do the christians of ats agree with this man?

a reply to: Klassified

They ought to just mix the peanut butter and banana... Sounds like a great sandwich. And who knows? They may get new life out of it!

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

i actually love penut butter and banana sandwiches, try them out sometime man! they aint no joke

a reply to: markosity1973

Well said.

a reply to: theboarman

Theoretically, if this is how life occurs, then there should be planets in the universe at all stages of development, meaning there ought to be primordial ones out there. Presumably, we should be able to find one and observe this process there for ourselves someday.

Alternately, if this is how life occurs, who is to say it can't still occur like this now, today on our own planet? So why can't we find it? Are you meaning to say that on any planet that can support life, life will only spontaneously occur there once and only once and never again?

Mind you, this does not reflect my own thoughts on the subject. These are only questions I am asking.

a reply to: theboarman

Nope!

Take your peanut butter and banana and add some root beer and put that all in a milk shake. Add malt if you feel like it.

a reply to: ketsuko

good questions, im not the smartest tool in the shed so ill give you the best aswers i can.

Theoretically, if this is how life occurs, then there should be planets in the universe at all stages of development, meaning there ought to be primordial ones out there. Presumably, we should be able to find one and observe this process there for ourselves someday.

i agree, but we dont have the technology right now to go to any planets out side of our solar system right now. so this point is mute i think.

Alternately, if this is how life occurs, who is to say it can't still occur like this now, today on our own planet? So why can't we find it? Are you meaning to say that on any planet that can support life, life will only spontaneously occur there once and only once and never again?

not saying that, it most likely is happening right now but its happening at such a slow pace we cant observe it. thats why i said by the time new life appears we wont be able to observe it because the sun will be to hot for anything other then microbes to live.

a reply to: theboarman

I have to be honest with you..... I used to call myself a Christian, and while I still believe many of those precepts, I reject a few of them and thus remain more comfortable considering myself (should I choose a label) a universalist. In short, I don't care by what name the Godhead is called, and don't feel required to worship the writings of humans, even elightened ones.

This video is pretty funny to me. And sad. Filled full of unmeasurable variables and really bad pseudoscience. Evolutionary theory doesn't claim any of the precepts set for in the video. To me, it's a poorly researched attack on an idea that doesn't make any effort whatsoever to understand the idea.

I was really surprised the video didn't end with "proof" that the Earth was less than 8,000 years old.

My vote is for "bah".

a reply to: theboarman

Ah, but it's an ongoing process which means there should be life at all stages of the ongoing going on. So life could happen today, tomorrow and millions of years from now.

It's like making a batches of fine aged wine. Sure a good one ought to be aged for years, but then, how do they constantly turn out fine aged wine every year? It's because they started making it and have batches ready to come out every year, year after year.

So, say the process takes 1,000 years. It doesn't mean that the process simply starts today and in a 1,000 years it completes and if we blinked we have to start observing the next 1,000 year interval. The 1,000 year process starts today, a new starts tomorrow, and again the day after that, etc., and at the same time, those processes that began 1,000 years ago are ending today, and so on so forth.

Or are you trying to say that the transformation from lifeless to living is so slow that that one thing takes millions or even billions of years? Earth is only a few billion years old at most you know.

a reply to: ketsuko

there is life at all stages, animals are evolving, we can see single celled and multi celled organism, science even seen the process from single cell life to multicell life ( i think thats what its called? )

you cant compare wine to evolution, we grow the amount of grapes we need to make the wine,we got what we needed for life from space. it doesnt take a thousand years, it takes many million and it took 4.5 billion minus 200 000 - 1000000 ( depending on the source ) to create a lifeform that can understand and change the world around him.

yes that is what im saying, i dont think you relise how long a million and a billion of years is, unless your saying earth had animals at a billion years old, which i dont think is correct.

It's an overly simplistic presentation of the irreducible complexity argument. The argument against the spontaneous generation of super complex, self organizing matter, such as life, is fairly compelling, but not the way these guys present it.

