I wanna see what you guys think about this.

I just watched this video and I'm kinda confused.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/450BC732EEB1433A8A5AD34AC7DBB0EE/peanut-butter-proof-that-evol.aspx

What do you guys think?

I am not going to even comment on the sheer idiocy of that video. Chavyneebslod

You know you have a quality argument there when they claim that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life. But thisn't really new, I've heard of this thing quite a while ago.Zagrius

I'm a christian, But I don't see how this proves or disproves anything. Just sounds kinda dumb.

I'm at work so I can't watch the video but I think it's about how peanut butter doesn't provide new kinds of peanut butter or something.

He's more into the quantum nature of things if he's expecting something to just change with no reason.

This is ridiculous, creationism is an absolute joke - the very least we ask of a system, scientific or religious, is that it is not blatantly self-contradictory. Creation proponents believe in the inerrancy and full authority of Scripture and in the literal historicity of Genesis BUT in Genesis, chapter 1, plants and animals were created before any human, but in chapter 2, man was created first, then the plants, then woman. So creationists - which one is incorrect? How do you know? And how come if creationism is so great, why have they incorporated science into their thinking and actually use science to justify it's position whilst trying to discredit science?

Stoufzilla

omg I didn't want this to turn into a flamewar.

I am not going to even comment on the sheer idiocy of that video. Chavyneebslod

That's odd. You just did....

lol sorry!xSIZEMATTER

evolution is fake and there is no way to prove otherwise.freshgman

there is more evidence that supports evolution than creationism.

[QUOTE="xSIZEMATTER"]lol sorry!horgen123

As hard as that might be :cry:

This is ridiculous, creationism is an absolute joke - the very least we ask of a system, scientific or religious, is that it is not blatantly self-contradictory. Creation proponents believe in the inerrancy and full authority of Scripture and in the literal historicity of Genesis BUT in Genesis, chapter 1, plants and animals were created before any human, but in chapter 2, man was created first, then the plants, then woman. So creationists - which one is incorrect? How do you know? And how come if creationism is so great, why have they incorporated science into their thinking and actually use science to justify it's position whilst trying to discredit science?

Stoufzilla

It also says that on the first day he created the heavens and the earth, but he didn't seperate the light from the dark until a day or two later, so what was used to determine that there was a "day" in which the create the heavens and earth?!

A lot of it has to do with faith. You, sir, are making large blanketing generalizations about the complexities of religious faith to further your own arguements used to fuel your athiestic view.

Furthermore, there are numerous translations and versions of the Bible all of which pass through human hands. There are plenty of christians that believe that the book is infallible and is THE word of god, but there are just as many if not more that accept that license may have been taken and mistaken translations may have occured.

To me, science and religion go hand in hand. They don't only both exist, but they feed off of each other and provide a synergistic relationship. The checks and balances in nature are too perfect of a system to be created by chance. Even when we as humans come along and mess things up, it adapts and establishes a new factor to balance out the equation.

There is no reason that evolution and religion can't get along other than the athiest community's fierce territorial habits of protecting their individuality and, yes, the occasional evangelically obtuse using the threat of eternal damnation as a means of strong-arming the population to "turn or burn".

I know that the universe in it's seemingly infinite existence has the odds in it's favor, but to me, it's too perfect of a system to have happened by chance.

This is ridiculous, creationism is an absolute joke - the very least we ask of a system, scientific or religious, is that it is not blatantly self-contradictory. Creation proponents believe in the inerrancy and full authority of Scripture and in the literal historicity of Genesis BUT in Genesis, chapter 1, plants and animals were created before any human, but in chapter 2, man was created first, then the plants, then woman. So creationists - which one is incorrect? How do you know? And how come if creationism is so great, why have they incorporated science into their thinking and actually use science to justify it's position whilst trying to discredit science?

Stoufzilla

no, you are wrong. it says He created the animals first and then man, later he says to man, "Look, all this has been created for you" NOT a contradiction.

[QUOTE="Stoufzilla"]

This is ridiculous, creationism is an absolute joke - the very least we ask of a system, scientific or religious, is that it is not blatantly self-contradictory. Creation proponents believe in the inerrancy and full authority of Scripture and in the literal historicity of Genesis BUT in Genesis, chapter 1, plants and animals were created before any human, but in chapter 2, man was created first, then the plants, then woman. So creationists - which one is incorrect? How do you know? And how come if creationism is so great, why have they incorporated science into their thinking and actually use science to justify it's position whilst trying to discredit science?

effthat

It also says that on the first day he created the heavens and the earth, but he didn't seperate the light from the dark until a day or two later, so what was used to determine that there was a "day" in which the create the heavens and earth?!

A lot of it has to do with faith. You, sir, are making large blanketing generalizations about the complexities of religious faith to further your own arguements used to fuel your athiestic view.

