Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Worst Creationist Argument Ever?
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 1 of 62 (410936)
07-18-2007 2:43 AM


On occasions I listen to Chuck Missler on the radio. Chuck Missler is an author, conservative fundamentalist Bible teacher, and founder of the Koinonia House ministry. Missler is a former engineer and has held high corporate offices at several large companies. On the surface he has some credibility - at least until I ran across this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
This guy was the former Branch Chief of the Department of Guided Missiles for the U.S. Air Force. Now that is scary.
Any anti-evolutionist care to take up Chuck's flag and explain/defend this arguement. I am really hoping someone will point out that this video is a spoof.
His basic arguement is the lack of spontaneous generation of life in jars of peanut butter disproves evolution. To reinforce and underscore this arguement he points out that this empirical experiment is carried out millions of time every day, billions of time in over a century!
Quote from clip...
Chuck Missler writes:
If the theory of evolution was viable, then I should, occasionally by subjecting this [jar of peanut butter] to energy end up having new life... maybe not often but on occasions I should find new life
The drama, narrator voice overs and facial expressions are just too much.
On a similar note, I have opened countless bags of bbq charcoal, which is largely carbon, and I have never found a diamond - ever. Does this disprove that diamonds are not carbon?
I believe this to be the worst and most bizarre anti-evolution arguement that I have ever come across.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : Took the 'e' out of argument in the title

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPaul, posted 07-18-2007 2:54 AM iceage has replied
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 07-18-2007 4:09 AM iceage has not replied
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 07-18-2007 4:24 AM iceage has not replied
 Message 7 by bluegenes, posted 07-18-2007 5:38 AM iceage has not replied
 Message 8 by Parasomnium, posted 07-18-2007 5:44 AM iceage has not replied
 Message 13 by dwise1, posted 07-18-2007 11:58 AM iceage has not replied
 Message 27 by Nuggin, posted 07-18-2007 8:46 PM iceage has not replied
 Message 34 by dwise1, posted 07-19-2007 2:41 PM iceage has not replied
 Message 36 by dwise1, posted 07-19-2007 3:34 PM iceage has not replied
 Message 42 by bluegenes, posted 07-20-2007 10:45 AM iceage has replied

  
AdminPaul
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 62 (410937)
07-18-2007 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by iceage
07-18-2007 2:43 AM


A paraphrase here
The general policy here is to avoid reliance on links. Especially links to videos or audio presentations. Can you please summarise or paraphrase the argument - or transcribe the relevant portions. The link is fine as supporting evidence but we really do need the argument in some form in your post.
[Add]
OK, you did it while I was posting Which forum ?
Edited by AdminPaul, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPaul, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iceage, posted 07-18-2007 2:43 AM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by iceage, posted 07-18-2007 3:10 AM AdminPaul has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 3 of 62 (410940)
07-18-2007 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPaul
07-18-2007 2:54 AM


Re: A paraphrase here
I never know how to answer that question.
I would say "Origin of Life" but I don't think this is really all that serious so maybe something more informal like Coffee House.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPaul, posted 07-18-2007 2:54 AM AdminPaul has not replied

  
AdminPaul
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 62 (410941)
07-18-2007 3:23 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 5 of 62 (410944)
07-18-2007 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by iceage
07-18-2007 2:43 AM


as a side note, i'd like to mention that peanut butter and bananas make a damned good sandwich.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iceage, posted 07-18-2007 2:43 AM iceage has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 6 of 62 (410945)
07-18-2007 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by iceage
07-18-2007 2:43 AM


On a more important note, does anyone perform a details microscopic analysis of every jar of peanut butter to see if any of the life forms present within it originated there?
Of course, he has falsified one argument - that life originated under semi-vacuum conditions in a jar of peanut butter. Now we just need to find someone whose ever made that argument...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iceage, posted 07-18-2007 2:43 AM iceage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by dwise1, posted 07-18-2007 11:43 AM Modulous has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 7 of 62 (410949)
07-18-2007 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by iceage
07-18-2007 2:43 AM


It's priceless.
I came across that video when I was running evolution searches on YouTube a few weeks ago, and I remember trying to figure out if it was a spoof attempt to try and make creationists look stupid, or not. I'm still not quite sure.
As for the O.P. question, is it the worst creationist argument ever, there's heavy competition for that prize, as you know.
I'll search around for some, but right now I'm going to open up a jar of peanut butter, just on the off chance that my local supermarket has sold me the secret of life on earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iceage, posted 07-18-2007 2:43 AM iceage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 07-18-2007 6:03 AM bluegenes has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 8 of 62 (410951)
07-18-2007 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by iceage
07-18-2007 2:43 AM