Here is a far better introduction to the topic:
www.ideacenter.org...

a reply to: theboarman

No, that's not exactly what I am saying. I think you missed the point. You said we wouldn't see life arise from lifelessness because in the time it takes for that to happen, the sun would have baked all life off this planet (except that new life apparently). I took it to mean you were alluding to the time when the sun is nearing the end of its life cycle and turning into a red giant. Sort of sucks to be that nascent life, btw, the red giant sun will swallow the earth and destroy it.

But my point with the wine was to draw an analogy. If you need to age a certain kind of wine for seven years, then you seem to be saying that we will have to wait seven years to have any, but that's not the case because the winery started a batch of that same wine seven years ago. They have batches at various stages of being aged so that they will have one batch finishing every year. We don't have to wait for the batch they start this year to finish in order to observe that the wine takes seven years. We can simply observe the finishing of the batch that began seven years ago to come out.

The process of observing life from lifelessness should be the same. We shouldn't have to see it from the beginning to end. There should be batches of it at every step of the process if it works that way. After all, as you say, from what we know about evolution in organisms, we can observe it at various steps in the process.

Of course, you could acknowledge that the origin of life isn't actually part of the theory of evolution and never really was. Then you have something else entirely separate that doesn't have to work by those principles.

a reply to: theboarman

Since one basis of scientific study is observation, and since we don't observe abiogenesis, ever, he makes a good point.

Christian or no, its just good science.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Not really.

You can't make an omelette if one replaces eggs with grapes.

The correct ingredients aka 'primordial soup' is required for abiogenisis to occur. A jar of peanut butter does not have these ingredients and is not in the right conditions for it to occur sitting in your cupboard. It's explained on page one in that extract I quoted.

The same can be said for the pasta sauce argument. The Bible only claims that God created life on one occasion. It doesn't claim that he creates new life at will, whenever it suits him.

Both arguments are amusing, but pretty weak.

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Not really.

You can't make an omelette if one replaces eggs with grapes.

The correct ingredients aka 'primordial soup' is required for abiogenisis to occur. A jar of peanut butter does not have these ingredients and is not in the right conditions for it to occur sitting in your cupboard. It's explained on page one in that extract I quoted.

The same can be said for the pasta sauce argument. The Bible only claims that God created life on one occasion. It doesn't claim that he creates new life at will, whenever it suits him.

Both arguments are amusing, but pretty weak.

The stuff in the jar is good enough. Simple fact is, no one has ever observed abiogenesis. It's far fro scientifically proven. That's what the video is about.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Nobody has ever witnessed creation either.

Absence of observation in this case still proves nothing.

originally posted by: markosity1973

Nobody has ever witnessed creation either.

Absence of observation in this case still proves nothing.

To me that is the most obvious counter argument that seems to be totally ignored here.

Because the odds on new life springing forth from my peanut butter jar I agree are pretty damn slim. But then again new life springing forth like magic out of nowhere all complete and ready to go, I'd say are even worse odds than the peanut butter odds.

I mean, if the answer was creation shouldn't we be seeing fully complete life forms just popping into reality now and then??? Some cosmic doorway opening up or thunder cloud pooping them out like magic???

What unbelievable balls to say Evolution is BS because we've never seen peanut butter produce new life, but then promote Creationism!!! Holy Sh*t!!! Because we've all seen that before, right?!?!?!?

WOW!!!!

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Nobody has ever witnessed creation either.

Absence of observation in this case still proves nothing.

No one has observed either, which means both should be presented, so people can decide for themselves which unproven theory they prefer. One is as valid as the other.

Overall, though, some sort of intelligent design makes a lot more sense than does random chance. Doesn't matter to me how God did it, as far as that's concerned. My faith is about what He did for me, not how He created the world. So, understand that isn't a huge factor for me.

It's funny, though, the video makes me crave peanut butter.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Exactly.

Neither theory is conclusively backed up by the jar of food didn't become new life argument.

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Exactly.

Neither theory is conclusively backed up by the jar of food didn't become new life argument.

The point is that, if abiogenesis were true, we'd see it, and we don't.