Define "new". You mean a brand new species? Or do you just mean new life? Because uh... if you leave the peanut butter out, you will find new life in it. And if you have the stomache for it, I'm sure many refridgerators, pantries, and college dorm rooms will show you many wonderous types of lifeforms.
The fact that the whole worlds food industry does everything it can do make sure nothing grows in its food has nothing to do with there argument.. hahahahahahahahahha
Or that they don't leave their food out for billions of years means it is a fair test...hahahahahahahah
or that science says that food is not the right medium for life to develop has nothing to do with their argument...hahahahaah
The fact that such idiots actually still exist scares me and bodes dangerous for the welfare of humanity and its future.
Some of them are intelligent in other areas; it's just a self-imposed blind spot. If you want something to be true, and have other people around to reassure you, it becomes pretty easy to ignore evidence. That's the danger in conformist ideologies.
I believe in creation. But to say that because we haven't observed new life being created inside a sealed jar of peanut butter PROVES anything is to make a huge logical fallacy. You can't make a negative proof like that.
The problem is, the scientists who support natural (secular) evolution rely on negative proofs all the time. They say because we haven't yet disproven evolution's claims, then it must be true since it seems logical and plausible and it's still holding up under the weight of time and crticism.
The truth is, neither secular science nor creationism have been, or ever can be, proved (or disproved).
Discussion (15)
Define "new". You mean a brand new species? Or do you just mean new life? Because uh... if you leave the peanut butter out, you will find new life in it. And if you have the stomache for it, I'm sure many refridgerators, pantries, and college dorm rooms will show you many wonderous types of lifeforms.
Click on the link. :P
Do I have to?
Clicking on the link crashed my browser. A good example of unintelligent design.
Rachel: It's a few minutes of slack-jawed amazement, if nothing else...
Fine, I clicked. That was pointless since I can't watch video on my computer.
This was so funny. I'm in tears.
It totally would've worked if he'd used crunchy peanut butter.
It totally would've worked if the video was in a free format, instead of Flash.
I'm using Flash on Linux. I feel guilty, but there are worse things I could do.
So funny I had to click yes.
I think it's scary that people believe this.
The fact that the whole worlds food industry does everything it can do make sure nothing grows in its food has nothing to do with there argument.. hahahahahahahahahha
Or that they don't leave their food out for billions of years means it is a fair test...hahahahahahahah
or that science says that food is not the right medium for life to develop has nothing to do with their argument...hahahahaah
The fact that such idiots actually still exist scares me and bodes dangerous for the welfare of humanity and its future.
Some of them are intelligent in other areas; it's just a self-imposed blind spot. If you want something to be true, and have other people around to reassure you, it becomes pretty easy to ignore evidence. That's the danger in conformist ideologies.
I believe in creation. But to say that because we haven't observed new life being created inside a sealed jar of peanut butter PROVES anything is to make a huge logical fallacy. You can't make a negative proof like that.
The problem is, the scientists who support natural (secular) evolution rely on negative proofs all the time. They say because we haven't yet disproven evolution's claims, then it must be true since it seems logical and plausible and it's still holding up under the weight of time and crticism.
The truth is, neither secular science nor creationism have been, or ever can be, proved (or disproved).