All these years, I've subscribed to the irrational and immoral notion that life was born from inert matter. But this video (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&feature=related) has opened my find to the foolishness of such a belief. God bless, you, Chuck Missler. You wonderful, wonderful man.
I see your peanut butter and raise you a banana (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I).
Oh hai. (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/peanutbutterrecall/index.cfm)
I'll just leave these here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo)
EDIT: Also, while I enjoy good satire, it would be best to be careful about how we talk in this thread...
Bad logic is bad logic. I hope that any reasonable person, believer or not, can recognise the absurdity of these arguments and have a good chuckle. It's fun for the whole family.
I'm an evolutionary creationist. I believe there is some guiding entity that made the universe, but I believe that this entity has to abide by the laws of physics. Since everything is made by this entity, in my belief, that's why there are similarities.
For instance, art students can name the painter of a painting based on that painter's style. An artist's skill progresses as they practice; they get better, their art often becomes more complex.
I understand what the peanut butter video was trying to say. Experiments have been performed showing that amino acids, I believe, can be spontaneously generated in liquid resembling what we think the primordial seas were like, but we haven't directly observed even the simplest bacteria spontaneously generating from such a primordial ooze. Now, absence of evidence does not mean it isn't there, just that there is no hard proof that bacteria can spontaneously generate.
But that doesn't mean that we have any evidence of creationism either, while we do have evidence of adaptive mutations. Then again, I don't believe we've ever seen an animal give birth to a new species.
The debate between Evolution and Creation is far more complicated than both sides want it to be.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatI understand what the peanut butter video was trying to say. Experiments have been performed showing that amino acids, I believe, can be spontaneously generated in liquid resembling what we think the primordial seas were like, but we haven't directly observed even the simplest bacteria spontaneously generating from such a primordial ooze. Now, absence of evidence does not mean it isn't there, just that there is no hard proof that bacteria can spontaneously generate.
Just for the purposes of my own curiosity and absolutely not to start any debate I'd like to ask this question: why would you expect to find
fully-formed bacteria from exposing matter to energy? Wouldn't you instead expect to find organic molecules that can self-replicate in the absence of cells such as RNA and prions?
Quote from: Kapn XeviatBut that doesn't mean that we have any evidence of creationism either, while we do have evidence of adaptive mutations. Then again, I don't believe we've ever seen an animal give birth to a new species.
Why does the animal have to give birth to an entirely new species?
Quote from: Kapn XeviatI understand what the peanut butter video was trying to say. Experiments have been performed showing that amino acids, I believe, can be spontaneously generated in liquid resembling what we think the primordial seas were like, but we haven't directly observed even the simplest bacteria spontaneously generating from such a primordial ooze. Now, absence of evidence does not mean it isn't there, just that there is no hard proof that bacteria can spontaneously generate.
I would like to point out a couple things.
1. the experiment that proved that amino acids can be generated from liquid and energy when first conducted only produced 7 or 8 different amino acids (life needs about 20 different kinds). Recently (last year I believe) they checked the experiment again (it was originally done in the 60s) so 40 years later and there were 15-16 different kinds of amino acids. So its proven that amino acids generate, bacteria not yet. Most likely its just a time thing, we haven't had enough time pass to see it happen.
Ok as to the first post, Creationists say oh look matter and energy, so peanut butter+sun is technacly correct. However it wasn't random matter and random energy that did it. It was a rich primordial soup kinda mixture being constantly zapped by lightning and heated by volcanoes. So ether there ignorant of this, or they're deliberately ignoring this so try and make the other side look stupid. I favor the latter, its a favored tactic for both sides.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatBut that doesn't mean that we have any evidence of creationism either, while we do have evidence of adaptive mutations. Then again, I don't believe we've ever seen an animal give birth to a new species.
That depends on what you consider a species. some people believe that every mutation of an animal is a seperate specie. AKA a rotweiler and a huskey are two different species. and a huskey-rotweiler mix is a third species. Even though they are similar, they are different species.
[blockquote=Kapn]Then again, I don't believe we've ever seen an animal give birth to a new species.[/blockquote]Though speciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation) is more complex than a pokemon-style jump in evolution from parent to child we have seen a lot of evidence for it.
Hilarious video Salacious Angel, though I watched it with a mixture of amusement and intense annoyance. Patently absurd to anyone who paid any attention at all in high school biology...
Quote from: Kapn XeviatBut that doesn't mean that we have any evidence of creationism either, while we do have evidence of adaptive mutations. Then again, I don't believe we've ever seen an animal give birth to a new species.
