ARCHIVE: Need some expert eyes here

[GuySmiley]

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

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.

So are you in the 'life could be created in a jar of peanut butter' category with ViV?

 

[bob b]

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

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.

At least you have a sense of humor left. Most evolutionists don't, particularly when their religion is mocked.

And yes, I consider it disingenuous of evolutionists to claim that "The theory of evolution could not care less about where life came from or why."

This is simply not true, and no amount of vehement denial will ever make it true.

 

[Johnny]

And yes, I consider it disingenuous of evolutionists to claim that "The theory of evolution could not care less about where life came from or why."

This is simply not true, and no amount of vehement denial will ever make it true.

Unless you can tell me which part of the theory of evolution makes any statement regarding the origin of first life, I'm going to have to call you disingenuous. So, the ball is in your court. Show me that I'm wrong. I will acknowledge my error. But first, you'll have to show me. I'd prefer a biology book of some sort. Again, the challenge is for you to show me which part of the theory of evolution makes any statement regarding the origin of first life or tell me why the validity or veracity of the postulations and implications of the theory hinge on the mechanism behind first life. Unless you can do this, you are wrong and dishonest to claim it so.

 

[fool]

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?

I don't like the video cause peanut butter sticks to the roof of my mouth and makes my bread soggy and smells when I leave it open in a hot car while I'm trollin the beach for chicks.

 

[GuySmiley]

I don't like the video cause peanut butter sticks to the roof of my mouth and makes my bread soggy and smells when I leave it open in a hot car while I'm trollin the beach for chicks.

Hmmm . . . that's actually a step closer to the hypothetical conditions of the early earth though . . . Could abiogenesis occur in your mouth?

 

[bob b]

Unless you can tell me which part of the theory of evolution makes any statement regarding the origin of first life, I'm going to have to call you disingenuous. So, the ball is in your court. Show me that I'm wrong. I will acknowledge my error. But first, you'll have to show me. I'd prefer a biology book of some sort. Again, the challenge is for you to show me which part of the theory of evolution makes any statement regarding the origin of first life or tell me why the validity or veracity of the postulations and implications of the theory hinge on the mechanism behind first life. Unless you can do this, you are wrong and dishonest to claim it so.

It wouldn't matter if I did find what you are suggesting is necessary, because if I did then you would simply say that this person did not understand evolution.

The reason I said what I did is because first life being generated "naturally" is a necessary starting condition for any scientific theory of evolution. This is by "implication", because it wouldn't be scientific to say that first life was caused supernaturally.

Whether you realize it or not Johnny, when people deny that God created first life they are on a road that may eventually cause them to lose their Christian faith.

This is the real threat of evolutionary belief. "Theistic evolution" is an unstable belief for a Christian, because to maintain it one has to "spiritualize" more and more of different parts of the Bible which are foundational to Christian doctrines and creeds.

At the end of this road are people like Bishop Spong, who now declare openly that the only part of the Apostle's Creed that he believes is that Jesus Christ died on the cross and was buried.

This is not Christianity.

 

[Woodbine]

At least you have a sense of humor left. Most evolutionists don't, particularly when their religion is mocked.

Hehe....you got the wrong fellow i'm afraid. I couldn't give a toss if evolution is proven wrong tomorrow. It would be a great news story and hopefully we'll have gained some new insight. What I do care about is the blatant and quite deliberate mis-representation of the theory by those who profess to love science, but demonstrate the complete opposite by mangling data in an attempt to accommodate their deeply held religious convictions.

And yes, I consider it disingenuous of evolutionists to claim that "The theory of evolution could not care less about where life came from or why."

This is simply not true, and no amount of vehement denial will ever make it true.

Bob, let's try it another way. Logically speaking, how can a theory about the development of existing life also be a theory of life's origins?

 

[fool]

Hmmm . . . that's actually a step closer to the hypothetical conditions of the early earth though . . . Could abiogenesis occur in your mouth?

I don't see any reason to rule it out.

I sometimes say things and have no idea where they came from.

 

[Woodbine]

So are you in the 'life could be created in a jar of peanut butter' category with ViV?

Depends which brand. Seriously though, i've no idea.

 

[zoo22]

The billions of experiments being conducted with peanut butter jars are not being monitored very carefully. Who's checking to see if life has evolved in them?

Also, it might be more impressive to consider each of the experiments being conducted in each PB jar as minute-long experiments. That way, there could be trillions of peanutbutter life experiments each year instead of only billions. Maybe it would be helpful to get the number up to zillions. Or gazillions. Having conducted gazillions of peanut butter life experiments would be very impressive, and would certainly prove something!

PS: I'm sure that peanutbutter cups prove something here, but then again what would I know; I'm no scientist.

 

[bob b]

Bob, let's try it another way. Logically speaking, how can a theory about the development of existing life also be a theory of life's origins?

I did not of course state that the theory of evolution contains within in it a theory of how life originated. But the implication is obvious that first life was simple, as illustrated by the following quotation:


"This chain of inferences led Darwin to the ultimate conclusion that all organisms on Earth had common ancestors and that probably all life on Earth had started with a single origin of life. As Darwin wrote, “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved” (1859: 490). As we shall presently show, numerous studies making use of different kinds of evidence have convincingly confirmed Darwin’s conjecture. It is now referred to as the theory of common descent."

There is simply no way a committed evolutionist can scientifically stop himself from extrapolating all the way back to that first hypothetical primitive protocell.

And doing so denies God the glory of what He had done, which He revealed to us in His word.

 

[Woodbine]

Bob, I realise this was a reply to Johnny but i'd like to comment on the points you brought up.

