Creationist Sez: Peanut Butter Disproves Evolution...

I suspect this will remain buried in the archives, at this point, but just to reply to Tom, briefly:
"Oh, and if anyone has a good explanation for gradual evolution of electric eels, I'd like to hear it. How was it an advantage to have the vestigal organs for producing electricity before they could produce enough to act as protection? Or was the mutation perfect and whammo, slimy little worm to drop you in your tracks electric eel in one generation? Intelligent design is the answer."

Nah, not so much. It turns out that within the bony fishes there are actually three different groups of 'electric fishes' (including African electric catfish!), not to mention a smallish group of electric rays (related to stingrays). But before I get sidetracked, to answer your question, it turns out that these groups contain both strongly and weakly electric fish - that is, fish who produce electric charges too weakly "to act as protection" (or to hunt). Why even bother? Well, it turns out this ability isn't "vestigal" (or providentially supplied solely so far-future offspring will be able to fry some fry) - instead, to quote wikipedia, they are "used for navigation, object detection (electrolocation) and communication with other electric fish (electrocommunication)" (many of these species seem to be either nocturnal or live in muddy water).

While Wikipedia points out that "The electric organ is a structure that is well established in the scientific literature to be developmentally related to muscle" -basically, modified muscle - in at least three of these groups (dunno 'bout the catfish), just last year a very interesting study shed even more light on the shocking (- sorry) evolution of at least the African and South American electric fish. I'll try to make this short, though I'm way over my head and bad at summarizing - please bear with me - I think it's kinda nifty. So - we and fishes share a group of proteins - sodium channel proteins - that are involved in (among other things) muscle contraction; to really, really simplify, they're involved in generating very small electrical charges. Long, long ago, in a fish far away, one of these genes was accidentally duplicated, resulting in an ancestral fish with two copies of a specific sodium channel protein gene. In both of the two groups, one of these copies stopped being expressed [activated, used, read] in muscle - leaving the other copy to do all the work, like our single gene - and got sort of cannibalized into electric-field generating. In fact, when they looked at the mutations in the protein made by the copy of the gene expressed in the electric organ of these electric fish (which is still happily involved with muscle in non-electric fish), they found something quite interesting. It turns out that some of these mutations occurred at or near the same sites where mutations are found in the human version of the protein. In us, however, this results in an array of unpleasant to fatal conditions, because these are important bits related to the protein's job, and unlike the fish, we only have that one gene being expressed in muscle. In fact, the scientists involved point out that this sort of thing - based in research utterly dependent on evolutionary biology - could help us identify molecular hot zones, so to speak, that are important to human health.

What we have here in part of a very rough and preliminary sketch of electric-fish evolution. It is *very* far from finished, and needs to be tested again and again to see that every new bit appears (and continues) to hold up. It's possible some details will never be filled in. But the outlines are there, I think. Remember, even a very early stage - a fish with a funny little clump of weird muscle cells that make a very weak electric charge - all these traits need is to be a net positive (or net neutral) for natural selection to, well, select for 'em. Even if it's just gives a little edge in, say finding food in muddy water, it's good. (In the land of the blind, to give a slightly different example, any creature with a small cluster of slightly light-sensitive cells is king).
This also is a neat example of how gene duplication followed by mutation in the 'extra' gene is one (of many) things that can play an important role in evolution. For example, it's how we and other Old Word primates got trichomatic color vision - about maybe 40 million years ago, we had common ancestors who ended up with two copies of the gene for their long-wavelength light sensitive protein, one of which, via mutation, evolved to be sensitive to mid-wavelength light. There are other groups of animals with trichromatic color vision - even some who got it via gene duplication - but in these cases it's clearly different bits duplicated, etc.

Yes, I'm going on a bit, but like I said, I find this stuff literally wonderful. And that's the thing: whatever one's theological beliefs (or absence of same), this sort of thing helps us see either (the wonder of the amazing natural world) or (the wonder of God's amazing creation). We can recognize the complexity (for good or bad) of weather, disease, planetary motion, etc. as arising from natural forces - whatever we might or might not feel is ultimately behind them - without invoking a old-school-style God (or spirits, demons, witches, etc.) who's constantly running around tossing thunderbolts, directing storms, smiting sinners, or assigning angels to push planets in their courses. For most people this isn't a problem (although there are fundamentalist in various religions who have claimed that the tsunami/ Katrina/etc. was actually God's retribution against sinful humans - these folks apparently miss the Middle Ages, when one killed Jews and wandered around flagellating* oneself so a Black Death-sending God would have mercy- but most of us are ok with modern times. That's how it should be with evolutionary biology.

* whipping, that is. what did you think I meant?

Ha!
I once hammered a nail into a potato, but I was very bored at the time. And I have a horrible feeling that 'why are there still monkeys, then, huh?!'' will be around millions of years from now, among our distant and very odd-looking descendants . . .

Anyway, my comment on electric fish evolution is being held for some reason or other, so in the meanwhile, remembering Tom's claim that "Homo [s]apiens [s]apiens just sort of popped onto the scene, with no gradual linkage from the "earlier model humans/apes" - feel free to take a gander - courtesy of the American Museum of Natural History's new Hall of Human Origins - at our family tree [go to image #6]. Don't forget, though, this is very much a work in progress, since people don't find paleoanthropology textbooks buried in the ground, but fossils, etc. - science is a process of discovery, we clearly have a lot to fill in, some of the specific details are being debated, and may be confirmed, modified, or entirely discarded with new finds - but the general picture is quite clear enough. To find out more, you can examine the Smithsonian's clickable human family tree - a slightly different version, but with details on each species and on specific specimens, as well as info about real (rather than mock-) debates within the field.

Yes, they are, and they unfortunately voted for President and sit on school boards...

Despite a lifelong love of peanut butter (and jelly) I have never once found god inside a sealed jar, thereby conclusively and indisputably disproving divine creation.

On the other hand, this clip proves evolution. Because not all Creationist talking heads can get attention and money from the fundamentalist base, they are in a "struggle for subsistence". Those who are more simpleminded, idiotic, obsequious of fundamentalism and disparaging of science than their colleagues will survive. Dumb ideas must be continually adapted to an increasingly irrational environment; differential illogical success rewards the most nonsensical ideas. "Peanut butter disproves evolution" is a transitional absurdity between "bananas are proof of design" and the next even more ludicrous sound bite that this hominid sub-species will think of.

Someone needs to collect a montage of creationist sh$% eating grins. Anyone else outthere notice that there is a particular slackjawed and jellybounce quality to the typical creationist grin that occurs at that magical moment when he/she finishes presenting an argument against evolution and can't believe how clever he was.

You know, maybe they do find new life periodically, it's just very small and they eat it unknowingly...

There is terrible terrible logic used in this video. How can any one with even a high school education come up with something as retarded as this. If they took a few hours to consult any biology textbook they would understand how wrong they are. Forget terrorists, these are the people that make me fear for america's wellbeing.

This is typical "if I havent seen it, it must not be true" kinda of hypocritical speak that fundies love so much. My question, is how many times have you opened a jar of peanut butter and scientifically examined it for new life? Life starts on a microscopic level.. so his statement is really absurd, just on many levels...

On another note, those Fundies sure do make me hungry.. this guy with his peanut butter, roy comfort with his banana... mmmm peanut butter and banana....

Yes, they are that stupid. I've heard that one before. I heard it in church.

This was in the late 1970s and I think they used a potato chip bag, but it's the same story...

Anyone who has never found God inside a jar of peanut butter has clearly never had a peanut butter and 'shroom sandwich...

Here's another boneheaded creationist "proof" video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk

If this is true, I guess that we're meant to eat nothing but bananas, right? I'm not going to say anything about how eager he seems to get that big ol' banana in his mouth, though.

You have to understand that the people spouting this nonsense don't actually believe it themselves, but they want the stupid morons of the world to vote republican and not care about invasions of other countries for their resources. It's all about thought control.

Did that guy actually say, "In fact the entire food industry of the world depends on the fact that evolution doesn't happen"? Whenever I hear such statements I think I'm the one who ate the peanut butter and 'shroom sandwich.

thanks for the link, mike!

i want to say, i've often thought something similar to what ex-drone said:

ideas must be continually adapted to an increasingly irrational environment; differential illogical success rewards the most nonsensical ideas.

i find it highly ironic (and rewarding) that the anti-evolutions had to evolve their approach to disproving evolution, as in the creation of the discovery institute, and in the "teach the controversy" agenda, instead of teach the gospels.

ignorance must evolve!

Well..... on the other side of things, when I open Jelly or Fluff I don't see God... and God is supposed to be part of everything always - omnipotence eh? I'm gonna start checking my peanut butter for signs of life from now on just to bust this guy's balls when I DO find some lil people looking up at me (I'm guessing that's what he was expecting us to think we'd find).

Video aside, could you guys point me in the direction of some real proof of abiogenesis?

There must be proof ,otherwise you are just 'fundies' too.

THIS is why we're in Iraq.

But that aside, the 100 year sample Chuck cites in our 'collective experiment' is a lot less than the, say, 3 billion years it took for life to emerge from the swirling chaos of...

Oh, right, it was only 7 days, of course. Nevermind.

How are we fundies if theres no direct proof for it? We're not saying it 100% did happen, we're saying that this is the best theory we have about what happened. There have been numerous experiments which have shown that abiogenesis is plausible given enough time.

My peanut butter just transubstantiated!!!

Wow, that is one amazing string of non sequiturs! (Nice ant, by the way!)

Of course, any video that opens with a quote from Duane Gish is suspect from the beginning.

If you look closely it looks like the peanut butter jar has been previously opened and the seal lifted a bit. Perhaps the new life was allowed to escape before this was filmed...

If "GOD" is light, as the mystics and prophets claim, then both creationists and evolutionists are partly wrong, partly right. Both seem, at the present, mired in their ideologies.

Find a creationist and dare him to eat a 50-year-old jar of peanut butter. Dead stock from Cold War bomb shelters.

Oooo! Oooo! I know! I sneezed, therefore god made me.

But while we're free associating, if grape juice and a wafer can transubstanciate by being asked to, why not everything we eat? I could be eating jesus right now.

Do you think god likes Thai? Is it soylent green, if god is involved, or just holy soylent?

Doesn't he realize he's holding a jar filled with the ground-up corpses of several hundred dead peanuts?

Show some somw respect!

Those peanuts died for your sins!

making fun of creationists doesn't give evolution any proof or credibility, yknow?

making fun of creationists doesn't give evolution any proof or credibility, yknow?

That's what science is for.

Yeah, but it's damn fun!

Great... he HAD to be an engineer!! Thanks buddy...

Why do we never find life in a jar of peanut butter? Is it because the stock boy removes the jar from the shelf before the expiration date? Maybe it's due to the fact that the jar is sealed air tight! After all, I'm pretty sure that oxygen is vital to the process... Where do those maggots come from when I take out the garbage? I could have sworn those bags were sealed.

There's only one way to solve this mystery - we must build a giant jar, enclose the earth within, and seal it shut.

I guess that "banana as proof of intelligent design" video also proves that god doesn't want us to eat pineapples, or oysters, or artichokes, or...

It would have been great if he opened the peanut butter and those fake coiled spring snakes popped out.

BWAH!

Also, what's funny is that this is a trivia question on www.triviawise.com right now.

It would have been great if he opened the peanut butter and those fake coiled spring snakes popped out.

You know, I think I could have lived with them being proved correct if some horrible nut mutant had leaped out of that jar and eaten the guy's face.

Let me get this straight...

Evolution predicts abiogenesis. Abiogenesis doesn't happen. Therefore Evolution doesn't happen.

If E than A
Not A
Therefore, not E

By the same reasoning, religion predicts miracles, miracles don't happen, therefore religion doesn't exist.

Now, remind me why a theory of how existing life changes, predicts spontainious generation...

As always, Stephen "MC" Hawking has the final words:

Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so f*** the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!

("Entropy" MC Hawking, DJ Doomsday.)

If evolution is real, why do creatures lower than humans still exists? Why have humans been virtually unchanged for over 2500 years?

2500 years not enough for some improvement?

Hey, don't knock this guy. That may be a pretty poor disproof of abiogenesis, but it's not a bad disproof of spontaneous generation. On that basis, what you've got there is a creationist at the cutting edge of 19th century science! Which is quite good when you consider he's got their by reason alone, without reference to the body of knowledge available to scientists.

"Well I've never seen no plants growing out of no toilets."
-- Idiocracy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkEIx0vwHZ8

Hm. Lots of funny comments about this one. But there is an interesting point. According to evolution, some special ooze was somehow stimulated to form the forst lifeforms. Did evolution say "OK, now that there's life, all I will do is mold it and change it, I don't need to start from scratch any more?" Supposedly, there is a fossil record that shows evolution, but is there a record of evolution beginning again, occasionally? If it happened once, and it's all up to chance, then it should happen again, right?

"If evolution is real, why do creatures lower than humans still exists? Why have humans been virtually unchanged for over 2500 years?"

Lower than humans? Screw that, elephants are much higher than humans, as are giraffes. Why do humans exist if giraffes exist, since giraffes are so much taller? Humans do build planes and space ships, though, so I suppose...but why did humans exist five hundred years ago, when we were restricted to the ground and giraffes and elephants were higher all the time?

More to your point, you're conflating evolution with the Great Chain of Being, a distinctly Christian viewpoint created during the Renaissance. Evolution by natural selection does not predict a Great Chain of Being except, perhaps, in extremely simplified habitats (small, so location and distribution don't matter, with only one resource to consume -- though even there you'd get primary and secondary consumers, so maybe no chain of being is ever possible). On a large and varied environment such as the earth, here's no real chain; if there were an animal much more able to take advantage of all the resources that humans use, then in that animal's habitat, humans would become rarer and eventually die out. If that animal's habitat were restricted, though, humans in other locations would still exist, ceteris paribus.