[spoiler=Disputable]
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VacciniaVaccinia[/url] is probably my favorite possible example, just because we don't know exactly where it came from, we just know it isn't cowpox. :)
Not taking any sides here, but...
Quote from: Kapn Xeviat...But that doesn't mean that we have any evidence of creationism either...
This is exactly why I giggled when the Peanut Butter guy used the term "fairy tale". I'm not saying everybody should deny anything that doesn't have empirical evidence (although this debate might be a bit less controversial if that happened), I do think you're more likely to be taken seriously if you can acknowledge the fact that your beliefs aren't based in science.
edit--
Quote from: Steerpike... a pokemon-style jump in evolution from parent to child...
That would be so cool to see!
Not to offend anybody, but isn't the whole point of belief that you don't need any evidence?
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawNot to offend anybody, but isn't the whole point of belief that you don't need any evidence?
Exactly my point. Also, I understand just barely enough of Descartes to feel that even atheism is a belief structure. Until you're one of those hobos wandering around drunkenly mumbling about how nothing exists outside of your imagination, don't try to tell me that your fairy tale is any more valid then mine.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawNot to offend anybody, but isn't the whole point of belief that you don't need any evidence?
This.
People have told me that I can't be both a christian and a believer in science. That of course is rubbish. Christianity is faith in that which cannot be tested. Science, while it could be argued as the same, is belief based on testing in a sense which our senses can comprehend.
what he said. :p
[blockquote=Nomadic]Christianity is faith in that which cannot be tested. Science, while it could be argued as the same, is belief based on testing in a sense which our senses can comprehend. [/blockquote]I totally agree with this - what Gould would call "different magisteria." What this does mean, however, is that if you can test it, it no longer belongs under the purview of religion, but to science. Of course, as some have pointed out, our senses are potentially fallible; but there's no way at all to test religion in the way that our senses can be tested - no equivalent "spiritual senses" by which to ascertain even the semblances of truth.
This is why I'd define myself as a skeptical agnostic - around 6 or so on Dawkins scale, if I remember the scale correctly - which is subtly different than outright atheism: I don't want to substitute a fairy tale of my own, because I don't understand the mechanism by which to create that construction and hold to it with conviction. In other words, I can summon a certain amount of belief in science because it can be tested, and while I recognize that there's a place for religion, so long as questions remain that are untestable (and these questions may very well always be untestable, forever), I also cannot choose between hypothoses for these untestable questions. I cannot pick a faith because they all seem equally probable or improbable: I don't understand how the Christian cosmos or the Jewish cosmos or even, say, the Classical Greek cosmos or the Sumerian cosmos can be said to be more or less likely than one another, precisely because there are no mechanisms to test these religious hypothoses. Thus any choice on my part would be utterly and completely arbitrary, and since I wasn't instilled with a "default" choice because of parental religious choices I'm left at a spiritual dead end, or perhaps more accurately a bewildering and infinite crossroads with no way to differentiate the branching paths. Each resonates equally with me: I cannot detect more or less genuine faith in any of them. I do, however, enjoy a lot of elements of religion from a voyeuristic perspective, but I see them as equal - that is to say, I read the Bible in the same way that I read Greek myths.
of course, all of this is missing the True point.
Plantain, ergo Deity.
You know, somehow I doubt this was the OP's intent.
mmmhmmm, peanut butter.
Quote from: limetomI'll just leave these here.
various[/i] beliefs nightmares. I'm just saying.
Quote from: limetomI'll just leave these here.
various[/i] beliefs nightmares. I'm just saying.[/quote]I try my best to be an equal opportunity offender... ;)
Quote from: Gnomish CheetosThat depends on what you consider a species. some people believe that every mutation of an animal is a seperate specie. AKA a rotweiler and a huskey are two different species. and a huskey-rotweiler mix is a third species. Even though they are similar, they are different species.
I don't know, all dogs can interbreed as long as their sizes aren't so different that they physically can't (no great dane/chiwawas). Dogs have so much variety because mutations in their DNA easily replicate (apparently the bull terrier's nose is getting more and more downward pointing as the generations progress since the mutation keeps replicating). And I'm aware of mutations in bacteria, and I've had this discussion with my biology teachers. I think the term "species" is applied too widely, with groups that we would call "ethnicities" amongst humans being called species amongst animals (they found a mass grave of Iguanadons and named something like 16 species based on differences in sizes and the shapes of a couple of bones; I'm sure my 6'1" broad shouldered skeleton would look like a different species to aliens than my 5'3" small framed girlfriend).
