Stupid proof against evolution

[dodo-man-1]

See if you believe this or not.

Was that not the stupidest thing you have ever seen!?

[scorchin-hot]

Shit heat and lightning are the same thing I never knew

look it's the creationism evolutionary cycle: <A>http://www.chick.com/catalog/posters/poste r.asp<A>

[Korriken]

that's pretty damned stupid. the way he's saying it, occasionally a monster should pop out of a can of peanut butter. if new life was to happen in your peanut butter, it would probably start as a simple single celled organism.

However I am a Creationist AND an evolutionist, and I say, the idea is bunk. Want proof of evolution? viruses mutate. Wanna see proof of creationism? consider that new life forms don't just spring up out of the ground and begin taking over.

The way I see it, god made the first life, then set up evolution, because things change and animals need to change with it.

wanna see more proof of evolution? everyone looks different, if nothing ever changed, you would have clones of Adam and Eve running around.

Wanna see more proof of creationism? you don't pop open a jar of peanut butter and find a peanut butter monster inside.

can energy and heat create new life? I don't know, I've never tried it before.

[LtSurge659]

At 4/25/07 05:29 PM, Korriken wrote: that's pretty damned stupid. the way he's saying it, occasionally a monster should pop out of a can of peanut butter. if new life was to happen in your peanut butter, it would probably start as a simple single celled organism.

Indeed. Things don't just spontaneously appear.

However I am a Creationist AND an evolutionist...

In the end, that's probably the best way to look at it. I, too, have those beliefs.

[AapoJoki]

If I didn't know any better, I'd say that was an evolutionist making a parody of a creationist argument. That was easily one of the worst creationist arguments I have ever heard, and that's saying a lot.

[InsertFunnyUserName]

Their agument didn't make any sense.

Suprise, suprise.

Life can't just appear inside of a steral invirement. For there to be any life inside of a jar of peanut butter, there would have to be some kind of expsior to the open air.

Also, an envirement such as a sealed jar has no resources to support any kind of life. Anything that might arise would die almost instantly for there is no oxigen nor water.

In addition, even if life was somehow created in that jar, the food inside would be thrown out way before there would be any kind of visual sign that there was an organism being supported in that envirement.

People just need to stop trying to disprove evolution because it has been proven many times over to exist.

Although, I'm think we're pretty safe that they're not going anywhere with their attemps, seeing as their best argument can be dispelled by a group of 14 year olds on an online forum.

[HighlyIllogical]

I love how they say that life can't come from non-life...

How ignorant.

[LordJaric]

That was stupid. It takes millions of years for evoloution to take place and they thing it can happen in a instent.

[Korriken]

At 4/25/07 06:30 PM, LordJaric wrote: That was stupid. It takes millions of years for evoloution to take place and they thing it can happen in a instent.

evolution happens on a generational basis, the changes are so small that you don't see the results, unless you look back on a long time scale.

[Schmut]

I can't believe how all of you are so blind to the obvious truth. You saw it with your own eyes: life doesn't occur in peanut butter, therefore life cannot occur without God's intervention. It's fucking obvious and you people are morons. It's a well documented fact that God has no power over peanut butter, therefore he cannot create life inside of it. That is why there must be a God and the theory of evolution is retarded!

But on a more serious note, that was the funniest thing I've seen all day.

[LordJaric]

At 4/25/07 06:52 PM, Schmut wrote: I can't believe how all of you are so blind to the obvious truth. You saw it with your own eyes: life doesn't occur in peanut butter, therefore life cannot occur without God's intervention. It's fucking obvious and you people are morons. It's a well documented fact that God has no power over peanut butter, therefore he cannot create life inside of it. That is why there must be a God and the theory of evolution is retarded!

You are the moron, evolution can't happen just like that, It takes time for things to develop.

[Schmut]

At 4/25/07 07:36 PM, LordJaric wrote: You are the moron, evolution can't happen just like that, It takes time for things to develop.

Nope, I was joking. I'm actually super-agnostic and will now take the same argument to "disprove" God.