In this view, one creature is better than another only insofar as it is more able to survive and reproduce in a particular environment; and rarely is one creature flat-out better than another in all environments.

This is completely irrelevant to evolution because evolution only seeks to explain the diversity of life. The creation of life, according to evolution, absolutely may have been up to who set up a D.N.A. template. But the experimentally believable theory (remember, a theory is a collection of facts connected by one overall idea) is abiogenesis.

No one here answered the abiogenesis question yet, which is a valid question. The Miller-Urey experiment asked this question, and came up with the idea, that if we took early-Earth conditions, then something that resembles life should form. The experiment resulted in a 10% yield of organic compounds, including 13 of the 22 amino acids which are absolutely crucial for the proteins which do life's work, enzymes which take stable molecules and get energy from them, and D.N.A. which is the very basis for life's replication. An interesting side note, studies of the oldest parts of our D.N.A. are mostly composed of only the amino acids available in primordial conditions.

So what are the chances of this happening? Pretty great considering this was happening all over Earth, constantly, for a few million years at the least. What these experiments, and evolution, don't make the assumption of, is that all this only happened once. Most nucleotides formed would have been destroyed, but we do know at least a few of them survived to make life. It is interesting to note that in further experiments, it was assumed that actual ocean conditions would have destroyed the nucleotide chains, but when the experiment was performed on clay, nucleotides of about 50 chains of amino acids have been formed.

Now why doesn't life grow in your peanut butter? Because its chemically stable. If it is satisfied in its current state, then there won't be any spontaneous reactions. If it was chemically unstable, then you would see a change no matter what, whether it produced life or not, but because our peanut butter is always the same, it is unsuitable for making life. What would prove god though, is if there was life in the peanut butter when I opened it...

Now the reason life can live on peanut butter, but not form from it, is because we already have enzymes. Molecules take a certain amount of energy in them before they will react, which is what cooking does. Enzymes create a specific area where a molecule will be reactive at normal temperature by changing things like pH, polarity, among others. This allows your body to store molecules which won't react until needed.

Of course this is bizarre and nobody is even talking about the points that if new life did appear it would be confused with mold, that supermarkets don't sell primordial life and lightning inside, that 100 years of supermarkets is nothing compared to 4 billion years of chemical experiments in oceanic volumes, that precursor molecules have in fact been created in the lab, etc.

I would just like to point out two clear facts.

1. He picked an interesting substance. My father, a surgeon, has often told me how he has for many years suspected peanut butter of having some kind of antibiotic properties, because *nothing* ever grows in it! Whereas I certainly have found new life in my grape jelly, in a very nasty white blanket that I presumed was mold on top. Turned me off grape, I can tell you.

2. The person on video is a trained video actor in addition to whatever other certifications he may have, who even goes to the trouble of explaining his manipulation ("you may laugh but you won't forget it") as he manipulates you. The funniest thing is that for recognizable "new life" to appear in peanut butter would require a miracle even scientifically speaking but the fundamentalists believe in them. I'm not saying one thing or another vis a vis religion, it's just that even fundamentalist Christians are disserviced by this braindead commercial. Unfortunately the citizens of the U.S. are mostly so badly educated that trained actors are used by all lobbying entities regardless of merit. Maybe people should be trained in critical analysis of media since we certainly aren't training people to work in factories in the U.S. anymore?

Holy Crap, you won't imagine what I just found in my peanut butter!

How can a man like Gish, who believes in creation, wear such a bad wig? Isn't he saying to God, "Your design blows. Here, let me show you how my head should have turned out!"?

This whackjob was also featured on Penn and Teller's "Bullsh*t" trying to defend Creationism. The best bit was his trying to explain the formation of the Grand Canyon as a result of the story of Noah and the Flood.

I don't understand why people get so pi**ed when someone questions the evolution theory. I'm neither religious, conservative or whatever you would expect, but I find this clip quite thought-provoking. Not because I think The Bible is the answer, or that somehow questioning or disproving the evolution theory would prove there's a god. (those things don't go hand in hand in my book)... I think it's important to constantly challenge and question ideas and theories believed by majority rather than blindly accepting what “experts” think is the truth. Things that we take for granted can be the most dangerous (and foolish). After all, not so long ago, the brightest and most respected minds thought the Earth was flat supported by turtles and elephants. (they were dead serious)

To me every theory is equal no matter how crazy it may sound at present. Since creationists and evolutionists have different criteria for what is an acceptable proof, it's impossible to say that any of them are ‘proven’ wrong.
Whatever the case, I enjoyed this clip. Although I personally find the alien theory most probable. But that's another clip...

Evolution doesnt deal much with the creation of life. I think biochemistry is a better scientific field to study that.

And just the mere presence of matter and energy doesnt mean life will arise from nonliving matter. You need the right chemicals and the right conditions.

XD that's a funny video. I've never met anyone defending creationism here in my country so its really wear for me to listen to that stupid argumentation. I Knew some people were against evolution but I thought tey had better arguments.
Sorry for my bad English ^^''

Using similar logic, we can now prove once and for all that God exists scientifically.
We buy a number of peanut butter jars and divide them in half. The first half we put is a warehouse as a control and the rest we give to various religions to perform their rituals asking God to bring forth new life.
If new life appears that doesn't conform to our current understanding of life on earth, then we know God exists.
If the new life appears in a jar for single religion then we know that that is the one true religion and we should convert with out delay.
If other hand if no new life appears in any of the jars then we know that God doesn't exists.
But, If new life appears in a control jar then we know that God exists, but religion doesn't matter.

Maybe this solves the mystery as to how the Salmonella got in the Skippy.

Seems to me like this invites a whole sub-industry of peanut butter jars with leeeeetle tiny plastic babies inside.

It could be especially cool if there was a small microchip imbedded that said: CLOSE THE JAR!! CLOSE THE JAR!!!

where spontaneous life occurs, it takes enormous energy. It may occur, but not so often anymore around here. On large scales it tends to kill complex life.

Nature also tends to take the easy way out.

DNA alone does not explain the whole gamut. It is now consensus that RNA holds some encoded data and there are mechanisms that allow non-mitacondrial DNA to adapt to circumstances during adolescence. Evolution is quite complex, non nearly so simple as the biologists make it sound when they are talking to simpletons.

So, even if God is real. Even if creation is real. Evolution is real and so is the system He created which allows for spontaneous emergence of life from proto-life elements.

The more important question is, is proto-life "alive" and if so do we need to make legislation protecting it. Do we need to outlaw eating peanut butter?

A jar of peanutbutter does not contain enough of a variety of elements to create life. (By elements I mean molecules of different elements in the periodic table).

The simplest one-celled organism on this planet, according to a staunch creationist, only has 300 or so lines of DNA. He compares it to a computer program and says that computer programs do not program themselves.

However, consider the argument - a million monkeys on a million typewriters will eventually write a novel. If you agree that this statement is true, you must also agree that, over millions of years on the earths surface, over millions of pools of water, eventually, elements would combine in such a way as to form the first single-cell organism. After all, 300 lines of "code" is a hell of a lot easier to randomly get randomly than an entire novel.

So I find it entirely plausible that life could be, and perhaps is still, being created randomly on Earth. But if life were created randomly today, it would again be an extremely simple single-celled organism. This would make it extremely difficult to detect to the naked eye. And as these cells would be very simple, they would be very likely immediately destroyed by the more advanced neighboring single-celled organisms and become that organisms lunch.

This is why, to date, scientists have been unable to create life in a laboratory - because it would take millions of experiments over millions of years for such an experiment to actually suceed. By the time the experiment would suceed, the researchers childrens childrens childrens (etc) would have to have died from old age. But the argument that the fact that we have not yet been able to create life in an experiment can not disprove that life was not created by random chance... in the same way that we can not prove that God created everything can not disprove that he does not exist.

The banana argument amuses me the most, actually. The common cavendish was actually the result of a genetic mutation, which seems to be overwhelming evidence for evolution.

parachutegirl:

Trying to view all theories as equal would quickly lead to insanity, if you followed this thinking to its logical conclusion. Many theories are mutually contradictory, and it would be difficult to think at all without some structure to the thinking.

The problems that people have with the video are manifold.

For starters, it is confusing abiogenesis with evolution. Evolution is the theory that populations of living organisms change over time. It is at this point indisputable to anybody who knows the first thing about biology. We can witness evolution happening for starters.

The second problem is that, having conflated abiogenesis with evolution, this man demands that abiogenesis happen under the conditions that he proscribes, during the time period he allows for it to happen. Well over fifty years ago it was demonstrated that complex organic molecules could spontaneously form in an atmopshere similar to what was believed to be the atmosphere of the Earth.

How can I phrase my criticism of this peanut butter jar correctly? Well, suppose you took 100 men and kept them in an isolated environment for 5 years. At the end of that period, you observed that none of the men had been pregnant. Would it be reasonable to conclude that human beings didn't give birth to babies, and that instead babies were delivered by storks?

That's about the level of logic we're dealing with in the video. The speaker is inventing a hypothesis of how an event should happen, demonstrating that his own hypothesis is not valid, and then substituting instead his own magical hypothesis.

It's utterly silly from a scientific perspective.

From my standpoint, I just wish people would stop conflating questions about evolution with questions about common descent and/or questions about the origin of life. That evolution has happened during history and that distinct species living today have shared ancestors in the past are both theories that are indisputable in the field of science.

So by similar reasoning:

Since jars of peanut butter don't spontaneously materialize into existence, God does not exist.

QED

Parachute girl says

I think it's important to constantly challenge and question ideas and theories believed by majority rather than blindly accepting what 'experts' think is the truth.

It's even more important to challenge and question what non-experts think is the truth.

not so long ago, the brightest and most respected minds thought the Earth was flat supported by turtles and elephants.

When will people stop repeating this rubbish? Eratosthenes, about 2200 years ago, determined the diameter of the Earth with surprising accuracy. How was he able to do this if everyone thought the Earth was flat?

I don't understand why people get so pi**ed when someone questions the evolution theory.

Because the same nonsense gets repeated time and time again, often by the same people, no matter how frequently they are shown clear evidence that they are mistaken (to put it charitably).

Richard Simons,no one has ever shown clear evidence that evolution exists. The fossil record that should prove it is not there. It proves just the opposite. All scientific evidence for evolution is missing except for a few "proofs" which were shown to be faked. Why do people get upset when evolution is questioned? Because the believe without proof, which makes it their religions. A Godless religion, but a religion nonetheless. Evolution is bogus. There is no scientific proof. The evolutionists have gotten the courts to defend their religion so that no one is allowed to produce opposing evidence.

Sturgeon's Law ("95% of everything is crap") applies here. I think probably the Fundies are 95% right: 95% of the population never evolved beyond the simian stage; Fundies somewhat lower). (And by saying this I am not being either anti- or pro-simian.) See the film "Idiocracy" for the logical conclusion to the current state of Amurikan Edukation.

This is no more idiotic than people who say that fossils PROVE that God does not exist.

I am an independent researcher/scholar of science. I would like to offer a few comments:

1] 'abiogenesis' is a term rarely used in modern biology. 'Spontaneous self-organization' (of molecules, for example) is more appropriate and accurate.

2] regarding the Miller / Urey experiments conducted in the 1950's....using a mixture of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and water (H2O), and applying an elctrical discharge to the mixture, the researchers found that a percentage of the base molecules had 'spontaneously self-orgnized' into an amino acid (adenine; an important precursor molecule). However, these amino acids did NOT spontaneously link up (to form primitive polypeptide chains, e.g.) or replicate. i.e., they were 'inactive' isolates.

So, these experiments were able to prove 'self-organization' of 'complex' molecules, but not 'bio-genesis'. What was lacking in these experiments was a true/accurate mixture of basic elements (inclusive of sulphur, phosphorus, magnesum, iron, etc.), and, probably, a continuous energy flow (source to sink). Also, it would seem that ENZYMES would be necessary to catalyze a complex (large molecule) reaction scheme (a subject/field of contemporary research). Also, without a MEMBRANE (a closed, lipid, amphiphillic bi-layer barrier aginst diffusion) to offer 'safe harbor' for any self-replicating molecules (probably an RNA polymerase-like molecule), such molecules would be destroyed (succumbed to entropic forces) or prevented from interacting sufficiently, etc.

An earlier poster referred to clay crystals providing the necessary environment...this is a reference to the Cairns-Smith hypothesis, which does offer an important clue to an 'inorganic', structural matrix (i.e., replication 'machinery') that could provide the template for replicating molecules, but is still incomplete in terms of the integration of structural components and the origin of enzymatic processes.

Now, it has been shown experimentally that hydro-carbon (oily) bubbles will spontaneously form on the surfaces of certain liquid environments (possessing hydro-carbon 'slicks' or residues). So then, we have evidence that SOME of the key, structural ingredients for life can spontaneously arise (via some fundamental 'chemo-geometry', if you will)...it only needs to be shown that these components can link up with each other, and then, given the correct (early earth-like) chemical mixture and energy flow/source, form a 'living' cell (capable of autopoiesis). "Sensitive dependence upon initial conditions"
Given the astounding complexity of a single cell--and the odds against such a complex thing 'spontaneously' emerging (as a complete structure)-- we can only propose that a complex, self-replicating structure (being a product of both its constituent chemical properties and environmental conditions), can only arise in steps, or through transitional stages of development. At some point in this development, a form could emerge that kicks (self-catalizes) the whole process into 'over-drive' (such as a 'dissipative structure', i.e., a 'higher order re-organization' ala Prigogine) and bio-genesis hence afterwards becomes both practical and necessary.
Science is an active, knowledge-seeking endeavor. Religion is a static, 'received' truth system.
One interesting historical note: in Darwin's time, much of the religious opposition to evolution was not focused on the 'monkey ancestry' issue, nor even on the putative ancientness of the earth, but on Darwin's claim that new species can arise (implying that God's creation was incomplete), and that some spieces go extinct (implying that God's creation was imperfect). Embarking on his famous voyage on the HMS Beagle, Darwin took two books with him: Lyel's Principles of Geology, and the Bible.