Granted, we've only been observing animals like this for a few hundred years. We've observed new mutations, and we've seen evidence in the fossil record for evolution. I'll read over those examples linked.
It seems like mutations would need to progress very far before two individuals couldn't breed anymore, which is a definition of a species. And again, we're talking about millions of years here, so anything can happen.
Then again, I'm using projected evolution to populate my setting. :question:
Quote from: Gnomish CheetosThat depends on what you consider a species. some people believe that every mutation of an animal is a seperate specie. AKA a rotweiler and a huskey are two different species. and a huskey-rotweiler mix is a third species. Even though they are similar, they are different species.
All dogs are of the same species,
Canis familiaris. Similarly, cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, brussel sprouts, kale, and collard greens are all the same species,
Brassica oleracea. Other members of the
Brassica genus produce mustard (various species for various kinds), turnips and bok choi (same species,
B. rapa), and rapeseed and canola (same species,
B. napus). The lines between species can sometimes be arbitrary and confusing, and there really isn't any one definition. This article goes into much more detail than I care to. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem)
As a linguist, and this is no coincidence, there are similar difficulties on how to define languages and dialects. Both evolutionary biology and historical linguistics have borrowed heavily from one another throughout their history. One of them borrowed the taxonomic tree from the other; I forget which way.
The fact that you can breed domestic dogs, wolves, and coyotes together and produce fertile offspring shows that they're all the same species in my eye. But then again I prescribe to a very narrow definition of "species".
Oh, and Limetom, I just watched the atheists nightmare debunked video. Good stuff. It's really amazing what we've been able to create through domestication. The plant corn came from is completely different, though now we're having to cross breed domestic corn with wild corn to protect it from viruses.
Good video though. I dislike when people use flat out wrong information as if it's fact.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatOh, and Limetom, I just watched the atheists nightmare debunked video. Good stuff. It's really amazing what we've been able to create through domestication. The plant corn came from is completely different, though now we're having to cross breed domestic corn with wild corn to protect it from viruses.
Actually, we're breeding it with other varieties of domesticated corn. If I remember correctly, true "wild" corn doesn't exist anymore. The problem lies in the fact that in the "developed" world, we grow only a few types of corn. In rural Mexico, there's a different type of corn in every field; hundreds and thousands of kinds of corn, each specialized to their environment.
For the same reason, the potato, native to South America, was hit so hard during the Great Potato Famine. In Ireland (and most of the rest of the world), only one or two types of potatoes were grown. These types were affected by the blight and simply died off. In Uruguay, where several hundred types of potatoes were grown, only the one or two species affected by the blight died out. The rest were fine.
Yeah, corn don't grow wild dude. :)
The last I read, we had trouble identifying what corn's natural ancestor was. There were a couple of contenders. They did not look like corn. :)
Ah, then I must have misunderstood the show I was watching. They were testing different grasses in south america, searching for a candidate for corn crossbreeding. I was under the assumption that the grasses were related to corn.
It had to have grown wild at some time. It's not like we invented a plant.
QuoteHilarious video Salacious Angel
Thanks, though it's worrying me (and correct me if you think I'm wrong in this impression) that folks seemed to have interpreted my post as a comment in any way shape or form on the validity of a creationist perspective, or otherwise anything other than me jesting at some folks who either: couldn't recognise logic if it beat them over the head, or are incredibly dishonest.
Of course, this turn of conversation probably has nothing whatsoever to do with an interpretation of the opening post, in which case, whatever.
I'm just gonna hijack this thread to talk about corn, and by corn I mean maize in case some unamerican is confused here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize#Origin)
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeosinteTeosinte[/url], which looks a LOT more like monkey grass than corn. This sounds a like what you were talking about?
Quote from: S_AThanks, though it's worrying me (and correct me if you think I'm wrong in this impression) that folks seemed to have interpreted my post as a comment in any way shape or form on the validity of a creationist perspective, or otherwise anything other than me jesting at some folks who either: couldn't recognise logic if it beat them over the head, or are incredibly dishonest.
Anybody who has had even brief interaction with you must surely realize that you are an intelligent person.
Anybody who has had even brief interaction with that video must surely realize that it cannot be taken seriously by intelligent people.
If I were you I shouldn't worry any more about it. As you say, bad logic is bad logic, no matter what you, I, and everyone else may happen to believe.
I think people were reacting to the absurdity of the creationist video rather to you - I don't think anyone was interpreting your post itself as anything but humorous.
I watched it again and man the video practically parodies itself. It's hard to believe it's intended seriously.