The reason I said what I did is because first life being generated "naturally" is a necessary starting condition for any scientific theory of evolution. This is by "implication", because it wouldn't be scientific to say that first life was caused supernaturally.

No, life being generated naturally is a necessary starting condition for atheism(or naturalism). The evolution of life can still be studied scientifically even if God got the ball rolling.

Whether you realize it or not Johnny, when people deny that God created first life they are on a road that may eventually cause them to lose their Christian faith.

This is the real threat of evolutionary belief. "Theistic evolution" is an unstable belief for a Christian, because to maintain it one has to "spiritualize" more and more of different parts of the Bible which are foundational to Christian doctrines and creeds.

And here we see the real crux of the matter. When people truly believe that they are destined to burn in hell unless they accept wholeheartedly what they've read in the bible then they are left with no choice but to dis-credit, misrepresent and dismiss any evidence that is contrary to their belief.

And I do accept this fear is genuine, but it is still terrible to watch fully intelligent people deliberately hitting the mental "off" switch just because they're too frightened to go where the evidence leads.

 

[Woodbine]

There is simply no way a committed evolutionist can scientifically stop himself from extrapolating all the way back to that first hypothetical primitive protocell.

But the protocell exists, Bob. And if it already exists then we are not dealing with origins anymore are we? Evolution cannot, by definition, extrapolate back beyond a "hypothetical primitive protocell".

 

[bob b]

The evolution of life can still be studied scientifically even if God got the ball rolling.

Theoretically yes, practically no. If this were being done, then the statistics regarding people's religious belief would bear this out. Leading biologists religious beliefs would be similar to the general population. But they aren't. They are overwhelmingly atheist.

And here we see the real crux of the matter. When people truly believe that they are destined to burn in hell unless they accept wholeheartedly what they've read in the bible then they are left with no choice but to dis-credit, misrepresent and dismiss any evidence that is contrary to their belief.

"Burning in hell" may be no more complex than not residing with God, and those people who worship God. People tend to get what they wish for, and most atheists would not want to worship God. Therefore they get their wish and do not go to live with God in a place where all people worship Him.

And I do accept this fear is genuine, but it is still terrible to watch fully intelligent people deliberately hitting the mental "off" switch just because they're too frightened to go where the evidence leads.

Perhaps this is a motivation for some, but you are sadly mistaken if you think that this is the only reason people do not believe in evolution.

Frankly, I find your comment silly and patronizing as well.

But that's par for the course for "true believers" (of both flavors).

 

[Johnny]

So what you're saying, Bob, is that you do not have a reputable source. That's what I thought.

 

[Woodbine]

Theoretically yes, practically no. If this were being done, then the statistics regarding people's religious belief would bear this out. Leading biologists religious beliefs would be similar to the general population. But they aren't. They are overwhelmingly atheist.

I doubt that it was the theory of evolution that caused their disbelief in God although it might have strengthened it. I was an atheist a long time before i'd even looked into the theory.

Perhaps this is a motivation for some, but you are sadly mistaken if you think that this is the only reason people do not believe in evolution.

Not the only one, obviously...but true fear of hell (of whatever variety) must be a good motivator to shield oneself and one's family from contrary evidence.

Frankly, I find your comment silly and patronizing as well.

But that's par for the course for "true believers" (of both flavors).

I'm sorry you took it that way but your comment about evolutionary theory being a "real threat" to Christian belief bore my comments out. And just for the record, the only thing I "believe" about evolution is that it's the best scientific explanation we have to explain life on Earth. It may ultimately be true or it may not....makes no difference to me. But the evidence suggests that we're on the right lines.

 

[Vision in Verse]

"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).

Um.. first scientific theories are created, then they are tested, not the other way around. If something is theoretically sound, it means it can be true, or it can be untrue. For our purposes, let's say it's possible. Therefore, the theory is on its feet.

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

I doubt a jar of peanut butter is big enough or carries the necessary compounds (water being the most essential) to create life.

 

[zoo22]

The billions of experiments being conducted with peanut butter jars are not being monitored very carefully. Who's checking to see if life has evolved in them?

Also, it might be more impressive to consider each of the experiments being conducted in each PB jar as minute-long experiments. That way, there could be trillions of peanutbutter life experiments each year instead of only billions. Maybe it would be helpful to get the number up to zillions. Or gazillions. Having conducted gazillions of peanut butter life experiments would be very impressive, and would certainly prove something!

PS: I'm sure that peanutbutter cups prove something here, but then again what would I know; I'm no scientist.

I haven't been able to find much info on the billions of peanut butter jar life genesis experiments... Strangely, there's no mention of it here:

www.peanutbutterlovers.com

Or even on wiki.

But I DID find this, which is very interesting:

"Introduced last year, Reese’s Pieces Peanuts and Peanut Butter are a natural evolution of Reese’s Pieces."

!!!! :think:

(Source: Candyblog )

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I don't like the video cause peanut butter sticks to the roof of my mouth and makes my bread soggy and smells when I leave it open in a hot car while I'm trollin the beach for chicks.

I wonder if abiogenesis could occur in peanut butter if your chocolate bar accidentally fell into my peanut butter. :think:

 

[fool]

BobB!
Please check your quote!
You cited;

As Darwin wrote, “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved” (1859: 490).

Whereas my copy says;

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved”

The difference being the three words in red.
By the Creator

Why would his copy and my copy be three words different?
Especialy when one considers what those three words mean to the sentence!
Then you say;

There is simply no way a committed evolutionist can scientifically stop himself from extrapolating all the way back to that first hypothetical primitive protocell.

Unless he has the book with the extra three words!
Darwin posited that God made life!
As shown by the fact that he said it the copy of his book that I have that seems to have three more words in that sentence you quoted.