MRikoman

"If you look closely it looks like the peanut butter jar has been previously opened and the seal lifted a bit. Perhaps the new life was allowed to escape before this was filmed..."

Indeed, that was the first thing I noticed. My initial thought was that just as the pr0n industry has stunt cocks, this must be a special, stunt jar of peanut better.

But then a more intelligent synapse fired and I saw the light: clearly, the shooting had gone something along the lines of:

"..but when I open the jar of peanut butter HOLY FUCKIN' CHRIST!"
[tosses jar to wall]
[repeat three or four times]
"Who the hell do I have to blow to get a jar of peanut butter that doesn't have a life form in it around here? This one? You better make damn sure mister, or your ass is evolving it's way to the kerb."

This also rather begs the question that if the peanut butter was, the peanut butter is, the peanut butter always shall be: why does it need a sell-by date?

Sarcasm aside, Randy, my shrink is pretty free a loose with his script pad: just for information, could you tell me what medications your on, dosage, and time table? Thanks!

Dosent the theory of evolution also state that it takes time. I highly doubt that the 5 seconds that peanut butter jar was open qualifies as enough time for evolution to occur

I can't believe what I just saw. Peanut butter? I understand both points of view, and I also admit to, respect and accept that there are some things, I myself, cannot explain. But this guy is a joke. Most of the attempt to prove that so-called "missing link" in evolution have been fakes, yes, BUT, so have the claims about the Lost Ark, the "real" spear that impaled Jesus, the Holy Grail, Noah's Ark, and the Shroud of Turin. The problem I have with Creationists is that they won't allow scientists to thoroughly examine these artifacts (the ones that we KNOW exist of course). And, these Creationists obvioulsy don't know anything about microbiology or nuclear medicine. Because I find it amazing that every year we have to manufacture NEW VACCINES for the flu, and other diseases, because the viruses EVOLVE TO COUNTER THE MEDICINES WE CREATE!! Amazing huh? Oh yeah, doesn't this guy know that peanuts (and anything man makes from these) can be FATAL to some people?

Randy you might want to do some fact checking before quoting your sunday school teacher.

This is the best video i've ever masturbated to.

If you look closely it looks like the peanut butter jar has been previously opened and the seal lifted a bit. Perhaps the new life was allowed to escape before this was filmed...

I can just imagine him before they rolled film, opening the jar, lifting part of the seal, and peeking underneath just to make sure that no new life was inside.

wow.
I think I'd rather be a Scientologist that be associated with these people.

We're doomed. If the muslims don't kill us all the christians will.

On the other hand, Darwinism in no way disputes God.
Secular literalism is as brainless as sectarian literalism.

Darwinism gave us the preponderance of evidence mythology.
Thank God for DNA testing.

The Anti-Christ has no chance of fooling people that smart!

any self respecting creationist should look at these videos and throw up. as an intelligent HIGH SCHOOLer, i can see the flaws here on oh so many levels. this and the banana video should both be taken off the internet, burned to a cd, and pissed on.

both of the videos can be used to prove evolution more easily than disprove it, especially the banana video. in this video, the fact that life will not be supported in hostile conditions is what it is all about. taken out of context, if a certain type of life, according to natural selection, were not able to survive in an environment, it would die. life as we know it isn't going to adapt to an airtight container, obviously. the banana video is even more evolution-supportive. if you are going to disprove a theory, know how the theory works. obviously a simple solution to the little banana problem is that the ones eating the bananas evolved to better eat the bananas. if you want to stretch it, the banana could evolve to be better eaten by humans, because the seeds would be spread farther and in natural fertilizer (for the idiots: poo). or, if you want to be really brave, it happened by chance! but, no, that couldn't have happened. it was created for us that way because, as someone kindly pointed out, bananas are the only food we can eat.

If you believe in evolution, Your just as dumb as this guy. Just thought I would make a point. Take a moment to reflect and have a good day knowing this.

Did everyone already forget about the salmonella they found in all that peter pan peanut butter?

I recently bought a sealed jar containing grated parmesan cheese. When I got it home and opened it I found inside a huge green colored ball of what appeared to be mold. It never occurred to me to question how the mold got in the jar. I was just pissed off that I got screwed again! Duh, if you think the video clip was stupid, I can't believe that I threw away the proof to the theory of evolution. Of course only a creationist would believe my previous statement. However, I may make a trip to the dump in an attempt to recover my treasure and stake my claim to fame.

Let me get this straight. In seven days God had the spare time to create shrooms. Which led him to create entertainment such as the pitcher plant. A plant which traps insects then digests them.

i believe in creation and evolution. there's nothing wrong with saying that a higher being caused the big bang. everyone gets so riled up with trying to disprove the other side when both sides could be right.

though, yeah, literal interpretation of genesis gets in the way. but you shouldn't beat up on them for it. everyone has faith in something.

Just thought I would make a point.

You certainly made a point, but not the one you thought you made.

IT'S SO EASY A CAVEMAN COULD DO IT

Bravo Mikos!

Frank...the sad thing is, the crazed evolutionists don't realize that MOST people are like you. They think that the 90% of people who believe in God all think it was done like the bible said, which was NEVER intended to be historically accurate. MOST people who believe in God believe that God is responsible for the Big Bang and evolution.

And then these sad idiots call the Christians losers based on THEIR OWN erroneous beleifs.

Hey Mike
Why dont we All stop being afraid and admit that we really dont know!

he should be wearing a clown suit and then i'd take him at his word.

haha, even if new life did miraculously spawn its not going to be something noticable like a damn ant! thats why its called EVOLUTION, people are probably sucken down new life every day!

JK87
Tha Bible wasnt historically acurate because it was only meant to provide some order. The big bang was shunned by religion when first suggested and I have yet to hear any creationist admit in any way that evolution is involved here. But true to form as a creationist you change your story to fit the arguement.

If God created us in his own image what did the creator of the dinosaurs look like?

"If you believe in evolution, Your just as dumb as this guy. Just thought I would make a point. Take a moment to reflect and have a good day knowing this."

Oh my golly me, I'm as dumb as this guy. My entire reason for living, my years of learning have been blown away. THANK YOU SIR! I only wish I had know this before.

"I don't understand why people get so pi**ed when someone questions the evolution theory."

Ah, so classic. If you can't win a discussion, come back with "Well, why do you get so upset about this?" -- total change of subject anyone? I've never seen anyone get "pissed" when asked to discuss the evolutionary theory (as much a theory at this point as gravity) -- disappointed, yes: there are people who will "choose to believe" despite all facts to the contrary (people who, in general, it's really not worth discussing much of anything with, outside perhaps of who will win this season's ANTM.

Does evolution disprove god? No. It doesn't have to. The burden of proof lies with the proposer of the theory: there is no, nil, zilch, not an iota of proof in any "creator" of divine form. The big bang theory cannot simply be equated into the creationist/religious creed with the simple "god did it!" mantra -- the big bang requires no god, no creator: every universal aspect requires no god, no creator. If you "choose to believe", fine: just please, try and keep it to yourself until you have something to bring to the table.

down, skippy, i said DOWN!

dimmer,
are you dim or dimmer?

Scientists say that snowflakes are ice crystals that form spontaneously, without any divine aid. But have you ever left a glass of water standing on your bedside table and seen it transformed into a glass of snow? Even when it's really cold? Of course not. Therefore, each snowflake is clearly painstakingly handcrafted by God or possibly his angels.

I can prove to you that theere are no stars, using the same logic.

Look up. Do you see stars? Nope, it's a ceiling. See, stars don't exist.

Randy says, of evolution:

The fossil record that should prove it is not there. It proves just the opposite. All scientific evidence for evolution is missing except for a few "proofs" which were shown to be faked.

Randy, as I am not an American I have never actually met someone who has claimed that there is no evidence for evolution although I have seen their posts in places like this. Perhaps you can answer some of my questions about creationists.
Do you really believe that it is true that there is no evidence for evolution and that in fact the fossil evidence shows the opposite?
Why do people who criticize the theory of evolution have such a fixation on fossils? They have always been a minor part of the evidence for it.
How do you explain the stratigraphy of fossils (first found by creationists), features of biogeography such as cacti only being found in the Americas and the close correlations between taxonomies derived from morphological, anatomical, biogeographical and biochemical studies?
Do you seriously believe that there is a massive conspiracy amongst hundreds of thousands of scientists of virtually all religions, all trained to question everything they are told? What would be the point of it? As you presumably have never attended a scientific conference, I can tell you that it is almost impossible to prevent a typical scientist from forcefully expressing his or her opinion on anything that impinges on their work.
You claim that all the 'proof' is faked (and creationists can recite every single 'fake' that has been exposed - always by people who accept the theory of evolution, never by creationists). I challenge you to give me just one citation to a scientific paper that claims to have found a proof of the theory of evolution. I will tell you now that you will not find one. However, there are over 1,000 scientific papers published every month that, in some way or other, support the theory of evolution. The general public has not the vaguest idea of just how much support it has.

The evolutionists have gotten the courts to defend their religion so that no one is allowed to produce opposing evidence.

This is a lie, even if you think that the entire world stops at the American borders. Courts have only said that it is unconstitutional to teach creationism in high school science classes. It can be covered in comparative religion classes, for example and, I believe, in any classes in private schools. If there was any evidence for creationism, there is absolutely nothing to stop creationist organizations from publishing it in peer-reviewed scientific journals, their own journals or on their own web sites.

Perhaps he should disprove the Theory of Gravity next... he could lead his sheeple to the Grand Canyon and step in! Ugh... we may need to do an environmental impact report of this idea. These are after all a toxic sub-specie.

So we're descended from peanut butter?
Well, he definitely is a little nutty.

It's a legume.

Ok, smart guy, I'm putting you right at the top.

*puts ben on on enemies list*

I love peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and have on many occasions, while I thought I was starving, eaten one and said over and over, Oh God, Oh God, this is so darn good!

I think God is in every peanut butter and jelly sandwich. And, He tastes SO good!

From now on, when a creationist confronts me with a daft argument (and let's face it people, aren't they all daft?)
I'm going to label them as a Peanut Butter Christian. :)

I apologise to the 'other 48%' for my generalisation, but all this proves it that America is full of nuts.

It may not be "new life", but this video sure has created a lot of stupid posts.

As a couple of post above previously mentioned; what says it best to me is that the jar had been previously opened. I guess they just had to check that life hadn't been created in the jar after all before they caught it on film.

Turn this silly non-example on itself to show the true nature of abiogenesis. Eat a scoop of peanut butter and what happens. Chemical actors like enzymes and acids break the fats and protiens down into simple sugars that your brain can use to imagine that there is actually a God controlling all this. The actual beauty of this process far exceeds the nature of any imaginary deity.

ure all retarded...CHUCK NORRIS is responsible for this thing we call evolution...ALL HAIL THE CHUCK!

I can't believe my whole life of believing that evolution is correct has been usurped by a jar of peanut butter.

Sorry guys, this is the strongest case against evolution ever.

EVER

what bothers me are the kids that are going to get brainwashed with this tripe - this guy can wait for the second coming - i'm going to lend a hand and help this planet which is in deep shit.

For anyone, not believing in evolution, is just pure stupid of the fact(s). You who don't believe in evolution are mostly responsible for crimes against humanity. Until you become wise with true knowledge you will always be dammed.

What dose the scientist say to the tidal wave theyve never seen?
Its not there.

In order to find any answer, you have to look for it. Did you know I existed before I posted this blog...? No, you didnt. I once thought there was no God. -(Scientist)Then I questioned on how to find him. Repent was the answer. So, I repented with the same motives as God. Two months later I saw God. (Literally). Im a repenting Christian, I dont lie. Dose all repenting Christians see God literally? No. Dose all repenting Christians see God in someway? YES
Am I a troll? No, because am I lying? No. Im a true repenting Christians I dont lie.
What happens when true atheistic scientists test and study the word of God?
-they become Christians listen. -First I read his word. Then I questioned him.
Since then I have never had a question that wasnt answered by God.
Is everyone who believes in God stupid? I think they have a brain and have seen something you have not.

This is the most senseless BS I heared in less than 2.5 minutes.

Show me a piece of an evolutionist video... Evolutionist will look dumb.
Show me a piece of a creationist video Creationist will look dumb.

Watch the whole thing before you make an opinion.

There is clearly more to that video.

Sorry for the language in the previous post.

The man in this clip implies that if he doesn't witness 3.5 billion years of evolution with his own eyes he will dismiss evolution as doesn't exist.

Isn't there at least the tiniest possibility that this is a hoax? A wonderfully amusing "theory" designed - perhaps - to perpetuate the Creationsts - Evolutionists civil war?

Whereas it may be true that Creationists are trying to find some "commonly understandable" example to validate their ideology (accolades to their creativity), such nonsense as this only makes the possibility of "Creation" unworthy of consideration. Are there that many people out of touch with valid contemplation?

