How to prove evolution is FAKE!!!

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?

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?

Don't be silly. It would never be a unicorn. It might be a griffin though.

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!

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!

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.

I don't know that life doesn't evolve in a peanut butter jar, however I do know that experiments in abiogenisis have used electrical discharges intended to simulate lightning to provide energy to assemble more complex molecules, and there's no lightning or similar electrical discharges inside a peanut butter jar, so the lack of lightning inside the peanut butter jar could be a reason why new life doesn't appear there, if it doesn't.

Also the company which recalled its peanut butter products went bankrupt so they didn't have any money to pay out!

www.accessdata.fda.gov...

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.

reply to post by rnaa


They were actually on to something and probably didn't even know it. It's a fact that peanut butter has an invisible mold that collects on it. It's an aflatoxin.

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 .

aflatoxin

But by no means does this indicate that its a NEW toxin.

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.

reply to post by itsthetooth

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.

Its just a convenient placeholder variable, like 'x' in an algebraic formula and a metaphor for our gargantuan sexual appetites.

Besides, the FSM has a soft spot for unicorns.

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.

More brilliant writing

Maybe you should expand your education... this series should help



Edit: Here is another to help you brush up on your basic science.

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. 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.

This from someone that thought a caterpillar turning into a butterfly was an example of a species turning into a new species.

Seems that tooth is now promoting spontaneous generation.

reply to post by flyingfish


I wondered where creationists got their material from.

That explains it quite well. No wonder it sounds like all jokes, they use material from comedians.

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.

that is transforming- transforming over a long period of time

Believe it if you want, and whilst it has scientific underpinning, it still involves a leap of faith

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?

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.

reply to post by spy66

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.

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.

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.
Please provide your evidence of these manipulated facts and I will submit your paper for further review.

reply to post by stereologist

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.

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?

bacteria evolves and adapts before your very eyes...

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.

reply to post by flyingfish


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.

reply to post by itsthetooth

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?

Those are your words about science and not mine.

Please show that other scientists find that GM causes cancer.

reply to post by Seede

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.

Drugs are active ingredients. Their use has consequences because living organisms are complex.

Drugs that cure some people kill others. A peanut that is loved by many is fatal to others. Some 150 to 200 people die each year from peanuts. Billions are made on peanuts. Peanuts are never taken off of the shelf and there is no end in sight for the deaths. Should we blame God for deaths due to peanuts?
www.quora.com...

I simply suggest that your argument is baseless.

reply to post by itsthetooth

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?

As pointed out already, your example is wrong. However, perhaps you were thinking of something more concrete, like tobacco companies swearing up and down that their product didn't cause cancer.

The problem with that example is that the Company actively suppressed any findings that their own employed scientists accidentally (because they were NOT paid to do experiments that would cause problems) came up with. Thus there was no 'real' science going on. No peer review. no publication, no duplication of results, nothing. It was product development, not science.

The Food and Drug Administration has been gutted, and has no authority to do anything anymore, they certainly do not do any science to test any food or drugs; there is just no way that they could have the capacity to do any testing like that. They are totally, absolutely, 100%, bound by the 'science' the companies report.

And yes, sometimes the tests mandated by the FDA, and carried out in good faith by the product developer are inadequate. It is fairly easy to show a drug is effective for a particular case, it is impossible to prove that it is not harmful in every case. You cannot prove a negative. It is also the case that there have been cases where companies have lied about the science on their products.