ARCHIVE: Need some expert eyes here

[Nathon Detroit]

Harv, I know you had a point in starting this thread. But it is now clear that there are actually people (and administrators) on this board who view those videos as exemplifying good science. I’ll bet if you found some videos even more silly, they would embrace them equally as good science.

I really feel for their kids, the ones they choose to home-school. They actually present the kind of mind-numbing idiocy in those videos as good science to their kids.

Hey retard... have you read any of my posts????

I said the EXACT opposite!!

You prove over and over again that you are not willing to discuss any issue without blindly plowing through the discussion, not even attempting to understand what other people might actually be saying.

You guys are wasting all of our time! If you can't even discuss the issues with me your value on TOL is completely diminished.

 

[Johnny]

Did you really decide to persue Biology to disprove evolution?

Haha, not for that reason alone. I loved the subject throughout high school. I really did think I would graduate and maybe write some books some day.

 

[fool]

I really feel for their kids, the ones they choose to home-school. They actually present the kind of mind-numbing idiocy in those videos as good science to their kids.

Tragic.

 

[fool]

I was one of those kids -- homeschooled for three years, then a private Christian fundamentalist high school for four. Graduated a hardcore creationist and went off to get a degree in Biology so I could show all those evil evolutionists and see the absurdity of their lies and deceit.

By the time I finished general bio 1&2, I had come to the realization that I had essentially been defrauded and lied to most of my life.

That sucks, but just as an exercise you could write the great ID theory that dosen't smell fowl and sell the daylights out of it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Note to all you *atheist wackos (on this thread)..... you guys participate at the pleasure of me. Get it?

If you are going to misrepresent, lie and otherwise ignore what I am posting to you, then you are essentially nothing more than a "time waster" and unnecessary drain of database and bandwidth.

I did not create TOL for you to simply blab your garbage and ignore what others say to you and then even worse to misrepresent what others are saying to you. I would have no problem at all banning all of you and bringing in a new set of atheists that might be a bit more interested in honest dialog.

* Excluding fool who actually seemed like he was willing to ponder what I was saying to him.

 

[SUTG]

Haha, not for that reason alone. I loved the subject throughout high school. I really did think I would graduate and maybe write some books some day.

Er, uh, you are still going to graduate, right? :chuckle:

 

[Johnny]

Er, uh, you are still going to graduate, right?

Haha, excuse my poor sentence structure (perhaps now you see why I didn't become a writer). I DID graduate in 2005

But enough thread-jacking. Back on topic!

 

[SUTG]

Note to all you *atheist wackos (on this thread)..... you guys participate at the pleasure of me. Get it?

If you are going to misrepresent, lie and otherwise ignore what I am posting to you, then you are essentially nothing more than a "time waster" and unnecessary drain of database and bandwidth.

I did not create TOL for you to simply blab your garbage and ignore what others say to you and then even worse to misrepresent what others are saying to you. I would have no problem at all banning all of you and bringing in a new set of atheists that might be a bit more interested in honest dialog.

* Excluding fool who actually seemed like he was willing to ponder what I was saying to him.

I asked you to list your point(s) but you never did.

I'm saying that once someone say something as fantastically idiotic as "if evolution was viable then we would find new life in jars of peanut butter" they have removed all credibility.

I almost felt as if I was reading something in The Onion.

 

[fool]

Right!
Peanut butter.
We don't know under what conditions that ambiogenisis does occur.
And if we did know of an example we would be remiss to say that that was the only possibility.
So, it's not impossible that new life could occur in a jar of pasturized peanut butter.
But like the video says, a couple billion tries (jars) later no life.
So the peanut butter theory, though it may be the key, is likely to fall out of the spotlight on the stage of academia (much as the clay crystal theory).

 

[Vision in Verse]

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!

That's funny. On that very page it says "It is generally accepted that the first living cells were some form of prokaryote and may have developed out of protobionts. Fossilized prokaryotes approximately 3.5 billion years old have been discovered, and prokaryotes are perhaps the most successful and abundant organism even today."
"Protobionts are organisms that are controversially considered to have possibly been the precursors to prokaryotic cells. Protobionts can form by self assembly: The properties of life emerge from an interaction of molecules organized into higher levels of order. Living cells may have been preceded by protobionts, aggregates of abiotically produced molecules. protobionts are not capable of precise reproduction, but they maintain an internal chemical environment different from their surroundings and exhibit some of the properties associated with life, including metabolism and excitability. Lab experiments demonstrate that protobionts could have formed spontaneously from abiotically produced organic compounds. For example, droplets called liposomes form when the organic ingredients include certain lipids. These lipids organize into a molecular bilayer at the surface of the droplet, much like the lipid bilayer of cell membranes. Because the membrane is selectively permeable, the liposomes undergo osmotic swelling or shrinking when placed in solutions of different salt concentrations."

