Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/27/07 04:18 PM, Cybex wrote: 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.

Indeed. Plus a jar of peanut butter is hardly ideal conditions for life to grow. The tightly packs goo leaves no room for oxygen or moisture.
Once the lid is opened, exposing the surface to oxygen, moisture and heat, its likely to go mouldy.

Whaddaya know! Life!

To a certain extent. Might take a while to evolve into anything other than mould.

At 4/27/07 04:28 PM, Boltrig wrote: Indeed. Plus a jar of peanut butter is hardly ideal conditions for life to grow. The tightly packs goo leaves no room for oxygen or moisture.
Once the lid is opened, exposing the surface to oxygen, moisture and heat, its likely to go mouldy.

That point is kind of irrelevant. The very first life on earth was intollerant to oxygen. Life only occurs because of some random complex chemical reactions that occured which just so happened to make something which turned into a cell. It's not as if oxygen is vital to life. The only reason our life needs oxygen is because we've adapted to our oxygenated environment.

The only reason you don't get life randomly being created in a peanut butter jar is because the chances of the necessary chemical reactions happening are so slim, they would only happen once in billions of years. If life was to occur in a peanut butter jar, it would probably adapt to its surroundings, and so not need oxygen.

Although, having saidall that, a better argument for creationism would be that science shows that the probability of life forming is so small that if you consider the amount of chemical reactions going on in the earth, all the time, even after billions of years, the chances of chemical reactions happening which would result in any form of life are still incredibly slim.

SolInvictus said something similar to this earlier, but I just wanted to reemphasize it.

The problem with the whole "I don't have life in my peanut butter, therefore evolution is wrong" argument is that people suppose (wrongly) that evolution explains how life came into being. Evolution, to simplify it greatly, explains that after life some how came into existence, beneficial mutations created genetic/species diversity that we see today.

Perhaps people should be arguing between creationism and the big bang, not evolution.

You know, that video would make sense if the universe was a food industry. You can't use an example of evolution with peanut butter. Thats like me saying God cant exist because if I talk to him and he wont talk back, hence doesn't exist.

The funny thing is you either ignore the evidence proving evolution, or the evidence disproving it.

At 4/27/07 09:07 PM, Jesus-made-me-do-it wrote:

The funny thing is you either ignore the evidence proving evolution, or the evidence disproving it.

I'm actually interested in your later statement. Could you show me some of the evidence disproving evolution. It doesn't have to be evidence, but any sort of un-biased argument or paper on what the current know flaws are on the theory. It is just that there is totally no argument in the biological scientific community about the validy on evolution.

I can think of a large number of arguments FOR evolution...homologous structures, comparative embryology, etc.

But what proof is there for creationism without evolution (that is, as opposed to pure evolution or evolution initiated by a diety)?

At 4/27/07 09:49 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: But what proof is there for creationism without evolution (that is, as opposed to pure evolution or evolution initiated by a diety)?

The fact that you can't create something from nothing is apparently an argument for creationism. But there isn't any proof that nothing ever existed; as far back as we are able to look through time, we see something.
And as far as I know, the only other "proof" for creationism is the fossils that are supposed to show the evolution of man. Rather than use those fossils to prove their theory is correct, however, they focus on proving evolution wrong. So, even if their arguments about the fossil records were true, they still don't give any further proof to suggest that creationism is the correct theory, as opposed to evolution.
I almost forgot bananas. They disprove evolution, supposedly. Perfeclty shaped and made easy to peel.
It seems extremely obvious that evolution is correct and yet they choose to argue against it rather than come up with proof for their own theory. So it appears that there is no proof for creationism.
But I can see why people would like to believe in creationism to feel secure. It's like a fear of heights. While we progress ever higher learning new things as we go, the creationists stay down on the ground saying things like "You're going to fall from there."

"This is a book of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, that means that whitch craft exists. The followers of the devil. So if the Devil exists God must exist. You cant deny logic such as this."

They should have a sign saying, 'Stupidy alert'

At 4/27/07 09:49 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: But what proof is there for creationism without evolution (that is, as opposed to pure evolution or evolution initiated by a diety)?

To be honest, i think a lot of proof is based on the assumption that the bible is correct. For example, God created man in his image, so this proves that evolution is wrong. It sucks, i know.

At 4/27/07 07:58 PM, Davideogame wrote:

The problem with the whole "I don't have life in my peanut butter, therefore evolution is wrong" argument is that people suppose (wrongly) that evolution explains how life came into being. Evolution, to simplify it greatly, explains that after life some how came into existence, beneficial mutations created genetic/species diversity that we see today.

I agree with most points you got here, but the point I just have to make is not all mutations are beneficial...

Well the majority of genetic mutations aren't beneficial, they usually result in death or serious illness/disability. Such mutations don't usually contribute to genetic diversity because the organism usually dies early, but there are exceptions like hemophilia or Huntington's disease.

how can we tell the difference between a newly created single-celled organism and a newly discovered organism? for all we know my desk may be covered with newly created life.

