Creationist scientists...bad for their own cause?

Or stupid like a stupid fox?




In this video, you're going to get several lies told to you. The first being that "evolution states that sometimes, life will form from inanimate matter if mixed with energy and heat". This is not what the theory, any theory, on the origin of life states.

A basic wiking offers a more clear understanding ;

In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth, in a scientific laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.

In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication, and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to modern, replication-first approach.

In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself.[3][4] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[5][6] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[7][8]

The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).

The second lie is the implications the conditions in a peanut butter jar are a facsimile to the primordial soup, in the comparatively alien world that our life developed from.

The third lie is the assertion that life had to have evolved under the theory of evolution from non-life on this planet, when it is equally possible under our current theories that microbial life was transported here via an asteroid or other heavenly body.

The fourth and perhaps silliest lie is the implication there is no life in a peanut butter jar, when even healthy safe normal peanut butter is going to be loaded with microbial life in the first place, ruining the control, and plausibility of this experiment.



Now, why would this be stupid like a stupid fox instead of just plain stupid? Well, most people don't understand evolution at all, and to stupid impressionable people, this theory would make a small degree of sense, perhaps enough to justify writing off science and allowing themselves to commit themselves forever to the obviously more logical theory that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Thunder-stealer. I was gonna post that one next!

Wolf, can you please change your sig soon. That pic makes me sick to my stomach.

Thomasdrrn09 wrote:

This makes a lot of sense, if not for the unfortunate fact that bananas as we know them today, like the one in this video, are a 50 year old cultivar, and the wild relatives that existed 2000 years ago before they were domesticated were essentially inedible and exhibited none of the features of this video.

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

Wolf, can you please change your sig soon. That pic makes me sick to my stomach.

Good.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Thomasdrrn09 wrote:

This makes a lot of sense, if not for the unfortunate fact that bananas as we know them today, like the one in this video, are a 50 year old cultivar, and the wild relatives that existed 2000 years ago before they were domesticated were essentially inedible and exhibited none of the features of this video.

I know. You would think they would look into that before making this video.

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

Wolf, can you please change your sig soon. That pic makes me sick to my stomach.

freak I need to apologize, I forgot you're not an American Christian/war on terror supporter. The image isn't pretty, but it serves a purpose.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

Wolf, can you please change your sig soon. That pic makes me sick to my stomach.

freak I need to apologize, I forgot you're not an American Christian/war on terror supporter. The image isn't pretty, but it serves a purpose.

No prob. It's just that I like reading your posts and I've already seen too much pics of kids being killed. Can't you just make a topic about it and put all the pics there?

Of anyone here freak, I'd hope you'd understand why this sig has to be here. Israel's gonna get off the hook everywhere else, until mantis steps in, let them suffer a little bit in our own tiny universe please.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Of anyone here freak, I'd hope you'd understand why this sig has to be here. Israel's gonna get off the hook everywhere else, until mantis steps in, let them suffer a little bit in our own tiny universe please.

Ok, I'll just have to bare it for a couple of days.

Bump. I'd hope this would have gotten more play.

'Creationist scientist' = an oxymoron, most creationists wouldn't know a scientific fact if it jumped up and bit them on the ass.

Look if I was a creationist, I'd be compelled to argue everything science believes is probably true, but that someone is exactly what the Bible says. You can make that book say anything.

I never understood why creationists don't just say...."evolution exists and is all around us...and God created it." While I don't believe that to be true, it seems like the most difficult argument to attack since it is impossible to find proof of the non-existence of God. Though, I guess people still have their head buried in a certain book to come up for air and think that if there is a God, maybe evolution was his master plan/experiment.

Exactly. Just say "God is a scientist" and be done with it.