Evolution Disproved by Peanut Butter!

[SuAside]

i'd rather bash religion than bashing them, all things considered...

 

[quietfanatic]

How many of you actually realised the first video is a fallacy because they're disproving the theory of abiogenesis, which is a *subset* of the theory of evolution, but not the theory of evolution as a whole?

Took you a while did it? They are not disproving anything. To be precise, evolution is observable, so anyone who does not accept that it occurs is criminally stupid (well, ignorant). Physical violence is still worse of course. I wonder how many Christians totally deny evolution? I assume that most must compromise. Although the word 'theory' is commonly used, that is vague and misleading, like 'subset of a theory'. Model is a better term, although not really part of common language. The origin of life is not a central part of the model. A creator could have kicked off the process, but I am most doubtful.

 

[Seraphim Pwns U]

First off:
For the record... I'm a she. And while Fedaykin is on the right track on my views, it's a little more than that. I don't know about anyone else... but I come here for a sense of camaraderie with other people who enjoy Fallout and similar PA games. I don't exactly come here to see people being belittled because of their beliefs. If it were so, I would have long ago posted my own personal 'laundry list'.

But I'm not here to convert, belittle, or argue with anyone. Quite the contrary. I'm here to *agree* with people; to find a safe haven away from arguments, from offering sage advice, from doing the research for other people who're too lazy/ too uneducated/ too stubborn to do it themselves, from hearing ad hominem attacks ad nauseum, and from being repeatedly told that I should be locked away for my beliefs.

Second:
Whether or not the banana example or peanut butter example is valid or not is a moot point; for even some schools (in, yes, liberal and *cough* "well-funded" *cough* areas like California) still teach Haeckel's diagram of fetal evolution and the Piltdown man as facts. And what is worse, teaching a logical fallacy based on personal lack of knowledge? Or teaching a known lie as being truth? Which, then, is more humor-worthy, in your eyes?

And while I would go in depth into the pineapple example... as I've said, I'm not here to preach or be preached to. (However, since the challenge is there, I must answer. Look to Romans 5:12 and 8:22 for my personal rebuttal, and understand, if you're curious. If asked, I will go into more depth).

Third:
This isn't about being politically correct or not. It's about "playing nice". While in the library, I once happened upon a book called, "Everything I ever needed to learn, I learned in kindergarten"... and one of the most valuable things I've learned in life is, "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all". 'Tis the easiest way to make friends, and avoid hurting other people... and avoiding making yourself look like a self-righteous, rude, ignoramus.

Sadly, what I'm seeing is simply a bunch of mockery with a small handful of spiteful insults. And it is thoroughly disappointing.

And while I'm sure most of you don't give one iota about what I personally think... I do care about what you all think. *goes on long tirade about how if more people in the world actually cared about others, this world wouldn't be half as screwed up as it is*.

Lastly... Yamu... you are right about faith. However, it takes an equal amount of faith to believe "something appeared from nothing, and here are the proofs" as it is to believe "something was created from nothing, and here are the proofs".

 

[Neamos]

but I come here for a sense of camaraderie with other people who enjoy Fallout and similar PA games.

Umm, then why do you come to the General Discussion forum?

if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all

Uhh... Welcome to the internet? The place where someone disagrees with your opinion. People who get hurt easily because someone chalenges their beliefs shouldn't be on the internet, anyway.

 

[Dracon M'Alkir]

The answer to life is not 42, it's 3.

If you think about everything that exists, you will see that this is absolutely true.

Quite interestingly; if you create a small checkers-like game, with very simple rules based on the number of three, you can have your computer create bacteria seemingly out of absolutely nowhere. You will immediately begin to see small black blips spread outward and begin squirming around, eventually forming small colonies.

With enough computing power, you can host an entire species of microscopic bacteria that are reacting on the simplest of rules ever written. Makes it debatable that with enough computing power, you could simulate an entire planet at once (Spore, lol!)

As for the rest of the topic, I'm pretty much dodging the entire religion vs evolution argument. It goes nowhere and all it does is make everyone pissed off.

 

[Brother None]

Took you a while did it?

Me? No, I wasn't able to listen to it before because I was on a computer with broken soundcard. It took me minus 1 second to figure it out once I could listen.

They are not disproving anything.

