The Campaign Builder's Guild

All these years, I've subscribed to the irrational and immoral notion that life was born from inert matter.  But this video 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.

Oh hai.

I'll just leave these here.

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 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