Wow! The people in this video have so little understanding of science that it’s truly frightening. And, their ability to mash together analogies out of utterly unrelated things is stunning. A true masterpiece! Easily on par with the banana proof.

Two questions, though… First, does this proof hold up no matter if you use smooth OR chunky? And second, what happens when you create Elvis’ fav sandwich, fried peanut butter and banana? If yes, does that make it a holy sandwich? Oops, that’s three questions. See what a can of worms one opens thinking about such things? Wait a minute… worms… in peanut butter… Where’s my video camera…



  1. Kevin says:

    Stupid analogy, but still correct in their point. Has life ever come out of non-life. Less to do with evolution and more with the big bang.

    At some point there was nothing, where did everything come from? At some point nothing became something. Whatever you believe you need faith in something because none of it can be explained in science. Not that I have seen at least.

  2. KagatoAMV says:

    LOL

    You mean life didn’t evolve out of the primordial peanut butter that covered the earth billions of years ago?

  3. David says:

    “Whatever you believe you need faith in something because none of it can be explained in science. Not that I have seen at least.”

    That is the most moronic statement I have ever read, and is even sillier than that video! Faith is nothing more than a baseless belief in your own lack of knowledge.

  4. Shawn Milochik says:

    Kevin (#1):

    Yes, life has probably come out of non-life. Science hasn’t proven how yet, but it seems pretty clear that if you follow evolution backwards, to simpler and simpler designs, there was once a combination of molecules which wouldn’t qualify as “alive” by any of our definitions.

    In any case, it makes a lot more sense to have “faith” in that concept, rather than the absurd notion that we were all created by a god because it’s impossible for us to have happened any other way, yet somehow this same god is exempt from that logic, and may have either always existed or created itself.

  5. igor says:

    Kevin ur faith in god doesnt explain it either.. who created god?

  6. TheGlobalWarmer says:

    WOW. That’s enough to leave any even fractionally sane person speechless.

    I think I need a beer after that.

  7. Matt says:

    @3 – Even science is based on faith. Faith that (a) we live in a causal universe and (b) that the cause for an effect can be found through observation and reason.

    The “primordial ooze” idea is basically the idea that all the basic physical components of life were in one place. Then something happened, probably something energetic. Then there were single-celled organisms. Now, there’s no way (without a time machine) to prove that, we simply have to take it on faith.

    But the difference between religion and science is that religion says “it is this way because we’re told it is.” while science says “it’s probably this way because that’s what the evidence suggests.” If the evidence points somewhere else down the road, a scientist can change his or her belief without being considered a blasphemer.

  8. julieb says:

    Ok, brace yourselves everyone, I’m going to make a generalization.

    Creationists are stupid.

    Trying to answer a complicated question (Where did life come from?) by adding more complexity (supreme being willed it) gets you nowhere.

    THERE IS NO GOD!

  9. Bill says:

    I disagree… I definitely found a new “life form” in my jar of peanut butter after we left it on the boat one summer!

    My mother made me throw it away! can you believe that?
    Do you think that is a “sign” of something?

  10. David Kerman says:

    I like how they say they’ve been doing experiments for hundreds of years.

    Do they even read enough about evolution or the creation of life to argue against it effectively.

    cause I think the actual life from non-life thing took billions of years, but that might just be my radical secular understanding.

    I’m sure you can recreate the primordal ooze brewing for billions of years by looking at a jar of jif for 5 min.

    I heard that MIT is big into their peantubutter and jelly in the same jar experiments. That development could be huge!

  11. ChrisMac says:

    I’m glad he used peanut butter is his analogy, as and example of just how nutty he really is.

  12. Improbus says:

    Science is not based on faith. It is based on experiment (data) and reason (logic). There a few assumptions that we must make though. Like, the universe will work the same way tomorrow as it does today and in as it did in the past. Without a foundation logic and reason are useless. Then you are left with nothing but faith.

  13. If I was on the crew of that shoot I would have replaced the peanut butter with one of those coil snakes that jumps out of the jar. Now THAT would be funny.

  14. BubbaRay says:

    Chuck Missler for moron of the century. Vote Now.
    Engineer? This guy is educated? Good Grief, Charlie Brown !!

    It’s religious zealots like this that have created more ignorance, perversion, strife, conflict and death than darned near anything for the last 3 millennia.

    It IS fairly humorous to watch someone articulate spout nonsense. Any chance this was a BabelFish xlation gone awry?

    Just my 2 cents (new gold dollars) worth.

  15. gtriamy says:

    @12
    I’m sorry to say this, but you are wrong. All of life, is based on faith. Science is based on the faith that we live in a world that we can understand, which may be true, or not; its still faith. There is no constant in science either, when a theory no longer works, the theory is thrown out or changed, does that mean that everyone was wrong when the world worked with the prior theory? Theories are used out of faith, faith that the experimental method can prove things, and that the theories its based on are correct. Faith in a God, or a rock, in a mysterious flying spaghetti monster, or in a set of rules called science; its all the same water, just a different glass. All these belief systems have the pros and cons, but just because you can’t wrap your head around it, or find it credible doesn’t mean you have the right to tell others what to believe.
    We are all walking aimlessly in a dark room

  16. BubbaRay says:

    13, JCD, (ROTFL), I would’ve used a real snake. Life from peanut butter THIS!