Yes they are. You can doubt their scientific model, but it is a pretty clear question mark on abiogenesis. And abiogenesis isn't "just a theory," it's an assumption, an unproven theory that has just been made in lieu of anything better, but has yet to been duplicated. There's nothing wrong with putting question marks at such huge flaws, even though it is wrong to say it related directly to evolutionary theory in the sense they're trying to.

I don't exactly come here to see people being belittled because of their beliefs.

We don't moderate for opinions, and people can post what they will as long as they don't attack anyone directly. This place has no padding, so if you don't have a tough skin, I suggest you simply avoid reading threads here. Because NMA certainly won't adapt to your delicate sensibilities.

And what is worse,

That's an academic question. They're both wrong and should both be exterminated.

 

[xdarkyrex]

They are not disproving anything.

Yes they are. You can doubt their scientific model, but it is a pretty clear question mark on abiogenesis. And abiogenesis isn't "just a theory," it's an assumption, an unproven theory that has just been made in lieu of anything better, but has yet to been duplicated. There's nothing wrong with putting question marks at such huge flaws, even though it is wrong to say it related directly to evolutionary theory in the sense they're trying to.

Nah, they really didn't disprove anything in that.

They demonstrated, that no empirically observable phenomenon is noticed.

Thats hardly proof that it doesnt happen on a microsopic level 1 in every 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times.

 

[Brother None]

Nah, they really didn't disprove anything in that.

They demonstrated, that no empirically observable phenomenon is noticed.

Thats hardly proof that it doesnt happen on a microsopic level 1 in every 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times.

There is no such thing as "proof that it doesn't happen." Proving something doesn't happen is a scientific impossibility, you can only show it's highly implausible. And while you can doubt their methods, that's what they do.

 

[quietfanatic]

Yes they are. You can doubt their scientific model, but it is a pretty clear question mark on abiogenesis. And abiogenesis isn't "just a theory," it's an assumption, an unproven theory that has just been made in lieu of anything better, but has yet to been duplicated. There's nothing wrong with putting question marks at such huge flaws, even though it is wrong to say it related directly to evolutionary theory in the sense they're trying to.

They don't have a scientific model and do not cite real experiments. They only claim that new life (ants?) do not emerge in food products, which would not disprove abiogenesis in general anyway. The Lord said, "Let there be spread." It is pseudoscience and misrepresentation. You aren't seriously suggesting that their BS examples have any weight?

The abiogenesis hypothesis is not totally without evidence, although it is obviously difficult to demonstrate. Ultimately, the alternative would be that life has always existed in this universe.

It is possible to effectively disprove a hypothesis, such as when two explanations are mutually exclusive and there is a well designed experiment to provide conclusive evidence. In the philosophy of science, a better alternative must be supplied, as you need something to work with. Yes, there is a chance that one might be mistaken in a particular case, but one generally thinks that the old model has been disproved. People must remain skeptical, but the lack of 100% certainty should not be used to support fraudulent claims or attack an honest line of inquiry. Scientific consensus will generally support the superior paradigm given time, and workers will change the pattern of research accordingly. They don't just shrug their shoulders when a problem is difficult and give up, resorting to an untestable and irrational assumption, such as 'God did it'.

It is wrong to dishonestly use pseudoscience to support an agenda. What huge flaws do they point to? Or are you referring to other problems, such as insufficient evidence and understanding?

By the way, natural selection and evolution is seen in the food industry, especially in terms of pest and pathogenic resistance.

People are working on creating artificial organisms, but that is also something different.

 

[Brother None]

They don't have a scientific model and do not cite real experiments. They only claim that new life (ants?) do not emerge in food products, which would not disprove abiogenesis in general anyway. The Lord said, "Let there be spread." It is pseudoscience and misrepresentation. You aren't seriously suggesting that their BS examples have any weight?

It's about as good as some of the arguments I've seen in favour of holding abiogenesis up as proved.

You could argue their whole argument is just an analogy to the general fact that abiogenesis has never been empirically proved, ever. And that's a fair point.

The abiogenesis hypothesis is not totally without evidence, although it is obviously difficult to demonstrate. Ultimately, the alternative would be that life has always existed in this universe.

Depends on how you define life. The eternity of life/abiogenesis/almighty being models are about equal in amount of faith you can reasonably put in them.