You saw it with your own eyes: life doesn't occur instantaneously in peanut butter. Evolution suggests that life have been formed due to billions of year of genetic mutation. On the other hand, creationists believe that life can appear instantaneously at the choice of a supreme being. Surely that "God" would get bored and start making life all over the place, all of the time, so you'd expect that life would appear in peanut butter every so often. Everytime I open up a new jar of peanut butter, I don't see any life in there. These life-forms don't just miraculously appear at the whim of a deity. If they did, you'd find it in your peanut butter and on your socks. Because complicated life-forms don't just appear in peanut butter, it's pretty obvious that God didn't create life and that evolution is indeed the correct theory. To believe that life would suddenly appear in peanut butter is daft and therefore it is equally obsurd to suggest that a god could instantaneously create complicated life-forms. The entire food industry is therefore completely reliant on the fact that creationism is wrong!

[Elfer]

I don't know about you guys, but I ALWAYS do a star trek sensor sweep to check for any trace of life in a jar of peanut butter after I open it.

I also hit all my peanut butter with lightning. Like seriously, is there a more efficient way to make toast? If there is, I sure as hell don't want to hear about it.

[SolInvictus]

At 4/25/07 05:06 PM, dodo-man-1 wrote: See if you believe this or not.

Was that not the stupidest thing you have ever seen!?

life from non-life is not evolution. the Big Bang and the universe are not evolution. why don't they know this when they start attacking "evolution"?

[Korriken]

At 4/25/07 08:37 PM, Elfer wrote:

I also hit all my peanut butter with lightning. Like seriously, is there a more efficient way to make toast? If there is, I sure as hell don't want to hear about it.

I just place my bread near a black of uranium for a few seconds. makes the bread glow too!

[HighlyIllogical]

At 4/25/07 07:59 PM, Schmut wrote: Surely that "God" would get bored and start making life all over the place, all of the time, so you'd expect that life would appear in peanut butter every so often.

Well, that's a theological arguments, I'm sure that you shouldn't be presuming that you know so much about the workings of the universe – I don't either...but, for now, we had all better recognize that evolution is IT (the interference of a deity is possible, we have no proof suggesting that G-d started the process, and no proof against that, either).

[SolInvictus]

At 4/25/07 10:35 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: but, for now, we had all better recognize that evolution is IT (the interference of a deity is possible, we have no proof suggesting that G-d started the process, and no proof against that, either).

which is why science ignores the supernatural. we cannot prove or disprove it but we can observe the world around us and its workings, which is what science is based on.

[HighlyIllogical]

There we go.

Science has no proof in favor of or against the existence of a supreme deity...

Hence we must accept evolution as truth, for now.

[Saveo]

I guess everyone has their own opinion on these things. No one has the right to impose their own opinions on another, but in my personal opinion, the creationist's theory is insane.....

[DrunkenGargoyle]

At 4/25/07 05:06 PM, dodo-man-1 wrote: See if you believe this or not.

Was that not the stupidest thing you have ever seen!?

I've seen worse.

[Korriken]

At 4/25/07 10:44 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: There we go.

Science has no proof in favor of or against the existence of a supreme deity...

Hence we must accept evolution as truth, for now.

well, that's a pretty assumptuous thing to do wouldn't you think? we don't have to accept anything as "truth" Certainly I personally believe that evolution happens, that minor changes happen over a long expanse of time to create major change. However, to say that creationism and evolution can't coexist is folly.

to say that evolution doesn't exist is folly in itself, consider how many races of human there are, and how wildly our genes vary. Certainly we are all human, but we all have different features, such as skin tone, some people have larger jaw bones, some have large brow ridges, some people stand at a whopping 4 foot tall, some stand at a staggering 7 foot tall, all different. if nothing ever changed we would all be the same height, weight, build, etc. Also consider how many of our favorite dog breeds do not occur naturally, we had to breed the dogs into existance, which is a clear sign of evolution.

But, to say that evolution is the only way, is also folly. Is there a supreme diety? There have been many things that say yes we do. to say, "god doesn't exist we have no solid proof" is like saying, "pics or it didn't happen" during a rape trial.. just not as extreme. whether or not god exists probably won't be proven, until it's too late, but to try and force the idea of there being no god on people is folly. Trying to trample someone else's beliefs underfoot is just asking for trouble.

[Boltrig]

Shit! Its Dr Duane T Gish!

I dislike the man intensly, but not for is creationist views. I dislike him cause HE CANNOT GOOGLEWHACK

For more information on this refrence, look up Dave Gorman's googlewhack adventure. It rocks!

[emmytee]

Its funny how creationists never even fully understand the theory of evolution. The claim they make about matter and heat creating life is just false. It is true that these are necessary, but many other conditions must have to be met as well. Why can't people just be clever religious types. Y'know, the ones who call their own bullshit all the time by not hating gays, not basing wars on ideas that they claim to believe.