Furthermore, there are numerous translations and versions of the Bible all of which pass through human hands. There are plenty of christians that believe that the book is infallible and is THE word of god, but there are just as many if not more that accept that license may have been taken and mistaken translations may have occured.

To me, science and religion go hand in hand. They don't only both exist, but they feed off of each other and provide a synergistic relationship. The checks and balances in nature are too perfect of a system to be created by chance. Even when we as humans come along and mess things up, it adapts and establishes a new factor to balance out the equation.

There is no reason that evolution and religion can't get along other than the athiest community's fierce territorial habits of protecting their individuality and, yes, the occasional evangelically obtuse using the threat of eternal damnation as a means of strong-arming the population to "turn or burn".

I know that the universe in it's seemingly infinite existence has the odds in it's favor, but to me, it's too perfect of a system to have happened by chance.

See that's how you show ur point of view. I wish more people on this site were like you. I just hate how people have to insult other people just because what they believe/ don't believe.

Thats a facepalm if ever there was one.Sajo7

Agreed

I came to one conclusion: peanut butter is GOOD!

nah really how about if god created evolution and the way he "modeled" us was like our final form after an evolution or something like that O_o

ps: i've never read the bible and my english sucks a bit :lol:

This video is completely missing the point. Evolution is not an explanation of how life got STARTED but how it changes and adapts to its surroundings. Life's conception on Earth is still a point of intense scientific discussion and no one really knows. Evolution is not a term acceptable to the discussion, plain and simple.

Peanut butter? Are you freakin kidding me?

This video is skewing facts. It actually really, really annoys me.

This video is completely missing the point. Evolution is not an explanation of how life got STARTED but how it changes and adapts to its surroundings. Life's conception on Earth is still a point of intense scientific discussion and no one really knows. Evolution is not a term acceptable to the discussion, plain and simple.

Peanut butter? Are you freakin kidding me?

This video is skewing facts. It actually really, really annoys me.

weffer

evolutionary philosophy covers the beginning of life or how life started. That's what they proved false in the video.

AHAHA what do the atheists have to say now?mohfrontline

[QUOTE="weffer"]

This video is completely missing the point. Evolution is not an explanation of how life got STARTED but how it changes and adapts to its surroundings. Life's conception on Earth is still a point of intense scientific discussion and no one really knows. Evolution is not a term acceptable to the discussion, plain and simple.

Peanut butter? Are you freakin kidding me?

This video is skewing facts. It actually really, really annoys me.

mohfrontline

evolutionary philosophy covers the beginning of life or how life started. That's what they proved false in the video.

Evolutionary philosophy? Man, you guys really like to make things up, don't you. Here's some news for you: Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, or the origin of the universe. And expecting something anyone would call life to emerge in a jar of peanut butter before it expires is just ridiculous.

Edit: By the way, do you know why food expires? Because existing germs and single-celled organisms grow on it. Even if somehow primitive proto-cells or organic materials did somehow appear in the jar, it would quickly be consumed by the bacteria there. But, of course, this had nothing to do with evolution.

[QUOTE="weffer"]

This video is completely missing the point. Evolution is not an explanation of how life got STARTED but how it changes and adapts to its surroundings. Life's conception on Earth is still a point of intense scientific discussion and no one really knows. Evolution is not a term acceptable to the discussion, plain and simple.

Peanut butter? Are you freakin kidding me?

This video is skewing facts. It actually really, really annoys me.

mohfrontline

evolutionary philosophy covers the beginning of life or how life started. That's what they proved false in the video.

TEH PROOF OF GWAD! TEH PENA BUTTER! :P

Now, I don't remember evolutionism saying that life appeared from nowhere. That's a bit far fetched. But, while they do have some kind of point, why peanut butter?

I mean... peanut butter? PEANUT BUTTER?

Everytime I click on your threads I always believe it will be about something else. :P Because of your username. :horgen123

Bad example but life cannot come from non life all the same. At least not on its own without aid.123625

Hmm, without aid... Like maybe an outside energy source perhaps?

[QUOTE="123625"]Bad example but life cannot come from non life all the same. At least not on its own without aid.Zagrius

Hmm, without aid... Like maybe an outside energy source perhaps?

Elements coming together apparently and mixing to make life, that kind of aid. Please i would not start another 100 post thread.

But non life never just becomes lifeon its own.

evolutionary philosophy covers the beginning of life or how life started. That's what they proved false in the video.

mohfrontline

Just one problem, evolutionary philosophy is not evolutionary theory. Philosophy is not science just like religion isn't science however much some may attempt to frame both as it.

The science (Evolutionary Theory) does not deal with the origin of life, its pretty plain right down to the title of Charles Darwin's book the Origin of Species.