It is possible to effectively disprove a hypothesis, such as when two explanations are mutually exclusive and there is a well designed experiment to provide conclusive evidence. In the philosophy of science, a better alternative must be supplied, as you need something to work with. Yes, there is a chance that one might be mistaken in a particular case, but one generally thinks that the old model has been disproved. People must remain skeptical, but the lack of 100% certainty should not be used to support fraudulent claims or attack an honest line of inquiry. Scientific consensus will generally support the superior paradigm given time, and workers will change the pattern of research accordingly. They don't just shrug their shoulders when a problem is difficult and give up, resorting to an untestable and irrational assumption, such as 'God did it'.

Yeah, great attitude. Complete logical fallacy, though. Abiogenesis has never been proved nor disproved. It's a working scientific model, it's not "concensus", it's something you have to assume in order to work on further models. To use it for anything other than the assumption at the start of a model it doesn't influence, as is the case with evolution, would be pseudo-science. Your dichotomy that you either accept abiogenesis as scientific fact or accept an irrational assumption is a false one.

For someone apparently set for scientific thought, you sure do apply little of it.

Also, that's the wrong context for the use of the word "paradigm," assuming you're talking about the "theory" of abiogenesis, not its methods. Just an FYI.

It is wrong to dishonestly use pseudoscience to support an agenda. What huge flaws do they point to? Or are you referring to other problems, such as insufficient evidence and understanding?

I didn't say they point out huge flaws. I said they put question marks at [something with] huge flaws.

 

[quietfanatic]

It's about as good as some of the arguments I've seen in favour of holding abiogenesis up as proved.

So because some people use bad science this is OK? Any important explanation will have some overly confident/stupid proponents, but that doesn't damage the greater case. You will know all the technical terms for whatever kind of logical fallacy that would be. You seem to dismiss Mike Moore's rants mainly because of his flawed delivery, but religious fundies are fine if they provide some amusement? You enjoy pedantic arguing, but reality can get caught in the cross-fire at times, FYI.

You could argue their whole argument is just an analogy to the general fact that abiogenesis has never been empirically proved, ever. And that's a fair point.

It is not a valid analogy and that is not their intention, although their flawed methodology is indeed the clinker.

Yeah, great attitude. Complete logical fallacy, though. Abiogenesis has never been proved nor disproved. It's a working scientific model, it's not "concensus", it's something you have to assume in order to work on further models. To use it for anything other than the assumption at the start of a model it doesn't influence, as is the case with evolution, would be pseudo-science.
Your dichotomy that you either accept abiogenesis as scientific fact or accept an irrational assumption is a false one.

I never said it has been proven or disproved. You said things can't be disproved, which is unhelpful philosophising. I was talking about the philosophy of science using some of the jargon of T.S. Kuhn because I believe it was appropriate and thought you would be familiar with it, but apparently not. The predominant working scientific model *is* consensus, or the paradigm to use Kuhn's language. I am not sure as to how you believe scientists think and behave, but I think you will find that the reality is quite different. Even a flawed model will be vigorously defended if it is perceived to be the strongest. Not surprising. Whether things are philosophically believed to be a fact is not important. Good scientists do consider alternatives, but they will have a strong bias in support of the current paradigm.

Yes, abiogenesis is not a central part of evolutionary theory, but suggesting that it must therefore be irrelevant pseudoscience is ignorant and offensive. For example, elements associated with abiogenesis, such as the RNA world-hypothesis, come up in the structure of ribozymes, so it can be useful to aid thinking in evolutionary terms. These ideas can be used to guide further research by not only providing explanations, but also generating new hypotheses. Investigation of the possibility of abiogenesis itself, trying to ‘prove’ it, is also of special interest for human reasons. Although you might not intend it, you seem to be saying that people should not collect evidence to support abiogenesis there, as well as not acknowledging existing evidence.

For someone apparently set for scientific thought, you sure do apply little of it.

For someone specialising in humanities, you seem almost more clueless about the history than you are about the science.

 

[Brother None]

So because some people use bad science this is OK? Any important explanation will have some overly confident/stupid proponents, but that doesn't damage the greater case. You will know all the technical terms for whatever kind of logical fallacy that would be. You seem to dismiss Mike Moore's rants mainly because of his flawed delivery, but religious fundies are fine if they provide some amusement? You enjoy pedantic arguing, but reality can get caught in the cross-fire at times, FYI.

