I don't get it.

Your point is only going to appeal to numbskull's who aren't really trying to understand it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Do they "only" come from primordial prokaryotic cells?

According to science... yes.

Just look at one, you really think things form by chance????

If you have found otherwise you should share your data with the scientific community ASAP!!! Surely you will win top honors!

 

[fool]

Atheistic evolution says life comes from non-life.
How?
Valid question.
Don't know.

Much like looking at a Roman arch, you can see how it works once it's there, but how did it get there? The sides would fall in way before the keystone could be put in place.

The Theist with the God of the gaps bend would say God did it.
Until you show them a drawing of one being built with a scaffold.

So, where is this scaffold of life?
What does it look like?
What does it build?
Don't know.
If we find it will you stop believing in Yaweh?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The Theist with the God of the gaps bend would say God did it.
Until you show them a drawing of one being built with a scaffold.

Actually, the theistic interpretation would be that men built the arch.

Let me explain....
Theists don't claim that God made the peanut butter, instead they claim that God made the life (if any exists) that forms in the peanut butter if you expose it to mold or flies or whatever.

And why?

Because scientifically there is no alternative. Science fills gaps.

So, where is this scaffold of life?
What does it look like?
What does it build?
Don't know.
If we find it will you stop believing in Yaweh?

If we never find it will you start believing? :think:

 

[aharvey]

I don't get it.

Your point is only going to appeal to numbskull's who aren't really trying to understand it.

Hmm, you can't really say sentence 2 after sentence 1, now can you? That is, how can you summarily dismiss a point that you don't get? Oh, wait, I forgot who I'm talking to; I guess that was a rhetorical question.

But I don't really believe you can't grasp this concept. It's not that hard. Evolutionary theory would never ever predict the spontaneous generation of life in an ordinary jar of peanut butter. You do understand that sentence, don't you?

Therefore, the fact that Chuck never finds spontaneously generated life in jars of peanut butter is entirely consistent with evolutionary theory, which (in case you've forgotten already) would never predict spontaneous generation of life in a jar of peanut butter. Still with me?

Therefore, using the lack of an event to illustrate the foolishness of a theory that would never predict such an event is itself rather foolish. Got that?

And furthermore, while no evolutionary mechanism could yield spontaneously generating life in a jar of peanut butter, I'm sure you would agree that it would be simplicity itself for an omnicompetent supernatural creator to create new life in a jar of peanut butter. And yet, as Chuck himself observes, never once has that happened. :think:

So if you are going to use the lack of an event to cast doubt on a mechanism, Knight old bean, you can really only use it to cast doubt on a mechanism that could conceivably cause said event. Right? Oops! But that's not evolutionary theory! It's that other one. You still think the lack of spontaneous life in a jar of peanut butter illustrates anything of use?

 

[Real Sorceror]

Because scientifically there is no alternative. Science fills gaps.

And here I thought it was superstition and religion that is used to explain things that man doesn't understand. Boy am I stupid.

 

[mighty_duck]

The Theist with the God of the gaps bend would say God did it.
Until you show them a drawing of one being built with a scaffold.

At which point they will say God made the scaffold.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

And here I thought it was superstition and religion that is used to explain things that man doesn't understand. Boy am I stupid.

See... there is hope for you yet.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

At which point they will say God made the scaffold.

No silly! God made the men which in turn made the scaffold.

When I see a abandoned campfire in the woods.... I think to myself.... a person or person(s) made this fire. :think:

I don't say.... God made that campfire.

I assume you think the same thing right? Or do you assume that the campfire formed by chance?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

But I don't really believe you can't grasp this concept. It's not that hard. Evolutionary theory would never ever predict the spontaneous generation of life in an ordinary jar of peanut butter. You do understand that sentence, don't you?

Why not?

For sake of argument.... why not????

If life could form by chance under far less likely conditions i.e., a earth with ZERO living creatures on it.... why couldn't life form on a jar of peanut butter by chance?

YES or NO.... Do you believe that it is scientifically impossible that life could form by chance in a jar of peanut butter? And if so.... why?

 

[fool]

If we never find it will you start believing? :think:

No.
If I did that I would be grounding my belief in an argument from ignorance.
Poor thing to ground a belief in.
It would remain unknown.
Better to leave it unknown than to start a belief system based on what I don't know.

 

[Woodbine]

Is this another thread confusing evolution with origins? Why, yes it is.

 

[fool]

YES or NO.... Do you believe that it is scientifically impossible that life could form by chance in a jar of peanut butter? And if so.... why?

No.

 

[Real Sorceror]

YES or NO.... Do you believe that it is scientifically impossible that life could form by chance in a jar of peanut butter? And if so.... why?

Is the the jar open or closed? And more importantly, is the peanut butter ever exposed to other elements?
If you answer yes to the second question, then yes, there is a chance, however miniscule, that life could form. However, if and when that occurs, the butter and jar would no longer be recognizable as peanut butter, as they would have biodegraded.
If, however, the peanut butter is kept in a sterile, controlled environment, then I say 'no'.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Is this another thread confusing evolution with origins? Why, yes it is.

Happens all the time. Often with the same people making the same mistakes.

 

[SUTG]

Happens all the time. Often with the same people making the same mistakes.

If, indeed, they are mistakes. Alot of creationists (bob b, Chuck Missler, etc.) know that the theory does not address this, but they keep making the same "mistake".

 

[zoo22]

Er, has anyone ever seen a wild banana? The "domesticated" bananas that we are used to (like the perfect banana shown in the Kirk Cameron video) come from many, many years of farming and selective breeding. Yes, it's intelligent design. By humans. A wild banana is absolutely different. It's closer to round than long. And is small. And has large seeds. It is tough and starchy. And it is difficult to open. And is pretty difficult to eat.

However, no life (that we can see) in a jar of peanut butter seems debunkable.

Related, peanutbutter and banana sandwiches are delicious. (IMO, of course).

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No.
If I did that I would be grounding my belief in an argument from ignorance.
Poor thing to ground a belief in.

Then why are you doing that now? :idunno:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Is this another thread confusing evolution with origins? Why, yes it is.

Is this another waste of a post? Why, yes it is.