As the rest of the free world calls them, atheists.

[Empanado]

At 4/25/07 08:37 PM, Elfer wrote: I also hit all my peanut butter with lightning. Like seriously, is there a more efficient way to make toast? If there is, I sure as hell don't want to hear about it.

You, sir, win at toast.

[Davideogame]

At 4/26/07 07:14 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 4/25/07 10:44 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: There we go.

Science has no proof in favor of or against the existence of a supreme deity...

Hence we must accept evolution as truth, for now.

... to say that creationism and evolution can't coexist is folly.

Completely true.

But, to say that evolution is the only way, is also folly. Is there a supreme diety? There have been many things that say yes we do. to say, "god doesn't exist we have no solid proof" is like saying, "pics or it didn't happen" during a rape trial.. just not as extreme.

Evolution is merely the theory with the most evidence behind it. There are other theories/hypotheses with evidence that don't contradict evolution, but evolution is generally accepted alone.

:Whether or not god exists probably won't be proven, until it's too late, but to try and force the idea of there being no god on people is folly. Trying to trample someone else's beliefs underfoot is just asking for trouble.

I don't think any rational person is trying to disprove the existence of God, since it's logically impossible unless you are a being that knows everything about the universe, which would make you something like a god.

[DeathDementor]

hey yeh i never thought about it that way and im glad u posted it on bbs so all u people that believe in the evolution your wrong hahahah tht means i have won all alkong with out knowing it thnk u

[Alphabit]

At 4/25/07 05:29 PM, Korriken wrote: that's pretty damned stupid. the way he's saying it, occasionally a monster should pop out of a can of peanut butter. if new life was to happen in your peanut butter, it would probably start as a simple single celled organism.

It could be even less than one-cell (maybe a special energy), and also, it would take MILLIONS of years for it to develop to being visible.

Also, the theory of evolution doesn't really focus around were life began as much as "how it developed." They're just attacking the weak aspects of evolution. I'd like to see them tackle the fact that we share over 99% of our DNA with monkeys.

I believe in evolution because it makes sense to think that there is no distinct boundary between living and non-living. I mean, when I consider a bacteria for example, I am confident that it's not quite as alive as I am... It moves and it's intelligent in a way, but I find it hard to believe that it could be conscious in the way we are.

You could look at a tree and say it's a alive and it probably is a alive, but probably not to the extent of a human being; humans have many ways in which to interact with the universe, trees have very little as far as we know.

So yeah, I think there are varying degrees of life, and I believe that it probably began at a VERY basics. I like to compare this whole notion to computing; if you try to make a 3D game from binary code, it will be impossible for a single human to do. However, still using binary code, it would be easy to make a simpler program like a calculator that only adds values together... And as we know, programming methodologies have evolved from an extremely basic system comprising just two numbers.

[emmytee]

At 4/26/07 07:14 PM, Korriken wrote:

However, to say that creationism and evolution can't coexist is folly.

Sure they can, you just need to accept that the bible is a bunch of metaphors, and that many passages in it are not based in fact.

[Alphabit]

I was browsing the net and I found a question put forward by a creationist:

"Ok.. let me get this straight. The Word of God says we were created with Human bodies that are designed to live forever. Science has recently proven that if we were to learn something new every second, we would take well over 3 millions years to exhaust the memory capacity of our 'post flood' brains. (Pre-flood brains were 3 times larger) On the other hand... Evolutionists say things evolve after there is a need for change.

Question... How is it possible for us to have a brain that could hold enough info to last over 3 millions years, when all we can live up to is 90 years? (Don't expect and answer from them.)"

Well, it is an interesting question and I alreasy have three possible answers:
1. The brain decays and gets damaged and so we need back-up
2. Memory could be proportional to other aspects of our intelligence and as such, with added thinking capabilities, we get extra memory. Memory itself cannot be looked upon as an independent neural function. Science has proven that thinking and memory are tightly coupled.
3. Just because we have something which we don't necessarily need doesn't mean that it can't be used; we've got room for improvement. I'm pretty sure that memory is far more complex than what is expressed in the above article.

[Cybex]

Argh! I felt like punching my computer screen. He's like "we waited 100 years and theres still no new life". Well the earth's billions of years and this new life thing only has to happen once. Once in a billion years! A 100 year experiment to see if any new life is formed in a jar of peanut butter is hardly good enough.