Why are you trying to make it sound as if I stated, anywhere, that their methods are commendable or reliable? I said they have a point, just like mr Moore has a point, and they do. Their idiotic delivery doesn't change that no more than mr Moore's idiotic delivery changes that he might have a point. It just means I don't take mr Moore or these jokers seriously, but instead think about the point independent of their idiotic cajoling.

It is not a valid analogy and that is not their intention

Ah, mind-reader.

You said things can't be disproved, which is unhelpful philosophising.

No it isn't, it's fact that is important to recognise. Unhelpful philosophising is when you turn to its agnostic slant and just go "so let's just give up on it." That's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying that failure to recognise that nobody can prove abiogenesis doesn't happen doesn't mean by definition that it should be considered proved, no more than that argument is valid when used for God.

I was talking about the philosophy of science using some of the jargon of T.S. Kuhn because I believe it was appropriate and thought you would be familiar with it, but apparently not. The predominant working scientific model *is* consensus, or the paradigm to use Kuhn's language.

I am familiar with my namesake, the problem here is that a paradigm of science implies that a model is accepted enough to be used as the basis of proof of further theories. Abiogenesis isn't, it's a model to explain a point we have no knowledge of somewhere at the start of evolution, but it is not a paradigm used as the foundation of further scientific extrapolation. Consider this, if abiogenesis is disproved, there is no paradigm shift, because nothing else is disproved. It is a singular, independent assumption, not a paradigm.

I am not sure as to how you believe scientists think and behave, but I think you will find that the reality is quite different. Even a flawed model will be vigorously defended if it is perceived to be the strongest.

So scientists are even more idiotic than I always assumed? Good to know.

Yes, abiogenesis is not a central part of evolutionary theory, but suggesting that it must therefore be irrelevant pseudoscience is ignorant and offensive.

Oh boy, hopscotch'd into a straw man there, as you're again putting words in my mouth. I never used that logic. "Believing" in abiogenesis or considering it scientific fact just because it's an acceptable theoretic model is pseudoscience. There is no reason to believe abiogenesis is a valid model, there's no reason not to believe it, it's just convenient.

For example, elements associated with abiogenesis, such as the RNA world-hypothesis, come up in the structure of ribozymes, so it can be useful to aid thinking in evolutionary terms. These ideas can be used to guide further research by not only providing explanations, but also generating new hypotheses. Investigation of the possibility of abiogenesis itself, trying to ‘prove’ it, is also of special interest for human reasons. Although you might not intend it, you seem to be saying that people should not collect evidence to support abiogenesis there, as well as not acknowledging existing evidence.

No, I'm saying it might be a good idea to actually prove it before swinging your dick around calling anyone who doubts it an idiot.

For someone specialising in humanities, you seem almost more clueless about the history than you are about the science.

Hello, daddy long-toes. Sorry I hurt your feewings. I have a feeling I've talked to you before and you've showed surprising irrational passion in the defensive of assumption models before, but I can't quite seem to remember it.

 

[MrBumble]

I just love it when people try to discredit the actual scientific model while they have no other answer than "life was created by God in a couple days dude...". I mean, how is that an explanation at all ? If you cannot explain what god is then that explanation is not valid.

 

[Seraphim Pwns U]

@ DarkLegacy... I have to agree with you about 3 there. And Life is a little more complex than checkers. I can win at checkers, but I don't do very well in Life (I always wind up killing everything off somehow, aside from the glider and the oval).

@ Neamos... I come here because there's usually a lot of interesting topics. And it's not about being hurt easily about challenged beliefs... but rather, keeping the peace. Back in the day, I ran a BBS quite like NMA... wholly unmoderated for opinions. And out of a single topic about religion, I saw the whole board degrade into an all out war, which wound up with me having to take the board down, and then going into a sort of exile from the BBS scene for a year or so. I'd hate to see that happen here.

@ Brother None... While I wouldn't exactly call myself "delicate" (mayhaps "kindhearted" along with a heavy dose of "concern for others" might be more appropriate... "motherly" might be best), I do appriciate your... erm... blunt concern.

I am glad we see eye to eye regarding the banana vs Haeckel... but now, a less academic question... under what reasoning would schools still teach things like Haeckel as fact? I can understand why Ray Comfort would use the banana, as until he is told that bananas are cultivated, as opposed to being in their natural form, he would see nothing wrong with his argument. However, Haeckel's diagrams has been disproven for over 40-some-odd years. Why would schools continue to use it in their textbooks?

