[Chuck Missler explains how peanut butter disproves evolutionary theory]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
32 comments
So not only do they not understand abiogenesis and evolution, they also don't know what preservatives are for?
Okay there's retarded and there's f**ktarded , but for the very, very height of stupidity, I propose a new word...
Fundtarded (adj. ):
1 As stupid as a fundie.
2 Unable to comprehend the depths of ignorance in one's own argument.
leaving aside this is biogenesis, not evolution...
no... hang on, i can't. too stupid to live, you are.
I was willing the peanut butter to leap from the jar and strangle him...
hmmmm. possible idea for a horror film.
Even if this were a legitimate refuting of abiogenesis, it does nothing to refute evolution. He's just making a considerably less competent repetition of an experiment done by Francesco Redi in the 1600's and later by Pasteur. It's also theologically useless, as well. It doesn't show that humans and chimps didn't evolve from a common ancestor, which is the real Christian objection to evolution (no fall of Adam and Eve = no need for Christ's redemption). Nor does it show that there was only one god, that god still exists, that god isn't a huge invisible blob of spaghetti and meatballs, etc.
The leftover casserole in my refrigerator demonstrated evolution...
Try leaving the peanut butter (opened) in the bathroom for a few weeks.
Evolution, Guay-ron-teed!
The Hubble has been lookin' and lookin', all these years, but it hasn't found heaven yet.
I guess it's not there. QED, it's not there.
Just for fun, I want to see how many ways I can think of in which this argument fails. I've probably missed a dozen more.
1. You are conflating evolution with abiogenesis.
2. The span of time you're allowing to experiment on opening peanut butter jars (decades) is FAR less than the hundreds of million years abiogenesis had to work with.
3. The physical space allocated to unopened peanut butter jars is, likewise, FAR less than that which abiogenesis had to work with.
4. You have not demonstrated that the physical conditions inside the peanut butter jar are similar to that of prebiotic Earth.
5. You have not demonstrated that the energy input is in any sense similar to those of prebiotic Earth, either in type or scale.
6. Given the previous objections, you must explain why it would be no harder for life to arise in current conditions, when new organic matter would have to compete with already existing life for molecular resources, then in prebiotic Earth.
7. Even disregarding the previous objections, a negligible fraction of peanut butter jars are EVER opened with an eye to checking whether new life was formed.
8. Even for that small number of peanut butter jars which ever WERE opened with an eye to checking whether new life had formed, this was not done in a serious, controlled environment.
9. Even supposing that it was ever done once in a serious, controlled environment, why would you expect to see the new life with the naked eye at the macroscopic scale?
10. Even if you could see evidence of new life, how would you distinguish between that and life which had contaminated the container earlier?
11. Disregarding ALL previous objections, how does the absence of a successful result today prove that it did not happen by natural processes in the past?
12. You would already admit that God created life from non-life...so why could he have not done so with a minimal amount of tampering with physical laws -- not to mention leaving life forms to evolve on their own after that?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.