Your point is only going to appeal to numbskull's who aren't really trying to understand it.
Hmm, you can't really say sentence 2 after sentence 1, now can you? That is, how can you summarily dismiss a point that you don't get? Oh, wait, I forgot who I'm talking to; I guess that was a rhetorical question.
But I don't really believe you can't grasp this concept. It's not that hard. Evolutionary theory would never ever predict the spontaneous generation of life in an ordinary jar of peanut butter. You do understand that sentence, don't you?
Therefore, the fact that Chuck never finds spontaneously generated life in jars of peanut butter is entirely consistent with evolutionary theory, which (in case you've forgotten already) would never predict spontaneous generation of life in a jar of peanut butter. Still with me?
Therefore, using the lack of an event to illustrate the foolishness of a theory that would never predict such an event is itself rather foolish. Got that?
And furthermore, while no evolutionary mechanism could yield spontaneously generating life in a jar of peanut butter, I'm sure you would agree that it would be simplicity itself for an omnicompetent supernatural creator to create new life in a jar of peanut butter. And yet, as Chuck himself observes, never once has that happened.
So if you are going to use the lack of an event to cast doubt on a mechanism, Knight old bean, you can really only use it to cast doubt on a mechanism that could conceivably cause said event. Right? Oops! But that's not evolutionary theory! It's that other one. You still think the lack of spontaneous life in a jar of peanut butter illustrates anything of use?
But I don't really believe you can't grasp this concept. It's not that hard. Evolutionary theory would never ever predict the spontaneous generation of life in an ordinary jar of peanut butter. You do understand that sentence, don't you?
Why not?
For sake of argument.... why not????
If life could form by chance under far less likely conditions i.e., a earth with ZERO living creatures on it.... why couldn't life form on a jar of peanut butter by chance?
YES or NO.... Do you believe that it is scientifically impossible that life could form by chance in a jar of peanut butter? And if so.... why?
No.
If I did that I would be grounding my belief in an argument from ignorance.
Poor thing to ground a belief in.
It would remain unknown.
Better to leave it unknown than to start a belief system based on what I don't know.
YES or NO.... Do you believe that it is scientifically impossible that life could form by chance in a jar of peanut butter? And if so.... why?
Is the the jar open or closed? And more importantly, is the peanut butter ever exposed to other elements?
If you answer yes to the second question, then yes, there is a chance, however miniscule, that life could form. However, if and when that occurs, the butter and jar would no longer be recognizable as peanut butter, as they would have biodegraded.
If, however, the peanut butter is kept in a sterile, controlled environment, then I say 'no'.
Slogan/motto:
Hola, amigos, I know it's been a long time since I rapped at ya...
Reputation:
March 27th, 2007, 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Real Sorceror
Happens all the time. Often with the same people making the same mistakes.
If, indeed, they are mistakes. Alot of creationists (bob b, Chuck Missler, etc.) know that the theory does not address this, but they keep making the same "mistake".
Er, has anyone ever seen a wild banana? The "domesticated" bananas that we are used to (like the perfect banana shown in the Kirk Cameron video) come from many, many years of farming and selective breeding. Yes, it's intelligent design. By humans. A wild banana is absolutely different. It's closer to round than long. And is small. And has large seeds. It is tough and starchy. And it is difficult to open. And is pretty difficult to eat.
However, no life (that we can see) in a jar of peanut butter seems debunkable.
Related, peanutbutter and banana sandwiches are delicious. (IMO, of course).
"There was so much handwriting on the wall that even the wall fell down"
"In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. The source of better ideas is wisdom. The surest path to wisdom is a liberal education." – Alfred Whitney, Essays on Education
Don't you know
That it ain't a crime
If all the squares
And the junkmen
Think you're out of line
Linear Mode