OT... Personally, I find their peanut butter example is both Redi's and Pasteur's experiments rolled into one. Large things (ants) don't spontaneously generate when the conditions for their survival are right, and nor do smaller things like bacteria. For them to appear, the object has to be contaminated from an outside source. And even scientific experiments attempting to prove abiogenesis, are, in a roundabout way, imho, also "contaminated" by an outside, sentient, force.

Beyond saying this, though, I think I'll share DarkLegacy's stance and stay out of the conversation... mostly.

 

[Kyuu]

Large things (ants) don't spontaneously generate when the conditions for their survival are right, and nor do smaller things like bacteria. For them to appear, the object has to be contaminated from an outside source. And even scientific experiments attempting to prove abiogenesis, are, in a roundabout way, imho, also "contaminated" by an outside, sentient, force.

It's far from a proof, but there was an experiment that demonstrated that certain organic molecules can be generated from non-living matter. It's also absurd to suggest that abiogenesis in any way states that life can spontaneously arise in any condition, such as in a jar of peanut butter, because it doesn't.

It is not a valid analogy and that is not their intention

Ah, mind-reader.

It's hardly mind-reading to make an extrapolation of their intent based upon the video. I'd have to agree with quietfanatic that it's pretty apparent that your more reasonable assertion that abiogenesis simply has no empirical proof is not present in their video, nor does it seem they intended to say that. Also, it'd actually be fairer to accuse you of "mind reading," because you're trying to say they're making an argument that never actually appeared in the video. It's a more reasonable assumption that they were just stringing out a fallacious line of reasoning involving a jar of peanut butter, since that's all that was presented.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Abiogenesis is a theory based on necessity, and is inherently biased, but the alternatives that I know of get even more and more iffy when it comes to scientific plausibility.


The argument presented here is wildly fallacious, making claims that the conditions for abiogenesis are modeled in packaged foods. The disposition of this video must assert that biology has made NO progress since ancient greece and spontaneous generation is still the norm for people who wonder how flies come out of rotten meat. The belief that living things come out of organic matter like that is archaic (disproved roughly 300 years ago), and they simply say that the only other alternative is that god creates all life (disregarding the ideas of life originating off of earth and even making claims that peanut butter mimics primeval soup while ignoring the estimated 1 billion years of chaotic chemical ocean that was required to have this supposedly happen).

Really, the gaps in logic are mind boggling, but what else can you expect from people who believe in floating invisible omnipotent beings?


as for your response to my last comment, brother none, I never laid claim about absolutes (I'm a nihilist), but they didn't even ALMOST disprove this beyond a reasonable doubt.

and more importantly, what do the religious crowd think of this http://www.physorg.com/news105869123.html

 

[fedaykin]

I am glad we see eye to eye regarding the banana vs Haeckel... but now, a less academic question... under what reasoning would schools still teach things like Haeckel as fact? I can understand why Ray Comfort would use the banana, as until he is told that bananas are cultivated, as opposed to being in their natural form, he would see nothing wrong with his argument. However, Haeckel's diagrams has been disproven for over 40-some-odd years. Why would schools continue to use it in their textbooks?

The only reason you're going on about Haeckel is that his drawing is sometimes used as evidence in support of evolution. If it had nothing to do with the latter, you would not care. Your real quarrel is with Darwin, not Haeckel.

You can understand creationists preaching bullshit as seen in the banana and peanut butter videos, yet you can't understand why an influencial biologist's work is still used, even though it might not be correct. Interesting.

 

[Zeal]

Wasnt there a movie of a banana singing "Its peanut butter jelly time!"?

I wonder if God has anything to do with its creation...

Anyway, if creationists say god made all living things with a purpose, why do they bitch so much when some virus and bacterias infiltrate their system?

 

[FeelTheRads]

Anyway, if creationists say god made all living things with a purpose, why do they bitch so much when some virus and bacterias infiltrate their system?

That's what posers do. Real believers accept God's will to kill them or their families, and praise him for doing so.


Praise the Lorde!

 

[Serge 13]

damn...that The pineapple video made me laugh hard !

I must say, it is stupid to try to convince an athiest that god exist ,or to convince a christian that god doesent exist ...IMO