Atheist Beware, PEANUT BUTTER!!!!!!!!!

[The Vortex Empire]

Does the moron who made the peanut butter video realize that if new life was in the peanut butter, it would be single-celled and therefore invisible to the naked eye?

[The Yosemite Bear]

besides there IS life and evolving life in the peanut butter already. gah, creationists and their inability to recognize bacteria as life. Hell I'm a cook and I depend on bacteria and yeast for my livelyhood.

[Wicked Pilot]

Just saw the banana clip. Does he realise that the penis is shaped almost like that.

The penis was created for oral sex.

It has been well established that God is a dirty old pervert. I mean come on, the guy watches you masteurbate.

[TithonusSyndrome]

That's mos def sigworthy.

[Coriolis]

It has been well established that God is a dirty old pervert. I mean come on, the guy watches you masteurbate.

If you don't mind, I'll be borrowing that quote

But seriously, if Creationists can't differentiate between evolution and spontaneous growth, then something's wrong there.

[drachefly]

besides there IS life and evolving life in the peanut butter already. gah, creationists and their inability to recognize bacteria as life. Hell I'm a cook and I depend on bacteria and yeast for my livelyhood.

What's the point of vacuum-sealing it, then?

Evolution does not teach life coming from dead matter.

Taken a little broadly, to include abiogenesis, it does. This is not a significant problem with this video, when compared to the others.

[The Yosemite Bear]

to keep the hostile bacteria from getting to the cultured ones.

[DPDarkPrimus]

besides there IS life and evolving life in the peanut butter already. gah, creationists and their inability to recognize bacteria as life. Hell I'm a cook and I depend on bacteria and yeast for my livelyhood.

That's why they said NEW life specifically.

[Resinence]

What's the point of vacuum-sealing it, then?

I dunno... maybe to keep harmful bacteria out. What, do you think that the whole peanut butter factory is a vacuum and peanut butter is completely devoid of bacteria before they seal it?

Taken a little broadly, to include abiogenesis, it does. This is not a significant problem with this video, when compared to the others.

By "taken a little broadly" I assume you mean "if they strawman evolution to include abiogenesis". How is a gigantic fucking strawman of the theory they are trying to disprove not a significant problem with this video? In case you didn't notice, "evolution" does not include abiogenesis, find for me where in Origin of Species it says "the first self-replicating organism was formed from simpler organic material by chance.".

[mr friendly guy]

Evolution does not teach life coming from dead matter.

Taken a little broadly, to include abiogenesis, it does.

Great non argument there, except it doesn't include abiogenesis, so your statement is wrong. Whats next? Are you say but if I were right, I am correct? Because thats exactly the same logic you just used.

[Setesh]

I saw the banana video months ago as a youtube recomendation off something else. It just seemed to inane to share. The only thing I could think is 'Did he not look up how wild banana's disperse seeds?' followed by ;does he realise that the large yellow banana is the result of selective breeding and not natural at all.' and just to be amusing, the stem he was useing as a 'tab at the top' is actually at the bottom, bananas grow upwards.

The peanut butter guy is just, wow I can't think of anything applicable without insulting someone smarter (or more honest I haven't worked out if he's stupid or lying).

[Andrew_Fireborn]

I saw the banana video months ago as a youtube recomendation off something else. It just seemed to inane to share. The only thing I could think is 'Did he not look up how wild banana's disperse seeds?' followed by ;does he realise that the large yellow banana is the result of selective breeding and not natural at all.' and just to be amusing, the stem he was useing as a 'tab at the top' is actually at the bottom, bananas grow upwards.

It's actually a really sadly common branch of idiocy.

The news in my area ran a story about pet plastic surgery (of all things...) a while back and the anchor made a comment saying that evolution would have taken them [in this case, rolls of skin over the eyes] out if they didn't serve a purpose... Illustrating a brilliant ignornace of both evolution in general, and the fact that it was a selectively bred animal...

[defanatic]

He's an engineer?

Never underestimate the ability of otherwise intelligent people to compartmentalize their stupidity. In every other phase of life they apply rigorous investigation and high standards of evidence, but when it comes to the things they really want to believe in...

Also, more to the point, an engineer isn't really qualified to talk about biology.

[drachefly]

Evolution does not teach life coming from dead matter.

Taken a little broadly, to include abiogenesis, it does.

Great non argument there, except it doesn't include abiogenesis, so your statement is wrong. Whats next? Are you say but if I were right, I am correct? :roll: Because thats exactly the same logic you just used.

The strictly defined theory of evolution does not include it. However, the general idea of evolutionary ascent from nonliving matter does. Unless you're a OEC.

They used the word, you don't get to pick which meaning of it they meant.

[drachefly]

To put it another way: in order to think that evolution is the sole force acting to achieve the ends we ascribe to it, we also have to think that abiogenesis is right. If we don't, then we need to bring in other forces, which greatly weakens the case for evolution.

[mr friendly guy]

The strictly defined theory of evolution does not include it. However, the general idea of evolutionary ascent from nonliving matter does. Unless you're a OEC.

What the fuck do you mean "general idea of evolution". There is a proper scientific definition which doesn't include descent from non living matter.

They used the word, you don't get to pick which meaning of it they meant.

