It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I tend to agree with him, more along that lines of why shouldn't life be able to start in a jar of peanut butter.
Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by itsthetooth
I tend to agree with him, more along that lines of why shouldn't life be able to start in a jar of peanut butter.
Maybe it can. Maybe it does.
How do you know either way?
Are you testing each jar of peanut butter for new life forms before you eat it?
Do you think that any such new life form is going to be a fully formed unicorn or something?
I'm not sure where you got the idea all food products are sterilized, but I can assure you, this is not true. There are some products that are irradiated with gamma rays, which kills any living organisms, but this would not necessarily prevent new organisms from appearing though abiogenesis, if such a thing were possible.
Originally posted by definity
Life can not start in the jar because it is sterilised. like all food products. otherwise the food company would have to pay out a lot of money!
The Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) has announced that because of its bankruptcy proceedings, it is no longer able to communicate with customers of recalled products.
Aflatoxin is a potent human carcinogen. It is a naturally occurring toxic metabolite produced by certain fungi (Aspergillus flavis), a mold found on food products such as corn and peanuts, peanut butter. It acts as a potent liver carcinogen in rodents (and, presumably, humans). They are probably the best known and most intensively researched mycotoxins in the world. Aflatoxins have been associated with various diseases , such as aflatoxicosis , in livestock , domestic animals and humans throughout the world .
The occurrence of aflatoxins is influenced by the weather, (temperature, and humidity - warm & wet is worst!); so the extent of contamination will vary with geographic location , agricultural and agronomic practices, and the susceptibility of the peanuts (etc.) to fungus before they are harvested, and during storage, and/or processing periods . Aflatoxins have received greater attention than any other mycotoxins because they clearly have a potent carcinogenic effect in laboratory rats and their acute poisonous effects in humans .
What is this with evolutionists and unicorns. There is a unicorn lurking around every corner for every evolutionist. It must go hand in hand with the hypothesis of evolution.
Maybe it can. Maybe it does.
How do you know either way?
Are you testing each jar of peanut butter for new life forms before you eat it?
Do you think that any such new life form is going to be a fully formed unicorn or something?
What is this with evolutionists and unicorns. There is a unicorn lurking around every corner for every evolutionist. It must go hand in hand with the hypothesis of evolution.
What is this with evolutionists and unicorns. There is a unicorn lurking around every corner for every evolutionist. It must go hand in hand with the hypothesis of evolution.
I tend to agree with him, more along that lines of why shouldn't life be able to start in a jar of peanut butter. Evolution claims to be responsible for creating over a billion species, it doesn't sound like we are short of the necessary elements here to make life. Granted a jar of peanut butter is not found naturally in the wild but still, it has must contain some of the necessary elements, after all its made from natural elements.
I think its more directed at the idea that life is suppose to just magically appear, like it seems to have done all through out evolution, and thats just not going to happen, because evolution never really happened.
I have always considered the bible to be more of a general source for history, while some of the things written can't be proven, it is still considered to be a historical document, and shouldn't just be excused because you don't understand it or don't want to believe in it.
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by milkyway12
Evolution is nothing but a theory any how. Take it as a grain of salt. Some how, the T-Rex is now the chicken breast I eat for dinner from KFC.
People call creationist crazy, but at least I don't believe T-Rex transformed into a chicken.
What if the chicken gets really really angry and the genes mutate with radiation and it turns into a giant man eating bird we call a Raptor?edit on 29-1-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)
I can't tell if you're joking or being serious. Just because the word "theory" is used, it doesn't mean it's just a theory, that is not what it means in the scientific world.
Through fossils and the anatomy of late dinosaurs it's really obvious that they are where birds evolved from, they even had feathers and beaks. Evolution isn't "transforming", it's small mutations over a long period of time resulting in bigger changes. People that say these stupid things about evolution never understand it, but then religion discourages critical, independent thinking and scientific observation and exploration. It amazes me how they can laugh at observable and proven scientific theories when they believe a magical being created us and everything, and why? Because a book says so.
Believe it if you want, and whilst it has scientific underpinning, it still involves a leap of faith
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Credenceskynyrd
Believe it if you want, and whilst it has scientific underpinning, it still involves a leap of faith
Can you tell us what what leap of faith is? Where is the faith?
Well you must have faith in that science are telling you the truth. Science are not always truthfull, they to have manipulated facts more than once.
Originally posted by spy66
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Credenceskynyrd
Believe it if you want, and whilst it has scientific underpinning, it still involves a leap of faith
Can you tell us what what leap of faith is? Where is the faith?
Well you must have faith in that science are telling you the truth. Science are not always truthfull, they to have manipulated facts more than once.
What you meant to say is that science is suppose to be checked by several others to allow the results be verfied.
Well you must have faith in that science are telling you the truth. Science are not always truthfull, they to have manipulated facts more than once.
No. Science is checked by many people and the papers publish sufficient information to allow the results to be verified by others.
reply to post by flyingfish
Text Scientists do not accept anything on faith but continue to investigate to try and find answers. If in fact your investigation reveals evidence that shows their initial ideas are wrong, they will change their ideas to conform with the evidence. In contrast we see with creationists it's about their faith, in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary.
What you meant to say is that science is suppose to be checked by several others to allow the results be verfied.
Do you mean just like how Monsanto is able to document in their tests that GM food does not cause cancer but to every other scientist that tests it finds cancer causing signs?
If you say so then it must be a fact. The little guy can simply watch TV and see that about every week or so a drug recall issues from Big Pharm and the AMA. But only after billions have been made from their death drugs. But I guess you are right, they change their minds and take it off the shelves eventually. Meanwhile they stock the shelves with another 10 year recall. Don't think you can blame that on God if He isn't there in the first place.
Do you mean just like how Monsanto is able to document in their tests that GM food does not cause cancer but to every other scientist that tests it finds cancer causing signs?