Truth may be stranger than fiction, but this is too "off-the-wall". I'm not opposed to Creationists defending their belief and downplaying the fact that belief is not necessarily truth. (Hey, whatever gets you through the night!) What concerns me is that anyone - Creationist or otherwise - would give this video an iota of credibility.

The petty and small-minded comments posted on this board are appalling. The creators of this clip have given us much to ponder here and we, in our consideration of their thesis, should aspire to more than sarcastic condescension. Intrigued by this clip, I drove to my local supermarket this morning and repeated the experiment demonstrated on the video. I opened 78 jars of Jiff Creamy Peanut Butter and can now confirm for this forum that none showed evidence of life under the lid. I was about to move on to the Extra Chunky brand offered by a generic producer when the store?s security guard (no lover of science, he) tried to terminate my investigation. I had just managed to remove the lid on the first jar of this new brand as the guard brought his ham-like hand down on my shoulder. Rattled, I squealed and dropped the container onto the floor. I was about to protest the guard?s boorish intrusion when, to both our surprises, a small white kitten emerged from the jar at our feet. The store manager arrived and I, pointing out the adorable peanut butter smudged kitten and hinting at an eventual health department investigation, insisted he help me open the remaining jars of this no-name brand. Together we opened another 37 jars of peanut butter and found, in addition to the kitten, three lizards, a goat, a pterodactyl and, oddly, a very small color television playing reruns of "Gilligan's Island". From this I conclude that the video maker?s thesis that life did not originate from a jar of peanut butter, is indeed, flawed. My only question is this........if, as my experiment suggests, life did originated in a jar of peanut butter, who was there those many eons ago to open that first jar and let life out . . . hmmmm . . . God, perhaps?

think about it this way, the theory of evolution is just another theory, maybe a scientific theory, but only a theory. And this theory has replaced many other theorys, so what if this theory is wrong. Im not saying that god created all life as we know it, im just saying why dont we open our eyes and seek the real truth instead of just saying fuck you all creationists your wrong and were right, thats not science, just just obstinance. Science is being open to any theory and trying to prove it or disprove it. Maybe we dont know whats going on for sure, maybe the mystery of life delves deeper than any human mind can ever follow.

To believe in evolution, you have to believe that every single molecule in the universe is a result of something else. Good defense, since you will NEVER be able to find the origin of ANYTHING. If everything EVOLVED from something else, then my question to you geniuses is this...It all had to start with "SOMETHING", so what created the "SOMETHING". Do all the research you want to and waste our tax dollars by never getting the correct results. The jar of peanut butter makes better sense than you people!

Wow! You guys are so smart and funny! I wish you were all my best friends that I could talk to all the time.

I was born in Mississippi (do I get to blame a god for that?) and have been an atheist since I was 10, and didn't even know what the word meant. Growing up in the bible belt was the hardest thing. There were prayers all the time, and what does a person (who has a mind for themselves) do with those minutes? I would get into trouble for not bowing my head. I was considered a witch in 7th grade and a satanist too, because I did not believe in their god.

Has anyone here read any Ayn Rand? Try some of her books, (Atlas Shrugged, the Fountianhead, Anthem). They are very interesting, but some are a little long, though. Also, Anton le Vey (the Satanic Bible) is really funny, and suprisingly observant.

Anyway, my point is that humans HAVE evolved during the last 100 years. Abraham Lincoln was considered a giant (wasn't he 6 foot or 6'4"?). I see all kinds of 14 year old boys everyday, who are easily 6 foot. No one can fit into Civil War uniforms anymore, or even those from WWII. As a costumer, I know this for a fact.

I read somewhere, many years ago, that the children who live in the cities of Africa and China, reach puberty sooner than those living in rural areas, due to the abundance and more varieties of food.

Milk and hamburgers are making our children bigger than our grandparents were.

Please keep being smart, I've enjoyed reading these posts.

"In fact the entire food industry of the world depends on the fact that evolution doesn't happen"

Yes, and that's why ears of corn are still 2" long, cows give a cup of milk, and seedless watermelons don't exist...

Did you see the article on AOL about the giants in Holland and Denmark? This is exactly what I am talking about!
Simone

Simone do you think the nutrients in the food could be causing Americans to grow stronger and taller. Do Americans today not have more vitamins/food varieties etc, then when Abraham was around? I think Abraham and his civil war friends were actually decaying from the lack of nutrients not evolving.

Simone, I disagree. My family is actually getting shorter with each generation. My dad was 5'10", I'm 5'8" and my daughter is 4'11". I, for one, think it's the peanut butter.

Just read Atlas Shrugged about a month ago - amazing.

Want a pterodactyl?

The only person to say anything on here that it truthful
and it applies to everybody on the planet
Tom Boucher were doomed

If I can make different sandwiches using peanut butter as the main ingredient, does each one bring me closer to god?

I eat sandwiches like peanut butter and rice krispies, peanut butter with bacon bits (a little salty), peanut butter and bananas, peanut butter and syrup (on a biscuit), peanut butter and apple butter on toast, peanut butter and raspberry jelly on rye toast, peanut butter and crackers, peanut butter and Nilla wafers, peanut butter with sprinkled sugar on toast, and even peanut butter straight out of the jar on a spoon.

Why, oh why, since I have eaten so much peanut butter in my life, have I not realized how close I was to god all this time??? I'm sure that I have scooped off the mold out of the apple butter a few times. Why haven't I gone to heaven yet? Oh, yeah, now I remember. It's because I choose to think about why I am here and not stand around like a lamb, waiting for some sheep-tending savior to explain the world to me.

I think it is time for dinner. Anybody hungry?

If you take a slice of bread and cover it with peanut butter, and you take another one and cover it with jam, and you put it together, you get a brand new species of sandwich. That is what evolution is all about.

John 8:47 "He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do no belong to God."

I just decided to try opening a jar of peanut butter and I couldn't believe it by THERE ACTUALLY WAS A WEIRD NEW LIFE FORM INSIDE THE SEALED JAR and it was actually trying to communicate with me!!! Should I send this in to CNN, or should I have the preacher dude check it out??? What do I do with this thing? Thank GOD I didn't eat it.

These are the most unintelligent people alive.

Randy and Calum, you hit the nail on the head! Dimmer, Les, Cedric, et al, are guilty of foisting their religions on the rest of the world.

What is a religion, anyway? Can we not call it a belief based primarily on faith? And isn't that what a belief in evolution really is: faith in a theory (Note: a theory only - there are NO indisputable facts to support evolution!)?

There's a reason it's called "the theory of evolution," rather than the "fact of evolution." Someone dreamed it up, and started building a faith system around it; others were duped into believing that this system was completely accurate. Sorta like the internet, isn't it? I mean, we all know that everything on the internet is true, don't we (after all, Al Gore invented the internet, and he wouldn't lie to us, would he?)? Darwin was the "internet" of his time: people heard or read what he was saying, and accepted it as gospel, simply because he said it. P.T. Barnum was right!

Darwin, who lived long before carbon dating (also just an unsubstantiated theory!) had no more proof than anyone has today, to verify the accuracy of his theory. - Uh-oh! I hear the anguished cries and clicking of keyboards, coming from those who will now try to defend carbon dating, but it won't do them any good - there is NO proof of the absolute, or even partial, accuracy of carbon dating, just as there is NO proof of the absolute, or even partial proof of the accuracy of some theory that man evolved from primordial ooze (you are now free to accuse me of ignorance and lacking the facts, but when you do: try to find some FACTS - not just theories or half-baked ideas!)! Yet, this religion of evolutionism is being taught in our schools as fact, and many of the children are growing up believing in it, just because they are in school, so they figure it must be right. Therefore, this religion wins the court battles, and the others are not allowed to present an opposing viewpoint. So much for keeping religion out if the classroom! Richard Simons errs: when a completely unsubstantiated religion like evolutionism is forced on minor children, other, opposing religions should be allowed to introduce an equally feasible point of view, but are prevented from doing so. That's like telling an anti-war protester that he is welcome to express his views, but only if he leaves the country to do so. Is "our country - love it or leave it!" any less acceptable than "our evolutionism - agree with it or go to your church to argue against it!"

From what I've been reading here, this isn't a debate about evolution, anyway: it's more of a slam session, with each atheist trying to top the previous one by labeling all who believe in Creationism as "radical," "wing-nut" "fundies," and worse. You folks don't really appear to be up for a serious debate - you just want to run down anyone with beliefs that differ from yours. You sound to me like a bunch of "radical," "wing-nut" "kooks," who, lacking any proof or direction, just lash out like cornered animals!

It seems to me that, of all of you, Rokken made the most sense - he credits Chuck Norris with everything!

Wes, those of us who believe in the church of science realise that scientific theories can be disproved and when they do we adapt accordingly unlike other religions. I'm quite happy with science. If a god exists why do they not show themselves instead of making us fear for our faith, it all seems like a cruel joke. All the major religions have their differences (Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddist etc.). Lets say one of them is right and the godhead for it does exist. That would mean billions of people have been wasting thier faith on a wrong religion, what kind of a god does not show themselves to stop this timewasting?
I cannot comprehend how people have got to the creationist way of thinking to make this video, its stupidty is beyond my intelligence.

1st premise (via Chris) Chris proposes that human life hasn't changed. I look at the old pictures and even then most people had more defined eyebrow ridges. Human change is subtle, and all that we have is a bone record. It makes very little sense to say that there is no change at all, when scientists have demonstrated adaptive speciation in the lab using fruit flies. Sealed jars with primary ingredients for life thought to exist in times long past have generated DNA, and other biological proteins when exposed to electricity. These are facts, proven by experimentation.
2nd premise (via William M) There is no proof that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, that is hearsay, the words of the Bible existed before there was a Bible, the collection is artificial and the product of a Pagan man, Constantine, making a political decision to control and implement a religion that he didn't believe in as a tool for the Roman Empire. His vision of Christianity, he claimed, came from the god Apollo. What kind of Christian is that? Furthermore, the contradictions in the Bible point to the fact that God's word was corrupted, misunderstood, or taken out of context. There is no reason to think that God would preserve our souls when we don't take trouble to meet Him even halfway. Afterall Jesus said "Seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be open unto you." This statement would be useless if all the answers were to be found in the Bible, in that case, he would just say, "Do what me and my disciples say, and what the prophets of old have written." Jesus said no such thing.
Science too, has its faults. There is no positive proof against God, or any positive proof for God's existence. God, however, must exist because divine inspiration exists. Furthermore, there is a grand unifying principle of the Universe, why has neither side of the issue spoken up and said that this principle is God. Perhaps science and religion are both afraid of the New Age metaphysics. I would find it extremely entertaining for all the hypocrites out there to be proven wrong when New Age theories of consciousness are proven right. Don't think this is too far off, google "quantum consciousness" and see what you think.

Everybody is just too touchy about their beliefs, if they were truly concerned about truth, it wouldn't be that way.

Evolution and Creation are real but really different that what anyone thinks, so there!

interesting comments... stupid clips... personally i think both sides are right in their own ways. i think eveolution is right, and i think it's almost indisputable. i don't know why fundies are so worked up about it. what they should point out is that a big bang created the world, but what created the condition to cause the bang? what created the creator?

i believe there is a god in the form of light, and i also think theres an afterlife based on the experiences of near-death experiencers. i also think science isn't even close to explaining everything and to believe so is naive and short sighted. i think theres an interesting correlation between quantum physics research that says there are 10 dimensions of existence, and ancient texts that talk about 10 levels of heaven. we have barely scratched the surface of how the universe works. remember when a majority of people believed the world was flat? what do we believe now that isn't even close to reality?

this is the stupidest piece of shit ever. its funny though. but... what the hell does peanut butter have to do w/ creationism?? where the hell do people come up with this crap?.. so many unanswered questions...( oh yea im gonna open a jar of peanut butter and find some kind of new life!!.. psh..

Creationist are a bunch of idiots! They don't realize that all of life came into being through evolution: a process of random mutation to genetic material, random genetic drift, and non-random natural selection within populations and species...basically spontaneous generation. It is obvious to intelligent people that totally undirected forces were able to randomly form into the incredibly complex forms of life that we see in our world today. Why can't creationists embrace this truth! I feel sorry for them that they have to spend their lives wallowing in a faith system with no scientific basis when the FACTS are shouting: All of life came from random undirected forces by total chance!...life forms just needed 6 billion years to evolve out of nothing. You see...scientist have discovered that the longer you have nothing...that eventually you get something...or something like that. Creationist take a ridiculous leap of faith with all their God talk. Just give me the facts!

So is he saying in a roundabout way that creationists evolved from peanut butter?

What is wrong with thinking that God made evolution happen????!?!?!?!?!?!?

And you know what that way everyone can be happy. God created man through evolution. This seems to me to be the best possible answer.

All they ended up proving is taht we are from an outside source (ie. aliens). Way to go, godguys!!

wes robertson, sr obviously missed science classes in school when they explained what a "scientific theory" is... get a grip man, no one is pretending that evolution was a religion, no one is forcing you to accept it... but you have to admit, homo sapiens look a lot like monkeys don't we? maybe that was god's plan through it all?

This all could have been explained easily enough had they used a jar of Spaghetti Sauce, and invoked the Almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Touched by His Noodledge!

Just a tip. Presenting a sound argument is fine, but when you begin namecalling, you lose credibility to due to your passion.

You can say God created evolution. You can say God created The Big Bang. You can say God created peanut butter or anything else you want. But, in fact, God created nothing. Creation (making something from nothing) is not possible. Creation is a contrivance of "man." All the matter and energy in the universe that is here "today," was here "yesterday," and will be here "tomorrow." It wasn't created, it has always been. Folks, get a grip . . . THERE IS NO GOD! Oh, by the way, theory means explanation. The theory of gravity = the explanation of gravity. Back to biology 101.

perhaps the most obvious "straw man" argument I've ever seen-- they misrepresent evolution (either deliberately or through ignorance), simplifying it to the point of sillyness. People who beieve this either WANT to believe this or are simply very easily swayed.