New Theory
I have a new theory which I shall name the theory of "Incestuous Decline". It involves people (I should probably say "folks") like Chuck Missler, an example of what I call "irredeemably perplexed" people, which means that if you take away even just one brain cell from their skull, they are left with no brain cells at all.
The explanation of how they came to be this way involves unspeakable things having to do with their sister and a jar of peanut butter, the details of which can be found on certain sites on the internet.
On occasion, one of them will open a jar of peanut butter and utter a random string of words. Radio transmitters are ubiquitous, and accidents happen. But it is not something we should concern ourselves with, our time and money are better spent inventing, say, more efficient ways of making bee's knees pickle.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iceage, posted 07-18-2007 2:43 AM iceage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by FliesOnly, posted 07-18-2007 7:24 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 9 of 62 (410954)
07-18-2007 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by bluegenes
07-18-2007 5:38 AM


As for the O.P. question, is it the worst creationist argument ever, there's heavy competition for that prize, as you know.
I think the strongest contender might have to be the argumentum ad bananum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by bluegenes, posted 07-18-2007 5:38 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by bluegenes, posted 07-18-2007 7:06 AM Modulous has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 10 of 62 (410963)
07-18-2007 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Modulous
07-18-2007 6:03 AM


In the very first post I made on this site, in the Practise Makes Perfect section, I quoted a YEC from another Ev. v. Creation website who started a long anti-evolution post with the twin statements:
quote:
The earth is young. It began after the last ice age.
I loved that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 07-18-2007 6:03 AM Modulous has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 11 of 62 (410965)
07-18-2007 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Parasomnium
07-18-2007 5:44 AM


Re: New Theory
But don't for a second think that they're not completely serious about this. I have no doubts whatsoever that there are millions of evangelicals and/or fundamentalists that believe this crap. They are the vocal group and this sort of nonsense makes our "job" that much more difficult. Remember, they're not trying to convince us...they're after mainstream America. And most Americans are scientific illiterates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Parasomnium, posted 07-18-2007 5:44 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 12 of 62 (410984)
07-18-2007 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Modulous
07-18-2007 4:24 AM


On a more important note, does anyone perform a details microscopic analysis of every jar of peanut butter to see if any of the life forms present within it originated there?
Very problematic. How could you distinguish between organic matter that originated within the jar from the organic matter that had been placed into the jar at the packing plant?
A related problem with new life forming in the present day, besides being able to distinguish it from life that's already existing, is that there's a name for that new life: food! In other words, the life forms that are already present will make lunch out of new organic matter that might form spontaneously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 07-18-2007 4:24 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Modulous, posted 07-18-2007 2:24 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 13 of 62 (410989)
07-18-2007 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by iceage
07-18-2007 2:43 AM


Ooh. What's the worst creationist argument? So many to choose from.
There's the ICR statement, mainly from Gish and H. Morris, that creation is a far better explanation of origins than evolution is, because creation can't explain anything whereas evolution fails to explain everything.
There are the protein comparison fiascos. Like Walter Brown's rattlesnake protein claim that cytochrome c shows humans to be the rattlesnake's closest relative, given that we differ by about 14 amino acids. Even though we differ from the macque monkey by one amino acids and our cytochrome c sequence is identical to the chimpanzee's.
Or Gary Parker's claim that chicken lysozyme is more similar to human
lysozyme than is chimpanzee lysozyme even though chicken and human lysozyme differ by 51 amino acids whereas human and chimpanzee lysozyme are identical.
Or Hovind's solar-mass loss claim that if we take the rate of mass loss of 5 million tons per second (which is about right) and extrapolate back 5 billion years then the ancient sun would have been so incredibly massive that it would have sucked the earth in. Even though if you actually did the math you would find that the ancient sun would have only been a few hundredth's of one percent greater, sucking the earth in by less than 100,000 miles. The best support that Hovind offered for his claim? He twice tried to pick a fight with me over my email address, dwise1.
Verily, creationism is more fun than science!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iceage, posted 07-18-2007 2:43 AM iceage has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 14 of 62 (410992)
07-18-2007 12:16 PM


"God says so."

  
kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 15 of 62 (410994)
07-18-2007 12:22 PM


I 'stumbled' on to this site, which could be a good guide for choosing the worst argument.
My favorite is #276.

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-18-2007 3:58 PM kalimero has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024