Geez, words don't have proper meaning. They can mean whatever you want them to mean. Thanks for that insight.

If you can't see how ridiculous this is I can simply redefine various words with strong connations / accepted meanings to mean something else. For example I will make up a word to describe a homosexual person, lets call this new word "paedophile". If I were to suddenly call a gay person a paedophile using a meaning utterly incorrect by proper usage, don't you think this would be, oh I don't know, deceptive. Because ignoring the meaning of words to suit their purposes is a common fundie tactic along with using communism and atheism interchangeably.
This goes beyond equivocation into outright strawmanning.

To put it another way: in order to think that evolution is the sole force acting to achieve the ends we ascribe to it, we also have to think that abiogenesis is right. If we don't, then we need to bring in other forces, which greatly weakens the case for evolution.

Non sequitar. For evolution to describe what is ascribed to it, ie the origin of species we only need to accept that there must have been a common ancestor, the first life if you will. How the first life came about is irrelevant to evolution (as its covered by abiogenesis which is a separate theory).

Next you will be saying that we will have to also incorporate big bang theory or the creation of earth by gravity into evolution or else it will weaken the case, after all we can't have creatures evolving on earth if there isn't an earth in the first place, and there can't be an earth if there the universe isn't like its now.

[drachefly]

They used the word, you don't get to pick which meaning of it they meant.

Geez, words don't have proper meaning. They can mean whatever you want them to mean. Thanks for that insight.

Which is why you never see numbers next to definitions in dictionaries.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution

Search on that page for 'chemical evolution'

[mr friendly guy]

They used the word, you don't get to pick which meaning of it they meant.

Geez, words don't have proper meaning. They can mean whatever you want them to mean. Thanks for that insight.

Which is why you never see numbers next to definitions in dictionaries.

Way to go captain obvious. The argument isn't that words have more than one meaning, its that fundies are either a) using the wrong meaning in order to deceive (equivocation) or b) making up a new meaning altogether to deceive (strawman).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution

Search on that page for 'chemical evolution'

Read your own goddamn link.

1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.
7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
8. Mathematics. the extraction of a root from a quantity. Compare involution (def. .
9. a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.
10. any similar movement, esp. in close order drill.

Yes we see numbers next the dictionary defintion of evolution. Too bad none of them involved the definition of life coming from non-life, since thats abiogenesis.

And yes I saw the part about chemical evolution. Too bad the fundies are talking about the "theory of evolution", not the "theory of chemical evolution" which sounds just like another name for what is encompassed by abiogenesis.

[drachefly]

The problem is that you're executing a grievous nitpick. So what if they're counterarguing abiogenesis instead of the rest of evolution? They're still wrong for the same reasons that have nothing to do with this.

[drachefly]

By the way, nice job of cherry-picking the source. Really. It was so cleverly done.

Chemical evolution, by the way, works by the same crucial mechanism: natural selection. It's just missing Mendel.

[Wyrm]

The problem is that you're executing a grievous nitpick. So what if they're counterarguing abiogenesis instead of the rest of evolution? They're still wrong for the same reasons that have nothing to do with this.

It's not a grievous nitpick. There is no "abiogenesis and the rest of evolution"; there is only "abiogenesis and evolution". They are quite separate and distinct theories.

Evolution is a theory of how life changes with time, which predicates the existence of things that are initially alive, and concerns itself exclusively with the changes in populations of things that are alive. Abiogenesis concerns itself with how the very first lifeforms arose from nonlife. The life forms abiogenesis is proposing are not even as complicated as bacteria (or viruses, if we call them living things).

[mr friendly guy]

The problem is that you're executing a grievous nitpick.

No I am not as they are 2 different theories. The fact that they have similar names in no way makes it a nitpick, since the meaning is clearly different. But I am sure you know what equivocation means.

So what if they're counterarguing abiogenesis instead of the rest of evolution?

It might have something to do with the fact that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. There is no "rest" of evolution.

They're still wrong for the same reasons that have nothing to do with this.

And you can also add they are wrong as well from the point of view of confusing theories.

By the way, nice job of cherry-picking the source. Really. It was so cleverly done.

You mean the part where you ignored the fact that there was no description of life coming from non life in the definition of evolution.

Chemical evolution, by the way, works by the same crucial mechanism: natural selection. It's just missing Mendel.

Not only do you get the part wrong about evolution (its main mechanism is natural selection, but it also relies on mutations and Gould would argue other mechanisms as well), your statement about chemical evolution is just outright wrong. It doesn't rely on natural selection whatsoever.

Once the first life appeared, ie a self replicating molecule, evolution will kick in, that mutations will insure different molecules, and the fitter ones will be preserved by natural selection. Until the first life appeared, evolution doesn't do jack.

On another note- Do have a problem with point by point debating? It couldn't be because your position is so weak is it?

Evolution is a theory of how life changes with time, which predicates the existence of things that are initially alive, and concerns itself exclusively with the changes in populations of things that are alive. Abiogenesis concerns itself with how the very first lifeforms arose from nonlife. The life forms abiogenesis is proposing are not even as complicated as bacteria (or viruses, if we call them living things).

I explained that to dumbass several posts ago. He just hid behind his WoI.

[Resinence]

Still waiting for the quote from Origin of Species that shows abiogenesis is part of evolution.