There is no such thing as chance, I believe in causality.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I asked you to list your point(s) but you never did.

I'm saying that once someone say something as fantastically idiotic as "if evolution was viable then we would find new life in jars of peanut butter" they have removed all credibility.

I almost felt as if I was reading something in The Onion.

Dude... how dumb are you???

Chuck Missler isn't giving a lesson on science. :duh:

He is simply trying to explain a often misunderstood point (just ask Real Sorcerer) that life only comes from life. I think all of you are intentionally missing the point of the first video so that you can demonize creationism.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That's funny. On that very page it says "It is generally accepted that the first living cells were some form of prokaryote and may have developed out of protobionts. Fossilized prokaryotes approximately 3.5 billion years old have been discovered, and prokaryotes are perhaps the most successful and abundant organism even today."
"Protobionts are organisms that are controversially considered to have possibly been the precursors to prokaryotic cells. Protobionts can form by self assembly: The properties of life emerge from an interaction of molecules organized into higher levels of order. Living cells may have been preceded by protobionts, aggregates of abiotically produced molecules. protobionts are not capable of precise reproduction, but they maintain an internal chemical environment different from their surroundings and exhibit some of the properties associated with life, including metabolism and excitability. Lab experiments demonstrate that protobionts could have formed spontaneously from abiotically produced organic compounds. For example, droplets called liposomes form when the organic ingredients include certain lipids. These lipids organize into a molecular bilayer at the surface of the droplet, much like the lipid bilayer of cell membranes. Because the membrane is selectively permeable, the liposomes undergo osmotic swelling or shrinking when placed in solutions of different salt concentrations."

There is no such thing as chance, I believe in causality.

"Protobionts are organisms that are controversially considered to have possibly been the precursors to prokaryotic cells" in other words these represent the WAG of the GAP. (if you need me to explain that to you let me know).

 

[GuySmiley]

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.

So you believe that given enough time, and an input of energy, abiogenesis would eventually have to happen in the jar of peanut butter?

 

[GuySmiley]

Better to leave it unknown than to start a belief system based on what I don't know.

said the atheist . . .

 

[fool]

in other words these represent the WAG of the GAP. (if you need me to explain that to you let me know).

I do.

 

[fool]

said the atheist . . .

I'm not done with that book yet.

 

[Johnny]

Chuck Missler isn't giving a lesson on science.

Well, to me, the statement that we perform "over a billion experiments every year" that prove evolution doesn't happen is at the very minimum making a statement about a scientific theory. Whether or not this constitutes a science lesson I guess depends on your definition of a lesson. In any case, science lesson or not, the statement is false and misleading.

"You and I conduct, collectively, over a billion experiments every year, and we've done that for virtually a hundred years, and we never encounter new life. In fact, the entire food industry depends on the fact that evolution doesn't happen."
​

This sentence is also false and misleading.

"If the theory of evolution was viable, then I should, occasionally, by subjecting this [peanut butter jar] to energy, end up having new life"
​

The whole analogy is misleading and a terrible example of reasoning. Rewording it a bit but keeping the same example, we could say that the entire food industry disproves creation. Imagine if he said this, "If the theory of creation was viable, then I should, occasionally, by waiting and watching this peanut butter jar, end up having new life". Imagine that he then pointed to the fact that we never find new life in a peanut butter jar as evidence that creation never happens. If that video were put out as educational, wouldn't you call it misleading?

 

[GuySmiley]

Could we just get a vote?

Which of you atheists don't like the video because life could spontaneously arive in a jar of peanut butter?
Vision in Verse (I'll spare you from having to respond)

Which of you atheists don't like the video because life could never arrive in the peanut butter, therefore the creationist is misrepresenting your position?

 

[Johnny]

Which of you atheists don't like the video because life could never arrive in the peanut butter, therefore the creationist is misrepresenting your position?

Not an atheist, but I'm sure you mean evolutionist here. The creationist is misrepresenting my position.

 

[Woodbine]

I don't like the video because its begins....

Evolution teaches that energy such as lightning or heat plus matter can, occasionally, create new life....

Evolution "teaches" no such thing. The theory of evolution describes the development of life....not its origin. The theory of evolution could not care less about where life came from or why. The field dealing with hypothesis' of how life may have originated is called Abiogenesis. But, as usual, this is deliberately and conveniently brushed aside. It is, after all, much easier to build a straw man to attack evolutionary theory (you know, the one that teaches your kids that their great-grandaddy was a monkey) rather than present an honest argument.

I do like the video because it's fairly hilarious.