OMG, I just opened my peanut butter jar and found the face of Jesus in the swirls. Ha, ha, ha, ha.

Sorry you religious freaks, stop trying to sound scientific, and go back to your ridiculous miracle searching to try to prove to yourselves you are not waisting you life on something that doesn't exist.

Let me say first off that this is a poor argument for the existance of God. There is much more proof that one can find in true science.and the Laws of motion, gravity ect. ect. Who made these Laws (as they are called by scientists) When one looks to the way our bodies function, and the gift of procreating life, one can only be moved to praise God for his masterful works of design and order. I find that the people who are responding to this video clip are making it a platform to trash President Bush, the Iraq war and many other issues which really has nothing to do with the existance of God. I know that this comment will have many negative responses but I at least would like to make the other side of the matter heard.

I would just like to take this opportunity to deconstruct this argument from an amateur perspective based on a mild interest in the subject matter and only moderate reading which can prepare anyone to over-come this incredibly retarded argument.

New life of any type would be microscopic and if new forms of life were to be produced on our planet, they would almost certainly be eaten immediately by more advanced bacteria. So you like won't ever find any non-carbon based life on this planet. The window of opportunity for new life to compete is now closed here.

Secondly, the means of new life coming into existence is typically in the process of converting amino acids to RNA (A simplistic life form similar to DNA) that can engage in self-replication. If new life were to spring up in a jar of peanut butter, not only would it likely die almost immediately; but also you would not be able to see it without a microscope.

Thirdly, the likelihood of new life showing up on any given day, in any puddle, on any planet that has water in liquid form, is in the realm of trillions to one. That is an awful lot of peanut butter jars to look in with microscopes. And I don't think any FDA concern extends to trillions of jars of peanut butter.
Now, the reason why it makes sense as an origin is because if you multiply the number of puddles by the number of days that a planet has had puddles since it came into existence, the odds start to even out along the geological scale. Given that the earth is around four to six billion years old, it is inevitable that such an event would have happened here where the planet is in a Goldie-locks zone for liquid water.

If you are also interested in readings on the subject, I highly recommend Colin Tudge�s �The Variety of Life� and Richard Dawkins� �Ancestor�s Tale�

OK. First not everyone that believes in god is a christian there are other religions that believe god created life. Christians are also not the only religion that has the book of Genesis.
Second Peanut Butter can spark life quite rapidly not in the jar but on the table in front of stoners with the munchies.
Personally I think we are all created by computers that let us think we are in control. Brilliant.

Now... not a whole bunch of things are done based on technicallities. BUT new life can be considerd mold ants etc. that can break down the penut butter. because as most of us learned in life science class all living organisms need, O2, food, water, living space, and energy. mold and ants meet those requirements. so actually this prooves false? im not a science expert i only went to 7th grade so far i think that this video is balderdash.

Wes Robertson, if you ever intend to put your views before a group of biologists I strongly suggest you take a crash course in science unless you intend to have the audience rolling in the aisles in stitches. You can start by finding out what is meant by a scientific theory and the role of proof in science. Then read some actual science instead of extracts from creationist sources. Every single one I've seen has had to lie to make its point. To say there are no indisputable facts to support evolution, for example, is complete rubbish (on second thoughts, there are some people who would dispute whether the sea is wet).

Comparing evolution with religion is also nonsense. That you call it 'evolutionism' does not turn it into a religion. Evolution is no more a religion than is the theory of gravitation. (As an aside, did you know that some people objected to it because it removed the need to have angels pushing the planets into place?)

The theory of evolution is currently the best explanation we have for the amazing variety of life we have here on Earth. If anything was found that conflicts with evolution and a better theory came forward, biologists would embrace the new theory with enthusiasm (of course, there would be some who are too hide-bound to change their views, just as there was with plate tectonics). And by the way, people most certainly did not just accept Darwin's views just because of who he was (what do you think he was, anyway, that could possibly have caused such a reaction?)

Chris's points are good. A few jars of peanut butter sitting on shelves for a month or two are not remotely comparable to trillions of puddles with a vast array of conditions and millions of years to play with. Anything remotely like a precursor to life that arose now would be microscopic (or smaller) and would almost certainly be destroyed by the millions of bacteria that are even present in jars of peanut butter.

Eric, you are more or less correct on the needs of living things (there are various organisms, e.g. yeast, that do not need O2). The basic problem is that the creationists who made this video seem to think that things like moulds and ants are very simple and expect them to appear from nothing (if the theory of evolution were true) in a few months. Compared to most of biology, however, they are fairly complex organisms that took hundreds of millions, or even billions, of years to evolve from simpler life. If they did spontaneously arise in a jar of peanut butter (or anything else) the best explanations would be 1) contamination 2) Genesis-style creation. Evolution would be ruled out.

I almost hate to join an argument on the side of cracks like this. I am not a crack, a religious zealot or a Bush supporter in any way. In fact, I would be considered a scholar by many, and have in fact tested in top percentile on IQ test.

The fact is that, this guy is right in his point, though his peanut butter analysis is ridiculous. You can not get life from "non-life". It is attempted every day in labs, and that fact is one of the scientific "rules" that is universally accepted. The "Big Bang" theory goes against what we know about science, but it is a theory that some choose to accept in order to have a starting point for life.

Also, if there is anyone who knows much about chaos or entropy also knows that the idea that something as complex as human beings, or even a frog, came from a one cell organism (however it got here) through random occurrences is unreasonable. The odds are so astronomical that it is by all reason impossible. There are too many forces in the universe. To have a string of mutations that continue to be more complex and continue to survive to the point of a mammal just couldn't happen by chance. This, of course, is on top of the fact that there is still nothing, be it in fossils or present life, to indicate that one species in anyway became another (though we see evidence of species evolving into more advanced versions of themselves).

I believe in evolution. But I also know that the only explanation for life as we know it is an intelligent guiding force. Whether the force is good for evil, whether there is a heaven and hell, etc. are only debates that will go on until the end of time. I am not religious

At this point, the only people who wouldn't believe in a higher being, in my estimation, would have to be those who are idiots (as there are on both sides of the debate), those who are too arrogant to believe in a being higher than humans no matter the evidence, or those who would prefer to live their life without the possibility of a force that may be judging their actions. But intellectually, if the debate is really about science, though you can't prove "God" with science, you can easily combat the idea of a "Big Bang" and then random occurrences getting us to this point.

Also, if there is anyone who knows much about chaos or entropy also knows that the idea that something as complex as human beings, or even a frog, came from a one cell organism (however it got here) through random occurrences is unreasonable. The odds are so astronomical that it is by all reason impossible.

Which is why evolutionary biologists do not believe this. You are forgetting the other half of the equation - selection.

My mother in law wants us all to move to Arkansas. I'm scared. I think that most people there worship the God who can't create evolution.

I can't believe the stupidity of your logic!

The stupidity of the trolls is breathtaking. I'll just do one short one:

"What's wrong with believing God did evolution?!"

Snippy response: "What's wrong with the idea that fairies did gravity?"

Less snippy response: "Where's your evidence that he did?"

Why is it that people are so narrow minded. Why can't I believe in God and in evolution?? Would that be so horrible. Maybe it was god that created the circumstances that started life and evolution. Maybe the story told in the bible is a simplified explination, written in a certain story telling style used hundreds of years ago?? Maybe we are all right.. there is a god and there is evolution?? But wait.. if we're all right, then we'd all stop arguing.. and if we all stopped arguing with each other.. the politicians couldn't hurd us into groups and use us for their political and financial gain. I guess we really haven't evolved past the role of "sheep".. now have we??

I have to say I myself am a creationist believer because matter appearing out of nothing is far less belivable than God creating everything. Either way, by calling a creationist an idiot doesn't make you sound that much smarter. It makes you sound immature and childish.

Well now, how is it that folk who are too embarrased to beleive in God or Jesus Christ in front of their peers call off all bets when they are in trouble or when tragedy strikes.....Then, the first words out of their mouths are: OH MY GOD!!!...JESUS!!!....LORD...or, JESUS CHRIST...Not a single atheist would win a bet if the wager was to never speak those words again.....He created you, and His Spirit is in you, that is why you call out his name in those situations....The sooner you realize this the better....I would love to know how you are going to explain or justify all the mess you are posting above to God on Judgement day...Good luck!

Thank you all! Thanks again! This has been the most entertaining thing I have read in ages. Hugs to all of the Pastafarians and believers in Natural Selection.

Bigger hugs to the "evolution skeptics" because they need our love and gentle correction. They need to learn to think critically and allow logic to guide them. Most of all, they need to be able to take a breath and walk away from the fear of new things.

Please understand, too that the people at the Center for Discovery like Ahmanson and Behe are doing what they do in order to drive a wedge between our freedom and us in order to replace our government with a form of "Biblical Law." It's not honest belief, it's dishonest and it's bad theology too.

Now come on, is there really that big a difference between spontaneous generation and evolution? If flies and worms don't magically appear on a carcass in a jar how could lightning striking primordial ooze possibly spark anything other than the lord's holy fire?

GUESS WHAT I FOUND IN MY PEANUT BUTTER?

Little green men. It was disgusting. I could have eaten that. I think I'll sue. Eating anything with animals is wrong.

Anyway... was that meant to be taken seriously? I hope not.

Creationists have hit a new low. Peanut butter? Honestly. Well, i suppose its the only thing they've got. They only have an out-dated book while evolutionists are gaining scientific evidence to support their thoery.

It is not that creationists are stupid. Only... confused... like Nazis or racists, believing in what they have known all their life, unwilling to change, accepting only what they can comprehend.

Let us hope that creationists refrain from doing something terribly dumb so nobody gets hurt.

just so everyone knows man created god in his own image.

This douchebag will rethink things real quick when the crack, blue-helmeted, United Nations spontaneous generationist squadrons get ahold of him.

Send'em all to war, KBH - remember, there are no atheists in foxholes!

Science is slowly proving that God exists. For all you monkey ancestoral wannabe's, I know it is hard for you to take. The only reason you want to believe in Evolution is so you can go on doing all of your evil dees without feeling guilty. But, alas, one day, all of us will take that last breath, and what a terrible thing you will be facing then. Short sighted idiots. Wake up.

Can't find new life in a jar of peanut butter? The answer is quite simple. You're using the wrong brand.

It has to be PETER PAN peanut butter, dummy! And not the plain style. It has to have nuts...

Ok there were some excellent trolls, most notably Ike's on April 4 (good effort :)), but have any xtian idiots actually turned up here or anywhere and NOT been embarrassed by this crap?

Jsta

Wow, this is stupid. Life does not just appear, it takes specific conditions. And the the thing that makes this guy really retarded, he forgets the fact that the peanut butter container is compleatly AIR TIGHT!!!! If you can tell me a kinda of organism that can just appear out of a tottaly unhospitable condition in a matter of days, let me know. My email is Ty RIPPPPPPPPPP@AIM.COM. OF CORSE THERE WOULDN'T BE A NEW LIFE FORM IN A COMPLEATLY AIRTIGHT CONTAINER. Man, people need to think before they try and prove something scientificly proven to exist wrong.

if, while still blinking through the gloom, and before he has become sufficiently accustomed to the environing darkness, he is compelled in courtrooms or elsewhere to contend about the shadows of justice or the images that cast the shadows and to wrangle in debate about the notions of these things in the minds of those who have never seen justice itself?

~Plato's Parable of the Cave

In case you were wondering...I have been busy healing cancer of people that have communities praying for them. I really don't bother creating things anymore I like to help out where you guys mess up...I think I made the world a nice functional place that can take care of itself if you humans would stop destroying it...Evolution is real what were you doing that day in science class?? Christ was a real person what were you doing that day in history class? I am not about Christ GET THAT STRAIT. I am the alpha and the omega..the beginning and the earth...interpret what you must..believe in what you must...But some where deep inside you, you believe in some form of me

Peace and Love

does this argument work for "super chunky" peanut butter?

Now I'm gonna go out buy myself a jar of Skippy, and when it's done I'm going to put a monkey inside and bring it to this guy.

This right here is proof that God is the highest power. He created us plain ab=nd simple. There is no other way to describe it at all

Apparently God has crappy grammar.

Now quite a few posts have pointed out that a jar of peanut butter does not have the proper "ingredients" or matter to create life regardless of how many times the process of making a jar of peanut butter is repeated. This is not the point of the video. True evolutionists believe that first there was nothing. Then all of this "nothing" conveniently got together to explode into everything we have today. At least the jar of peanut butter starts with some matter to work with, while the evolutionary model of the conception of the whole universe started with nothing.

" True evolutionists believe that first there was nothing.

Sigh. Evolutionary biology doesn't even say anything about the origin of life, let alone the origin of the universe. There is no "evolutionary model of the conception of the whole universe". What you're saying is (in one sense) formally on the same level as insisting how silly it is to believe that Jesus parted the Red Sea. Regardless of the actual merits, it suggests such a limited grasp of the subject as to largely justify simply ignoring and/or laughing at the speaker.

Your problem is with the Big Bang, one of whose earliest exponents was a Roman Catholic priest. Go to wikipedia (for starters) and learn a little bit about it, perhaps.

Dan,

You try to insist I lack in knowledge about the evolutionary theory, while at the same time you say Jesus parted the Red Sea. If you would have said Moses or even Joshua, I would have thought you had at least some knowledge of the Bible.