At 4/25/07 05:28 PM, scorchin-hot wrote: Shit heat and lightning are the same thing I never knew

Well, it's at least true that lightning does generate a hell of a lot of heat, albiet for a very small fraction of a second.

also I would like to add evolution has no goal but to survive it is not to make you perfect, but to make it so the most fit for there enviroment pass on the most genes.

lol its true.

At 4/29/07 12:53 PM, timmysblood wrote: also I would like to add evolution has no goal but to survive it is not to make you perfect, but to make it so the most fit for there enviroment pass on the most genes.

Or, it's possible evolution is destined to lead us to evolve into some form of god-like being. That god-like being would be aware of the entire universe and would be able to explain how it exists. The very existance of the universe could be reliant on that beings existance and the existance of "THE" answer that has, so far, eluded us.
This theory would help to bring together two versions of the same idea. The observable universe would be all that existed, but this being would be able to observe all of existance, anyway. This would link the two theories of multiple-worlds and observational universe.
So, this omnipotent being that religious types would classify as a god, could be far more scientifically plausible than some people think. In turn, this being could have designed the entire universe to lead up to the point where it would exist and would be able to observe that entire universe. But, if there are multiple worlds, then it's not so much designed as it did just happen, being one of the infinities that could have and did occur.
So, we're able to hypothesise a god-scenario with scientific theories. It may also be testable through experiments. Could human beings find god? We might be closer than we think.

At 4/29/07 03:55 PM, Schmut wrote: Stuff

Good idea for a sci-fi movie, but I think you'll need a bit more than just "Wouldn't it be cool if..." in order to get it classed as a scientific theory. :P

At 4/28/07 08:23 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 4/25/07 05:28 PM, scorchin-hot wrote: Shit heat and lightning are the same thing I never knew

Well, it's at least true that lightning does generate a hell of a lot of heat, albiet for a very small fraction of a second.

Yeah. That's why energy from lightning and energy from ambient heat aren't the same. For example, a system getting hit by lightning would cause a sharp decrease in entropy, while a system resting in ambient heat produces no decrease. Of course, who am I to question Chuck Missler, failed businessman and plagiarist?

Peanut Butter!
The athiest's worst nightmare!

At 4/25/07 06:03 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: 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.

Not true. Very simple organisms can survive in the most harsh and uninhabitable of places by hibernation

that video cracked me up, creationists are sooo retarded.. I love them

At 4/25/07 06:03 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: 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.

life on our earth began without the precence of oxygen

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.

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.

Mother fucking ignoramouses like you don't understand that that kind of thinking has no place in THE NEW WORLD ORDER.

no really... spiritualism will never become popular, ever; it just can't work.........................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.........

You can't disprove something you don't understand in the first place.
Well, you can try, but you'll end up looking as stupid as that guy.

Evolution took 4.5 billion years to create life. The guy probably is a young-earth creationist who thinks that there wasn't enough time. Dumbasses like him make me ashamed to be in the same gneus as them.

At 4/25/07 05:29 PM, Korriken wrote: wanna see more proof of evolution? everyone looks different, if nothing ever changed, you would have clones of Adam and Eve running around.

the reason we all look different and speak different and are shapeddifferent dates back to when God split up all the people after they tried to build the tower of babyl to reach heaven.
my personal thought is at that time God split up Pangea.

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

exactly, if evolution happened by some accident dont yall guys think scientist would be able to create life out of nothing.

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

no it cant. it would be incredibly easy to create life if that were true.

At 4/27/07 09:49 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: But what proof is there for creationism without evolution (that is, as opposed to pure evolution or evolution initiated by a diety)?

i can understand some people believing in evolution as initiated by God.

but the main proof creationist have is simply the fact that there is no real proof of evolution.
and Christians have the bible. which in some way which none of you can explain the bible tells exactly what is going on in the world today.
i dont know how you can say the bible isnt true. it even says that the voice of the UN would be an Englishman! and now whats happening? Blaire is becoming the voice of the UN!!

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.

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.

Dude that is awesome, and it's definitely nice to see someone sharing ideas that are at least somewhat close to mine, and I've never seen a monster pop up out of a jar of peanut butter, but did they consider the fact that there's a rather large difference between an extremely nitrogen rich atmosphere having LIGHTNING going through it quite a lot and someone opening a jar of peanut butter? Makes no bloody sense with the monster in the peanut butter thing.

At 7/12/07 01:45 PM, TonyTostieno wrote: Dude that is awesome, and it's definitely nice to see someone sharing ideas that are at least somewhat close to mine, and I've never seen a monster pop up out of a jar of peanut butter, but did they consider the fact that there's a rather large difference between an extremely nitrogen rich atmosphere having LIGHTNING going through it quite a lot and someone opening a jar of peanut butter? Makes no bloody sense with the monster in the peanut butter thing.

but see the thing is, in peanut butter nitrogen and lightning cant form. so why could they appear in emptiness?

waddever, creationism is true, i thinks