    Thanks, all, greatest post in weeks.

  17. grog says:

    Creationists are stupid.

    i’ll take it one step further — creationists are heretics

    by claiming to know precisely what god did or did not do is to claim power over the almighty, and i would think that god’s gotta be a little pissed off when some jerk tries to belittle the splendor and glory that is the universe.

    honestly, why can’t the story of genesis be poetic description of the big bang? why can’t god work on a large scale? because the scripture was written before there were telescopes?

    jesus would probably have fit if heard these inane debates over the minutiae of creation — the golden rule is the most important thing, people, let’s all focus on being better people toward one another right now and less on where the fossils came from.

  18. qsabe says:

    Those who use the superstitious ignorance of others to exercise control over them will never end until we as a species involve into a more intelligent animal with greater common sense. That would mean birth control exercised over the Bubbas. And maybe the reason birth control is frowned upon so much by the elders who have spent their lives being supported by the Bubbas.

  19. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #8 – Ok, brace yourselves everyone, I’m going to make a generalization.

    Creationists are stupid.

    Where is the generalization in that post?

  20. John Paradox says:

    But you have to use PETER PAT[TM] Peanut Butter!

    J/P=?

    (only makes sense if you’ve been following the news over the last couple weeks)

  21. Chris says:

    If the oceans had been treated with all the chemicals and preservatives that our food is, life probably wouldn’t have sprung up there either.

  22. Arrius says:

    The video is so chalk full of asininestatements that it boggles my mind and I wouldn’t know where to begin comment beyond laughing at it. My favorite laughing points are:

    Crackpot Guy:
    “I would say this ‘Any theory on the origin of life on the earth is a fair tale’”

    Does this include theories about magic spirits in the sky speaking or ejaculating life into existence? Sets the stage nicely for the crackpotery to follow.

    Crackpot Babe:
    “A fair tale, pure and simple. Life from non life apart from God’s direct intervention is a fair tale. But despite this obvious truth, evolutions continue to build their supposedly scientific case on a foundation that virtually rules out everything that follows after it.”
    Hmm.

    You have got to love it when people make crackpot assertions and attach ‘obvious truth’ status to them.

    And my favorite:
    “Our entire food industry rests on the *fact* that this can never happen [that life can spring from energy + matter]”

    Point for someone to do the math on:
    You and I have conducted over 1 billion experiments a year for over 100 years trying to make life from matter and electricity. A guy in a suit holding come rich and creamy does not a scientist make.

    The people that make statements like these are why many people look down on Christians as ignorant.

  23. kevin says:

    #5 – Since God is God, you must believe he has always been in existence and is not constrained by time or space. If you think about it, both evolution and creationism have the same void when it comes to thinking about what was, before there were atoms, string’s, etc. that either created the Big Bang or God created.

    It is hard for us to think about it since we our lives are based on time. Thinking about theories such as external existence, or the lack of a beginning of time is just down right weird.

  24. Kevin says:

    Oh, and just to remind everyone. I think this video is a piece of crap as well. There are well respected Christian Scientist. The church should try to use them. Instead of having some old preacher talk about how life is like a can of peanut butter, and everyone else is believing in a fairytale.

    I am sure evolutionist have their fair share of crackpots as well.

  25. Milo says:

    These people can’t even use a dictionary.

    Abiogenesis (life created from non-life) has nothing to do with evolution theory. Their argument is like saying that computers can’t work because nobody knows who invented the abacus!

  26. Gary Marks says:

    When that guy broke the seal on the peanut butter, I was really hoping to see a gerbil pop his head out. I’d like to do that in a parody of this video, titled “Proving Evolution in the Peanut Butter.”

    I remember the olden days when you had to visit the asylum whenever you wanted to see crazy people. But thanks to the miracle of technology, you can now see crazy people on TV and even on YouTube.

  27. Lauren the Ghoti says:

    #25 – Kevin

    “There are well respected Christian Scientist.”

    No, not really. Respected by other believers in that cult, sure – but respected by the scientific community? No.

    Exactly as with Scientology, just because they have the word “science” in their name doesn’t mean that it has anything to do with actual science.

    “I am sure evolutionist have their fair share of crackpots as well.”

    No, not really. One or two, here and there – but the vast majority of people who believe in irrational things with zero proof – i.e., crackpots – come from the subpopulation that by definition already believes in irrational things with zero proof – i.e., religionists.

  28. Slappy says:

    Everyone knows life is like a box of chocolates.

    I myself prefer to think of peanuts as dead life, not non-life.

  29. TJGeezer says:

    My son boiled the basic question down in an interesting manner one time and I didn’t have the answer. Has anyone ever found a nonbiological source of a protein? An intriguing question. I put it to one of those “ask Mr. Science” type sites but never got a response.

    Seems to me my son might have put his finger on a more basic question than where life came from. I know life and protein go together like snakes and religious nut peanut butter jars, but is there protein without a biological source? Is that just a restatement of the “life” question? I still don’t know the answer. Maybe someone here does.

  30. Simple says:

    So if one were to synthesize life from non-life, by extension, the theory of the existence of God would be disproved? Certainly, the necessity of God would be eliminated.


1

Bad Behavior has blocked 5322 access attempts in the last 7 days.