You are passionate about avoiding the obvious flaws in evolution's explanation of the beginning of the universe. So instead, evolutionary biology it is. Let me ask you some questions.

How many mutations have we observed that have increased genetic information?

Why have we not discovered the supposed millions of transitional forms that would have occurred if evolution was true?

When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

Anyone?

"You try to insist I lack in knowledge about the evolutionary theory, while at the same time you say Jesus parted the Red Sea."

No, he didn't say that. You're attacking an extremely confused depiction of evolution, which he pointed out is like attacking an extremely confused understanding of the bible.

You seriously couldn't grasp that meaning? Doubtful. Surely you can read! I think you're just someone's lame first attempt at trolling.

Wow! I really hate seeing things like this and reading the resulting bolgs. First of all, not all Christians are Republican. I am a Christian and I think Republican's have used faith to get votes. Then when they are caught not living a life with Christ, it give the wrong stereotype of Chirstians. I am a Christian. I have personlly researched evolution to determine by own belief, and creation from a higher power makes more since and has less holes in the belief. I encourage everyone to research both sides in great detail before judging the belifs of others. Also, don't judge all Christians because of one stupid video that you find online. For all we know, a non-believer did the video to make fun of Chirstians.

Makes as much sense as evolutionists who say, "if you can't prove it with math and science then it doesn't and can't exist." The fact is people don't know everything and never will directly. Theory will always be just that: theory. Evolutionist theory says all life came from random undirected forces, by total chance, over billions of years, and started in a chemical soup. Creationist theory says the exact same thing except that it started with outside intervention from a supreme being. What's the diference? You can't prove either one. How about we just respect each other and move on.

Christians by design can never prove Gods existance, otherwise the Bible would read "have proof in God"
We all know wether christian or not that all religion is Faith-based.
that said,
Science can never Prove evolution for the same reason as they can't say which came first, the chicken or the egg.
without written accounts or testimony form the 1st suppoesed slimes wandering the earth, all science can ever prove is that they can only, forever speculate.

as far as written history knows, and as long as ive ever gone to the zoo, a man never came from a monkey, sure the cavemen era man might hav walked hunched, maybe was to make them better hunters, but, they were cavemen, not cavemonkeys. It is my contention that life is much to diverse, from ocean life where some mammels, some not live, choral, sandfish, to land life tigers, monkeys, and seagulls, to concider that everything including trees grass n bushes all started out as one.

Life and the complex balance this world holds seems way to well planned. To think that we come from a lucky twist of fate, of perfect simbean circle of dependance upon every other living thing, well seems a bit arrogant to take that credit, kinda makes me feel like we are a lucky accident. To that I say No Thanks. Its Way to perfect for there not to be God. Sry non believers.

The fact that a springy prank snake didn't pop out of the jar when he opened it proves that, if there is a God, He has no eye for comedic opportunity.

Evolution is a fairy-tale! But the Bible isn't! Follow blindly!

I belive in god or as some would say a higher power for those who cant stand the word god. How do any of you know how long a day is for god maybe a billion years to us is one day for him. Besides if people came from monkeys then please tell me why there are still monkeys. Are we waitting for them to turn into humans too? Have you ever noticed when you buy insurance they dont cover acts of god. My point is every creature that has come forth from adapting, adapted for a reason. If they hadnt adapted they would have died. Sorry the monkey theory doesnt work because otherwise there would not be monkeys.

Wait I have one better how do you know that monkeys didnt come from humans, maybe one day we will all be monkeys. That is even better I think. Didnt the bible or the quran say god turned a bunch of gay guys into monkeys...lol Where do you think aids came from gay guys in africa had it frist.

He should be grateful for his opposing thumbs, otherwise, he would not even be able to open the man-made plastic jar.

Just for curiosity, what is it that causes mutations to happen? Does anyone out there really believe that if I stay in my pool 24/7, convince my wife and kids to do the same, grandchildren, etc., that we will eventually sprout gills to adapt to our environment? I think that evolution does indeed happen, but the changes (mutations) are guided by an outside power (God, or whatever name happens to please you). Evolution does not have "proof", it is a theory, as in "The Theory Of Evolution". Why are there such large jumps in progress? Homo Sapiens Sapiens just sort of popped onto the scene, with no gradual linkage from the "earlier model humans/apes". Oh, and if anyone has a good explanation for gradual evolution of electric eels, I'd like to hear it. How was it an advantage to have the vestigal organs for producing electricity before they could produce enough to act as protection? Or was the mutation perfect and whammo, slimy little worm to drop you in your tracks electric eel in one generation? Intelligent design is the answer. Tom

I think many of the recent comments here tie quite neatly into the current sciblogs discussion on science, communication & framing. There's a fair amount of very basic misinformation about evolution (and in a few cases, science in general), combined with some emotional/ideological distrust and dislike of it. (This of course is due in part to the constant campaign by creationists to mislead people about evolution, diminish or drive out any accurate teaching about it, and convince them that's it's evil)

Evolutionary biology is not a theory about the origin of life (it's about what happened next). Think of it as the kind of thing they do on CSI or similar shows. We didn't 'come from monkeys' - rather, studying both fossil and dna evidence, scientists have concluded that we and chimpanzees share a common ancestor several million years ago. Imagine that the crime lab compared two people's' DNA, and it revealed that they were cousins - it's basically the exact same principle. This upsets some people, for various reasons - just think of chimps as your no-good brother who's still living at home, while you went out and accomplished all sorts of things. Monkeys are even more distant relatives, the kind where you have to go back quite a few generations to find the link (and don't invite to any family occasions).

The second part of 'If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys' is - to be honest - a bit of a moldy oldy that plays on very simple misconceptions about evolution (and hence plays right into the successful strategy to keep people from finding/wanting to find out more). Keeping in mind that 'came from monkeys' isn't really right, it's a bit like saying, 'if I came from my grandparents, why are my cousins still around. You're not a descendent of your cousins (hopefully!) - rather, you and your cousins have two common ancestors - your grandparents. There are some cases where a species might be entirely replaced by a descendent species, (think of a family that has only one child, generation after generation) but you can also get looks like (is) a family tree, with all sorts of branches and the kind of family reunion that needs to be seriously catered. Or a once numerous clan might dwindle (like horses and people) to a single representative, with the nearest other relative separated by many generations (ie, for us, it's chimps, who I called brothers, but are really more like distant cousins, with all our closer relatives gone).

Mutations are caused by copying errors, basically. Tom's family won't get gills in order to adapt to their environment, but any traits that help them do better living in the pool - webbed hands and feet, for example, something that shows up in people now and then - would be more likely to be passed on, since Tom's great-great grandkid with the funny toes and fingers will be better at getting to food, for example, then other folks in the neighborhood, and be more likely to pass on that (genetic) trait, with descendants who would also be more likely to . . . (and of course, if Tom already had such a trait, he and his descendants would already have a jump start on the rest of the folks, until the whole neighborhood had webbed hands and feet).

Now, whether there is something beyond or behind reality, far above our ken, that's fiddling with exactly what mutations happen, or has somehow set up existence for a certain result, that's not a question science can answer, although I have my own opinions.

Humans "sort of popped onto the scene, with no gradual linkage from the "earlier model humans/apes"? No way. This is what makes me so sad, that over the last few decades we've made such amazing discoveries about our own specific branch of the family tree. Indeed, there are so many, with such great similarities, that the problem is figuring out exactly how all these folks fit together, rather like a family reunion where there's an abundance of older relatives all somehow related to you. I'll try to put up some links later this afternoon.

Eels? I don't know, but I have a suspicion of at least one plausible explanation. Again, later this afternoon. Must run.

Wowzers! Too many klowns and not enough carnival.

Faith requires no evidence. But believing bullshit doesn't make it true.

In one word I shall prove that teh evil evil evolution really exists:

Ready?

VEGEMITE!

Oh, and
AUssie AUssie AUssie, Oi Oi Oi!!!

Dan S. -very nice post, btw. A nice, simplified way to explain the "man from monkey" misconception. As a science teacher (with a degree in Evolutionary Biology), I cannot help but apologize for my profession. I posit that the ignorance of the general public is largely our own fault. A plethora of science teachers who themselves do not understand how to explain the topic in an understandable way makes for confusion and ignorance in their students, who then grow up questioning the scientific validity of evolution and lending credence to non-fact-based ?alternatives?. I make damn well sure that my students are fully apprised of the multitude of evidence supporting evolution. From the universality of the A-T-C-G coding, to the "suspicious" morphological similarities shared by different/but related species today, common ancestry is not even disputable. Evolution is as much a theory as Gravity is a theory. On the other hand, I feel compelled to mention "Intelligent Design" to my students, as it has become so newsworthy. However, I really can't say much, as there is no supportive data, nor substantiation in peer-reviewed science journals. Of course, faith cannot be quantified. Studying a multitude of literature and a scad of websites, it seems that, rather that try to find supporting evidence for creation, the ID?ers spend all of their money and efforts trying to simply find things wrong with the facts of evolution through natural selection. Suspiciously like the ?sour grapes? philosophy, rather than attempting to prove or disprove a hypothesis. On the other hand, I note that exact degree of genetic and biochemical difference/similarity CAN be tested and quantified, and is concrete and compelling evidence (yes, actual data!) that proves without a doubt, common ancestry. Do you honestly believe it?s coincidence that chimpanzee and human DNA sequences are some 99% similar whereas humans and bananas are similar in the neighborhood of 25%? If so, I have a bridge to sell you! Better yet, isn't that similarity to a banana really what should catch your interest? How to explain that (rhetorical question, of course)? If that doesn?t scream common ancestor, primordial ooze, and single-cell origins? Yes, it's quantifiable, yes, differentiation proves that populations undergo genetic changes during periods of isolation due to natural selection. Just look at the race to come up with new vaccines and antibiotics. Mis-copies (in much the same way I probably have several typos in this post)in the A-T-C-G code lead to new genetic combinations (some work, others do not), leading to resistance in some of those microorganisms. This DOES happen in REAL time and is OBSERVABLE and measurable. This is evolution in a petri dish, folks. Given that basically the same process is thought to have started some 3.5 billion years ago, wrap your mind around the diversity in form and function it led to. With every advance in technology, evolution is only more strongly supported. I find it laughable that the anti-evolutionists are still stuck on 17th century fossils and vestigial organs as their main argument when there is so much more to talk about, like genome research.

Me, I'm just happy this "debate" between evolution and fairytales is being fought in Yankeeland, not over here in cosy Scandinavia.

Makes you wonder, though, why the US ? I suppose there's similar debates going on in other countries, but the biggest controversies in scientific issues seems to originate in the US. Climate change, evolution, stem cells, what have you.

Why ?

Thanks, darwin, and nice post yourself.
No time to add more, but I'll try to toss out some stuff on human evolution and electric eels tonight.

um...okay. well let's see. 1/3 of you all are using big words to try and sound smart and correct (i understand what you say but you accomplish nothing by trying to sound proper); 1/3 of you all are just plain stupid; and the remaining 1/3 of you are making fun of the idiots. yes, the peanut butter example is pretty stupid in many respects but that doesn't mean creationists are stupid (although i am not quite sure why they had an engineer do this). i have heard evolutionists use examples and excuses that are just as dumb. i could spend 3 hrs telling you why i believe creation but you could spend another 3 hrs giving rebuttles, dumb or not. many times creationists point out possible flaws in simple evolutionary ideas and just stop at that and say, ha you are wrong and i am right, and just walk away. i have more respect for a evo. that is cool headed in a debate and uses logical reasoning than a woosie cre. who ends the debate as quick as possible to avoid having to think about what he believes on the deepest levels.

Did someone use the "why are there still monkeys" argument in the 21st century? That chestnut will just not die.....

This whole thing reminds me of something...

[A Man walks up to a carpenter building a house]

Man: Oh, your a carpenter!

