According to the theory of evolution, the first life arose randomly from a "chemical soup". (I know this is abiogenesis and not evolution, but I'm ignoring the distinction because otherwise my argument would be worthless.)
Creation scientist Em Adjineri (say her name out loud) has attempted to replicate the spontaneous generation of life. She started with a soup (chicken noodle, I think) and added various chemicals from under her sink to make a "chemical soup." She then shined a light on this chemical soup and sealed it (to prevent bacteria from the air from mixing with the soup.)
The theory of evolution says that eventually the soup should start to create life. Em Adjineri waited five whole minutes, but life did not randomly generate! This proves that abiogenesis is impossible, and therefore that evolution is impossible.
Since creationism is the only possible alternative to evolution, (I'm ignoring other alternatives because it helps my argument) creationism must be true!
2007-08-14 09:37:11 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I see the flaw in her experiment. She should have started with italian wedding soup, because italians are such a lively people.
2007-08-14 09:41:43 · answer #1 · answered by Ralfcoder 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Actually, I thought it was the big rock that eliminated most of the dinosaurs, the large one that fragged the environment all up. That would make sense then, if it was a large cometary impact, which would have radically shifted the environment, then yes, it would have been adapt or die...and since the Island that Jurassic park is located on is very similar to what the world was like *before* the comet impact, then it would follow that they wouldn't die out immediately or turn to birds. So i think I just proved that it would make sense evolutionary, and that, since evolution is correct, then the Bible isn't literally true. So there. Nyah. Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia!
2016-05-17 22:30:24 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It sounds to me that Ms. Adjineri, ( with all due respect), made the same mistake that I made in selecting Campbell's chicken noodle soup for her experiment.
I'm convinced that it has to do with the sodium content, but Campbell's, for some unknown reason, requires an absolute minimum of six minutes, to initiate generation of even the most simple life forms.
I hope she, at least, remembered to use a 60 watt incandescent light bulb, because higher wattage can react violently with Windex and often with Ajax cleanser.
However, if one allows adequate space for all these new critters to grow without devouring one another, one should enjoy a wonderful new family.
2007-08-14 10:34:01 · answer #3 · answered by big j 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Em Adjineri waited five whole minutes, but life did not randomly generate!
five minutes, we are talking millions of years in a much bigger soup bowl called earth. now for one, think logically, how do we know life doesn't exist in space, and didn't contribute to life on the planet, and two, what makes anyone say, life wasn't already here. the fact that, powers that be, being big bang, which is a collapse then expansion of the universe, might not have killed everything. the simplest of organisms would be the only thing to survive.
not you to forget the word randomly, come on. random what the crap does that mean? proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern; yep yep.
2007-08-14 09:55:01 · answer #4 · answered by RuG™ 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
why is it black people originate from Africa? Evolution... what happens to people who spend time out in the sun... In Africa there is no winter and eventually nature just skipped over the tanning burning cycle and people were born black... evolution works this way.... the signs of evolution are aound us everyday... in the plant life.. all these new plants being discovered are all recently evolved.... You have only proved you are closed minded and don't care about any evidence... Not one human was there to witness, how ever nature will look forward to sharing it's theories also some day..
2007-08-14 09:50:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Dude...this is hard "proof" that evolution isn't true. All it means is that the experiment failed...nothing more. There are many factors that could explain this failure. Perhaps the "soup" was missing certain critical elements...perhaps the process requires a significanly longer time than 5 minutes! In any case, I can try to simulate nuclear fission at home...but because I fail to reproduce the results doesn't mean that fission doesn't exist does it?
2007-08-14 09:42:58 · answer #6 · answered by Rance D 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The argument is not valid. The experiment was not conducted with respect to the original conditions on earth, nor was it conducted on a worldwide basis over millions of years. It is not known how life started on this orb, but once it did, evolution (now a proven fact) took over and resulted in the vast panoply of life we see today.
2007-08-14 09:45:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You forgot what happened next. The evolution scientist, Yon Simpgerhy came along and bonked her on the head. He then put the soup back in the kitchen, and just let it be. Voila, 5000 years later, a tadpole was born.
2007-08-14 09:43:11 · answer #8 · answered by ann 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Are you kidding me with ,killing chickens and having that as the beginning ,, and of course giving it five minuets , were you rolling in the isle un able to cetch your next breath ,, what kind of proof are you trying to show ,, come on now ,, if you're going to do something like that ,, at least start with living cells are you still slapping your knee.....
2007-08-14 09:53:50 · answer #9 · answered by darkcloud 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You know... I think this is a BETTER argument against evolution than many I've seen on this site.
Congratulations!
*high five*
2007-08-14 10:19:27 · answer #10 · answered by ZER0 C00L ••AM••VT•• 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