Carpenter (looking at his tool belt and all the sawdust covering him then at the man): What could ever have given you that idea?

m: You carpenters are so sarcastic and evil because you know that your little "theory" of steel hammers is totally based on ignorance.

c: What the hell are you talking about? Why am I evil? What do you mean by my theory of steel hammers? Are you crazy?

m: Resorting to Ad Hominem attacks already? Your little "theory" must be really pathetic if the best you can use to defend it is attack me, you slimy dishonest evil-doer. You, and all the other lying steel-hammerists are pathetic in your feeble attempts to deny the beauty and correctness of the Potato Hammer.

c: Do I know you? Is this some kind of joke? (looks around) Am I on one of those hidden camera shows?

m: Now you're just avoiding answering the many criticisms I offered against your stupid untenable faith, you simpering child molester? Why do you hate Jeebus? Why must you always oppress me and keep potato hammers out of carpentry magazines? You and your stupid evil conspiracy.

c: Potato hammer? Do you mean a hammer to hit potatos with or a hammer made out of a potato?

m: Ha ha! That is such a stupid puerile question, I can understand why you believe that a steel hammer could possibly drive in a steel nail, moron.

c: What do you mean? (drives a nail into a board) Look.

m: Since both are made of steel, one or the other will break when they hit. That is simple physics, which I see you must be completely ignorant of.

c: (nails board again) Look, I just did it again. The nail and the hammer are made out different kinds of steel. The hammer is hardened steel. A nail is softer steel.

m: Hahahahaha. You and your stupid "steel-hammerism." Not only is steel steel, steel isn't a potato. Steel is an ELEMENT, doofus. You cant have more than one kind of an element, god would be pissed.

c: That made no sense. Your whole argument makes no sense. You can't hammer a nail into a board with a potato. A potato is too soft. Hammers are harder than nails.

m:Your techno-babble is just chafe for the fact that no one has ever hit a steel nail into a board without breaking either the hammer or the nail. You can't nail a board into the sun with a steel hammer, can you?

c:

m:You just don't want people to know cuz then houses would be three time cheaper. It's either the hammer and the nail. If you "Steel-hammerists" didn't break all those hammers you couldn't get kick-backs from the hammer makers. Your kind can't stop lying, can you?

c: Then where are all the broken hammers? (shakes his head) You are the strangest bastard I have ever met. I don't think I could possibly hammer a nail into a board with a potato. I don't think ANYONE could do that.

m: (pityingly) Sure you could. You could if you weren't a heathen bastard. All it takes is faith. It's much simpler.
It makes way more sense. I'm surprised you can't see it. Even I can, and I've only read a website, and a book by this dentist, and I post on a blog with a lot of real smart people. And some times I watch the Potato Hammer Supreme Victory Hour. So I know allot about it. I know a potato is a better hammer. I have faith. And people use potato hammers all the time. My cousin met a guy who made a house with a potato hammer. And he only used one potato.

c: What the hell are you talking about? Nobody has ever hammered a nail with a potato. And no one ever made a house with one either. And you are an asshole. I'm going back to work.

m: All you Steel-Hammerist always resort to name calling when you can't prove that you always break either a hammer or a nail. Steel hammers built the gas chambers that killed them jews. You can't even prove that anyone never never ever didn't ever break either a hammer or a nail. All the evidence ever googled by me proved it. I saw a letter signed by 350 Dentists or Dental Hygienists, and they all said that hammers or nails always break. And even a dummy who just looked up the Second Law of Thermodynamics on Conservipedia can tell. Besides, people have always used potato hammers. God wants us to. I know cuz it's in a book.

c: You have got to be kidding me. First of all, I just nailed two nails here and nothing broke. Second, I have no idea what the Holocaust has to do with carpentry. Third of all,

m: Why are there dwarfs+pygmies then huh?

Ok, now two of my comments are being 'held for approval by the blog owner' - I give up. Good night, and watch out for those dwarves+pygmies, especially if they have potatoes. And nails.

I sit here and read all your thoughts against what this dude is saying, but yet, not one of you people can refute what he says.
You just sit there, and pile-on-top saying something hateful against him and some, "banana" guy.
Divert the attention to Iraq, and/or politics.
And, use other methods/tactics to dismiss what he says.
But, not one of you, try to disprove him or his statement.
USE EVOLUTION TO SQUASH HIM, OR SHUT-UP!!!
If you have proof, bring it, and show it.
If not, then, SHUT-UP!
The upitomy of stupitity is a "text-book dweeb," sreeming foul, but yet not knowing/showing how they were fouled.
You just cry, "that's not fair."
CHECK-MATE!!!
....you lose.
X

"I sit here and read all your thoughts against what this dude is saying, but yet, not one of you people can refute what he says."

I assume X is merely a drive-by, but just in case - X, we've been doing that, repeatedly.

1) The peanut butter guy in the video is attacking scientific ideas about the origin of life (abiogenesis). Evolutionary biology doesn't deal with the origin of life, any more than (to toss out a vaguely related analogy) traffic laws and car design and suchlike deal with how the wheel was invented. It deals with what happened next, and has nothing to say aboutthe question of how life got started, which is being pursued by other scientists in different fields. Mr. Peanut might even know this - it's a) to creationists' advantage, faced with the overwhelming evidence for evolution, to try to tie it to the far trickier, less established abiogenesis problem, and b) all the same thing to them - like most of geology, large chunks of physics and astronomy, linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, genetics, most of bio, etc, it contradicts a small and cartoonishly literal reading of the Bible, and is hence unacceptable. In another century they would have screeched about lightning rods (an insult to God!) or the idea that the earth went around the sun.

2)Even taking into account that he isn't actually saying anything relevent to evolutionary biology, Mr. Peanut's still way off. He's offering a strawman argument (straw-primordial-ooze?) (
wikipedia: "To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.")

No scientist would imagine, no hypothesis predicts, that life would start up in a peanut butter jar. However it exactly happened, it occured under conditions wildly different from the current Earth, and certainly not like a a jar of peanut butter. They really don't expect life to be currently forming anywhere on Earth - but if it somehow started to, it would almost certainly be eaten or degraded even before it was actually alive - not to mention being unnoticeably microscopic.

I hope you all know that no responsible Christian scholars believe in Creationism. It's mostly radical fundamentalists and unfortunately some Christians buy into it because they're told that evolution is contradictory to the Bible, which is not true. Many Christian scientists believe in many parts of evolution. But we also believe that God did something distinct when it comes to humans, maybe we did evolve from monkeys but if that's so God made humans special. Also, evolution is not a theory about Creation, the Big Bang is normally the creation theory associated with evolution. Basically we have to believe one of two things, either matter is eternal and something spontaneous happened to create life, or there is an eternal God that designed the earth and life, etc. The way the earth is designed is so extraordinary that today many atheist/secular scholars are recognizing that there may be intelligent design. Please do not be turned off from Christianity because some radical fundamentalists are completely scientifically irresponsible.

......huh, is anyone going to eat that.......?"

Unbelievable. I can't believe what I am hearing in 2007. Creationists being belittled and made fun of and taunted by those who think they know all the answers. It is okay, because you can be as mean and small minded as you want, it will not change the fact that you will one day meet your maker (Excuse me: intelligent designer) and have to defend your position. Good luck. I don't think you will be having as much fun then. So go ahead and think you have an excuse now to be so rude. I have read every posting and am amazed at how the evolutionist have no arguement except ridiculing and bashing those who hold on to their beliefs and differ from their own lost and dark views. It seems that you only have mocking comments and negative attitudes to offer. Too bad. I will pray for you...

This guy and his "Peanut Butter theory" is proof enough that creationist don't have a leg to stand on and have to exaggerate in order to explain their "beliefs."
The only "proof" creationist have in there aresenal is what is written in the Bible with no facts to back ANY of it up. Isn't it funny how creationists will back there stories up with myths and legends against (real) scientific proof? Here in the 21st century it is so sad to see so many still clinging to the Dark Ages.

I started writing a LONG LONG LONG post but then I thought it'd be embarrassing to post it here (lol at the people making fun of long posters) so I'll post a link to my blog where I wrote a gynormous response.

In short tho it talks about how evolution happens to populations and not individuals... among other things.

http://cookiemunstahh.blogspot.com/

KBH wrote:

....I would love to know how you are going to explain or justify all the mess you are posting above to God on Judgement day...Good luck!

LOL. I bet everything would be so much different if Jesus had just thought to say that to Pontius Pilate.

" Besides if people came from monkeys then please tell me why there are still monkeys? "

Not original to me (unfortunately), but here goes:

"If the Pilgrims came from England, then why are there still English people?"

Sigh.

The fallacy that those who study the Bible come to believe is crap. I have been studying the Bible for decades searching for answers and can out quote 99% of Christians I know. I have studied Most religious texts and have yet to find anything that answers my question..
Do I believe in God? I don't know, until I can find some proof either way I keep an open mind.
I don't believe in the Bible version of creation, but I don't discount that something set the ball rolling on the big bang and evolution and possibly guided it..

There can be no reasonable discussion as long as both sides slam the other with minds closed tight.

A Minister once told me "There is Truth in the Bible, but it's not necessarily true. Look beyond the literal, and find the truth within, then you will find your path"
Evolution, the big bang, and religion are not mutually exclusive, unless you take religious texts literally, or discount the truths in them.
Remember: if God had meant man to Fly he would have given us wings, hmmmm every Airplane I have flown or flown in has wings, ponder that and you can see how science and religion can in fact coexist among non-fundamentalists.

Reading the Bible was my last step in becoming an atheist. I highly recommend it.

Savannah said: I have read every posting and am amazed at how the evolutionist have no arguement except ridiculing and bashing those who hold on to their beliefs and differ from their own lost and dark views.

Then you aren't paying attention. Start here.
All the evidence is on the side of evolution. That's what the entire nonfundamentalist world has concluded: atheists, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and all the rest. Creationism is the fantasy of a tiny group of people, and Intelligent Design is nothing more than the political version dressed up in sciency-sounding truthiness.

Though the video is not convincing in itself, it is not intended to be. There seems to be quite a bit of hostility, resentment, and dogmatism surrounding a high percentage of the evolutionist's arguments regarding this video. To all the cynics of creationism, so be it. First, there will never be enough scientific evidence to conclude the existence of God, especially for those coming from a predetermined faith of the macro evolution theory. If there were, the difficult feat would be to change the already made up mind of someone with what they have determined to be scientific proof. Noah's ark could show up on Mount Ararat, archaelogical integrity of cities and individuals could be consistent in the Bible, and textual / eyewitness accounts of a risen Jesus could be present as pieces of evidence and there will still remain those that fight tooth and nail against what could possibly have a mountain of evidence. In my opinion, there will never be enough "evidence" in the world to change a heart that is unopen to "unseen" possibilities. If there is a God, which I have come to believe, He alone must open hearts and minds to faith and a trusting heart. I wonder if there might be a bias or unwillingness to invite the possibility that there quite well could be a God that exists. Boy, that would mean a lot of humility and openess for a "scientific" community, which prides themselves on objectivity...but in truth, has been bent on building a body of support for the theory of evolution. The anger, dogmatism, and hostility of the average evolutionists, suggests similiarities to rhetoric which is comparitive to many destructive and dangerous movements in the history of the world.

I could get right into how (as previously mentioned) a 100 years would not be enough time and how the conditions in a peanut butter jar are in no way like those of early earth. But a simple summary, from the point of a palaeobiologist, would be WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!

I am still laughing, laughing and making my P&J. LOL

I'm not sure how long it took to read all of this, but I can honestly say I am tired. The immature people on both sides should be ashamed. I learned a few things and I am conducting my own research on Wikipedia and in the numerous books I have at my fingertips at the Christian bookstore and the library.

Science exists because some people believed God created a logical, understandable universe that we could study and comprehend. Religion does not bind God. Science does not bind God. Both are a search for truth. They only appear to conflict if someone is trying to use one as a tool to suppress the other. How could the study of the universe disprove some one who could create the universe? How could the study of religion decide the details and intricacies of the workings of the universe? A theory is an explanation of observations. Explanations change as we test and study. A failure of a scientific theory doesn't prove anything about religion. It just shows we don't know everything about how the universe works. Religion is about the relationship of people and God. Religion is not about whether God would create a universe where the all the forces at work would be described by a super string theory. Using one set of ideas to attempt control of people who are contemplating an unrelated set of ideas - politics.

"First, there will never be enough scientific evidence to conclude the existence of God"

Van, this may or may not be true, but it's also somewhat of a non sequitur. Evolutionary biology is not concerned with concluding the existence or non-existence of God, but understanding the history and diversity of life on Earth.

Boy, that would mean a lot of humility and openess for a "scientific" community, which prides themselves on objectivity...but in truth, has been bent on building a body of support for the theory of evolution.

Again, this sentence doesn't really make all that much sense. Think of how it would sound if someone started criticizing, on theological-belief grounds 'a "scientific" community, which prides themselves on objectivity . . . . but in truth, has been bent on building a body of support for [heliocentrism/ gravity/ germ theory/ plate tectonics/ etc.]?' Kinda silly, right?

Out of curiosity, (anyone who's still around) - what place(s) linked here, that so many . . . folks with certain viewpoints . . . have stopped by to comment over the last two weeks? I mean, that's what I'm assuming - there seem to be whole bunch of new folks and driveby comments and people with, ah, opinions who I haven't really noticed simply hanging around scienceblogs in such quantities. Am I wrong?

I found this blog while searching for a fluffer nutter cake recipe. But now that I'm here, you'll all burn in hell thank you goodbye lol!

Oh and by the way, if God is a delusional figment of someone's imagination, then he [b]does[b] exist! He exists in that person's imagination. Argue over what 'existence' is ... that will be a lot more fun.

Dan S: Google doesn't turn up anything, but it's possible a lot of the new visitors got here like the Guy above me did.

New visitors: Any scientific "knowledge" you have obtained through primarily religious venues is very likely to be very wrong. If you really want to discuss this video, go get a couple degrees in a bioscience and meet back here in 8-10 years.

The question that needs to be rammed into the face of every ID adherent by science and religion teachers everywhere is:

"How do you propose to scientifically PROVE that someone or something - man, god or alien - crafted every life form on this planet, or even a tiny proportion of them?"

Personally, I'd like to let the fundamentalists loose on this: but just let them understand first exactly how much molecular biology they must understand in order to even begin.

I have met intelligent young men and women in their late teens-early twenties who have agonized over whether to open their biology textbooks to certain pages. They elected, I think, to regurgitate for the exams and say sorry to God later.

Ultimately for me, Evolution is a proposal based on observations, which thanks to molecular biology and the unravelling of DNA's properties now has a mechanism to explain it (though the complexities of that mechanism are mind boggling). Anyone with the training and the inclination can make similar observations and draw the same conclusions. We can see the process going on in the test tube (and in the sick) because bacteria, viruses and cancer cells generally turn over the next generation a lot faster than we humans do, so it's easier to see the changes happening. The process of evolution is a fact - it is unarguable. The theory of common descent using the mechanism of evolution is something we can all argue over, but it is plausible, and similarities in the DNA of lifeforms on this planet make it highly likely. If I were not going to throw Him totally out the window, I'd prefer to think that God could order a universe in which DNA could arise and life evolve from the single cell - perhaps give the first lifeform a nudge if you really insist - than He just take the easy way out and make everything himself. It shows more style. If Christians would only take the time to understand the intricacy of the mechanism, it might deepen their faith.

About the banana video:

The guy in the video is holding the banana the wrong way. Instead of pointing towards the face, the banana actually points away from face. This FACT proves undeniably that bananas aren't meant for human consumption and every banana you eat makes baby Jesus cry.

The ridges on the banana are there so humans can easily hold the banana so that it points away from face.

I don't understand how this guy can misinterpret the Bible like this. The Bible is very clear when it says: "That what pointheth away from, thou shalt troweth away." (As true today as the day it was written)

Other evidence for this TRUTH stems from the obvious aerodynamics of the banana that allows the banana to be easily thrown away very far just as God intended.

What is wrong with thinking that God made evolution happen????!?!?!?!?!?!?

It's extremely improbable and irrational. No gods are observed. Moreover, this is the opposite of an explanation. Evolution explains how you get life from non-life in the first place. Theistism posits that an even "greater" form of life (God) existed in the first place, sans any explanation for it. It is the ultimate improbable absurdity.

Despite a lifelong love of peanut butter (and jelly) I have never once found god inside a sealed jar, thereby conclusively and indisputably disproving divine creation.

Beautiful.

"Despite a lifelong love of peanut butter (and jelly) I have never once found god inside a sealed jar, thereby conclusively and indisputably disproving divine creation."

Are you mentally retarded?

Okay, aside from the fact that this was the worst arguement to disprove evolution that I have heard to date, let's be reasonable for a moment. Stop talking about peanut butter and bananas for just a second please! You all seem scientifically-minded. So, if the theory of evolution is in fact true, why are we yet to find the transitional fossils Darwin himself said needed to be found within 100 years of the theory?

"The Origins of Species" is recommended reading for adults that didn't get enough Mother Goose in their lives while they were children.

"The Origin of Species" is recommended reading for adults that didn't get enough Mother Goose in their lives while they were children.

Anyone who has never found God inside a jar of peanut butter has clearly never had a peanut butter and 'shroom sandwich.

I hope you all know that no responsible Christian scholars believe in Creationism

This is not true and it's irrevelant anyway as many, many of the rank and file do.

they're told that evolution is contradictory to the Bible, which is not true

Yes it is. One can compartmentalize things neatly but blending them creates all kinds of problems. But clearly people can and do believe(they say) both ideas.

The way the earth is designed is so extraordinary that today many atheist/secular scholars are recognizing that there may be intelligent design

Rachel- your goofy.

Van- You are so out of step with rational thinking I almost feel sorry for you. That you compare the hard working scientists whose theories and work make our world better to the nutty frauds who seek a return to unenlightened dogmais telling of yourtrue motivations.

FastRobPlus (March 30) noted that the jar seemed to have been opened and unsealed before the video was made. Am I the only one who thinks they might have checked just to make sure there was no new life spontaneously generating out of their peanut butter, then started the tape?

CJ: "So, if the theory of evolution is in fact true, why are we yet to find the transitional fossils Darwin himself said needed to be found within 100 years of the theory?"

Scientific American: "Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans."

The fact that fossils survive at all is fantastic, and that is only the animals, plants, protozoa, etc. that happen to perish under specific circumstances. The vast majority were naturally were consumed and/or decomposed, leaving no preserved imprint.

Transitional species are not chimeras of two radically different species. And at the time and place that transitional species arise, they are NOT transitional, but merely species in and of themselves, adapted to their environment at that time.

The only person to say anything on here that it truthful
and it applies to everybody on the planet
Tom Boucher were doomed

Beautiful.

good articles

Hey, I've got a simple peanut butter jar test that will prove there is no god. Just get an unopened jar of peanut butter, ask God to put life into it, then open the jar. Hmmm... what do you know, no life inside it. Therefore there is no God!

How many creationists does it take to open a jar of peanut butter?

None, they pray to god to open it for them.

"In fact the entire food industry of the world depends on the fact that evolution doesn't happen"

So where did we get all the varieties of chickens, cows, sheep, turkeys, pigs, geese, ducks and other animals were love to eat? Are you saying breeders are liers? Or that there was plenty of room on the ark for two of all of earth's millions of different animals.

Can god evolve?

"What dose the scientist say to the tidal wave theyve never seen?
Its not there."

What does the creationist say to his figment of imagination?
Praise God

"And god made man in his image"

That's the wrong way around, humans have made up gods in their image. Its called anthromorphological projection. Same thing as how we percieve animals as having human feelings and behaviours. Its a common fault of limited perception.

Stupidity such as displayed in the video has no cure.

Are Americans de-evolving or it is just the creationists?

ITS FREAKIN ROASTED

ı have followed your writing for a long time.really you have given very successful information.

Stupidity such as displayed in the video has no cure.
thanks a lot.

thanks

This is typical "if I havent seen it, it must not be true" kinda of hypocritical speak that fundies love so much. My question, is how many times have you opened a jar of peanut butter and scientifically examined it for new life? Life starts on a microscopic level.. so his statement is really absurd, just on many levels

You've got to be fucking kidding me, right? The transition from non-life to life is unknown to both science and religion, though science is the practice of using rational and reliable disciplines to gain positive knowledge. Religion, on the other hand, does not share this endeavor. Religion was perfectly happy with a flat earth. It took a scientist to learn otherwise.

ãã³ãã¼ã«ï¼æ®µãã¼ã«ç®±ãæ¿)ã»ããããï¼ã¨ã¢ãã£ããï¼ã»æ¢±åè³æï¼ç¨åï¼ã®æ¿å®é販(販売)å°éåºã§ããå°ãããããã®ãªã¼ãã¼æ³¨æãå¯è½ã§ã

There logic used in this vid is horrible. How can any one with even a high school education come up with something as retarded as this? If they took a few hours to consult any biology textbook they would understand how stupid they are.

he's not telling you he believes it. he's telling you that by your own theory (given Time and Chance) there should be cultures of bacteria that grow into new life. But oh no you guys think its intelligent of you to say "look at the stupid christian not understanding our non-science" the air carries many different bacteria and may BY CHANCE, deliver new bacteria into (maybe not peanut butter) but in dead organic material that lies undisturbed. Providing a breeding ground for some form of Micro Biological occurrence to happen.
But of course all you arrogant Swines never heard of an EXAMPLE before. He's forgetting one thing, MicroEvolution happens or we would only have 1 type of Canine/Dog animal on earth. but the Evolution problem/myth teaches us that we can prove that within the history of Man 7,000 yrs (not existance so I dont step on your pretty hair) given time we should start seeing non Variety changes take shape in some Animal families on earth. But all you evolutionists can say is "it stopped" "its too slow" "go to school/read a book" well if you're unwilling to explain then you can NOT expect us to believe you. The only reason you have people such as these in the video grasping at straws you DON'T see is because your blind to the conseption of those writing books and Documentary films around you saying the same thing you do.... "it happend over 2 million years ago and we don't observe it today" and you expect us to swallow this garbage?? and call us idiots/Morons/stupid/ UNEDUCATED, because we did not conform to Indoctrination.
True his idea that life might show up within an E-Vacuum which subtracts oxygen from the equation of life. But he's using as I said earlier "an EXAMPLE"
OH by they way one of you guys show me NON Fossilized transition between 2 animals being BORN "not what we believe to be said transition" like a platipus. I may convince other so called IDIOTS that your right. But the only THE ONLY evidence "not proof" you have is FOSSILS which prove the animal DIED no proof that this pre-human animal gave birth to anything or provided evolution.
wish to speak more of this then find me on yahoo "remieres" thanks.

This also rather begs the question that if the peanut butter was, the peanut butter is, the peanut butter always shall be: why does it need a sell-by date?

True his idea that life might show up within an E-Vacuum which subtracts oxygen from the equation of life. But he's using as I said earlier "an EXAMPLE"
OH by they way one of you guys show me NON Fossilized transition between 2 animals being BORN "not what we believe to be said transition" like a platipus. I may convince other so called IDIOTS that your right. But the only THE ONLY evidence "not proof" you have is FOSSILS which prove the animal DIED no proof that this pre-human animal gave birth to anything or provided evolution.
wish to speak more of this then find me on yahoo "remieres" thanks.

If they took a few hours to consult any biology textbook they would understand how stupid they are.

America always taking action in everything that is happen between two country. This make them know a lot of problem in this world. As long as they donât take part too.

They do have a good application that can help us to recover all the missiong date in our computer. This is a good invention. Now, i dont need to woor if my data is deleted but i dont wish for that.

Lets hope they will never forget and keep their promises that they make during the campaign time. In the campaign time, they make a good promise but after that, they forget bout that and lose their mind.

I like anything bout robot. I want to know what kind of system that they have in that robot and they will make another robot too that have trhe simple system so we can used that in our daily life.

a creationist at the cutting edge of 19th century science! Which is quite good when you consider he's got their by reason alone, without reference to the body of knowledge available to scientists.

True his idea that life might show up within an E-Vacuum which subtracts oxygen from the equation of life. But he's using as I said earlier "an EXAMPLE"
OH by they way one of you guys show me NON Fossilized transition between 2 animals being BORN "not what we believe to be said transition" like a platipus. I may convince other so called IDIOTS that your right. But the only THE ONLY evidence "not proof" you have is FOSSILS which prove the animal DIED no proof that this pre-human animal gave birth to anything or provided evolution.

Okay, aside from the fact that this was the worst arguement to disprove evolution that I have heard to date, let's be reasonable for a moment. Stop talking about peanut butter and bananas for just a second please! You all seem scientifically-minded. So, if the theory of evolution is in fact true, why are we yet to find the transitional fossils Darwin himself said needed to be found within 100 years of the theory?

Okay, aside from the fact that this was the worst arguement to disprove evolution that I have heard to date, let's be reasonable for a moment. Stop talking about peanut butter and bananas for just a second please! You all seem scientifically-minded. So, if the theory of evolution is in fact true, why are we yet to find the transitional fossils Darwin himself said needed to be found within 100 years of the theory

Okay, aside from the fact that this was the worst arguement to disprove evolution that I have heard to date, let's be reasonable for a moment. Stop talking about peanut butter and bananas for just a second please! You all seem scientifically-minded. So, if the theory of evolution is in fact true, why are we yet to find the transitional fossils Darwin himself said needed to be found within 100 years of the theory?

"So, if the theory of evolution is in fact true, why are we yet to find the transitional fossils Darwin himself said needed to be found within 100 years of the theory?"

There are transitional fossils found.

What this does to those who believe evolution wrong is give them TWICE the number of transitionals to demand before evolution is proven.

And Darwin didn't know about DNA which is a far more accurate depictor of mutative evolution and adaption.

Are they not aware that food is harvested LIFE. The peanuts used in that jar came from a living organism!

Not a lot of simple snoring gıdermke deve fırms ugrasıoyr yapomak it so easy to eee what you olurmu yapıyorse iu
I do not understand why why why desne had come on why do not oomuyor

True his idea that life might show up within an E-Vacuum which subtracts oxygen from the equation of life. But he's using as I said earlier "an EXAMPLE"
OH by they way one of you guys show me NON Fossilized transition between 2 animals being BORN "not what we believe to be said transition" like a platipus. I may convince other so called IDIOTS that your right. But the only THE ONLY evidence "not proof" you have is FOSSILS which prove the animal DIED no proof that this pre-human animal gave birth to anything or provided evolution.

more linkspam above from ged, FYI.

Hey, I've got a simple peanut butter jar test that will prove there is no god. Just get an unopened jar of peanut butter, ask God to put life into it, then open the jar. Hmmm... what do you know, no life inside it. Therefore there is no God! Lets hope they will never forget and keep their promises that they make during the campaign time. In the campaign time, they make a good promise but after that, they forget bout that and lose their mind.

okay. well let's see. 1/3 of you all are using big words to try and sound smart and correct (i understand what you say but you accomplish nothing by trying to sound proper); 1/3 of you all are just plain stupid; and the remaining 1/3 of you are making fun of the idiots. yes, the peanut butter example is pretty stupid in many respects but that doesn't mean creationists are stupid (although i am not quite sure why they had an engineer do this). i have heard evolutionists use examples and excuses that are just as dumb. i could spend 3 hrs telling you why i believe creation but you could spend another 3 hrs giving rebuttles, dumb or not. many times creationists point out possible flaws in simple evolutionary ideas and just stop at that and say, ha you are wrong and i am right, and just walk away. i have more respect for a evo. that is cool headed in a debate and uses logical reasoning than a woosie cre. who ends the debate as quick as possible to avoid having to think about what he believes on the deepest levels.

I'm not going to say anything about how eager he seems to get that big ol' banana in his mouth, though.

Are they not aware that food is harvested LIFE. The peanuts used in that jar came Are they not aware that food is harvested LIFE. The peanuts used in that jar came

You sound to me like a bunch of "radical," "wing-nut" "kooks," who, lacking any proof or direction, just lash out like cornered animals!

My question, is how many times have you opened a jar of peanut butter and scientifically examined it for new life? Life starts on a microscopic level.. so his statement is really absurd, just on many levels...

On another note, those Fundies sure do make me hungry.. this guy with his peanut butter, roy comfort with his banana... mmmm peanut butter and banana....austin sclerotherapy

You see...scientist have discovered that the longer you have nothing...that eventually you get something...or something like that. Creationist take a ridiculous leap of faith with all their God talk. Just give me the facts!

Despite a lifelong love of peanut butter I have never once found god inside a sealed jar, thereby conclusively and indisputably disproving divine creation

weird. a couple of months ago I didn't like peanut butter at all but now I use it every day in my diet.

thank you good post