Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&feature=related

It seems these attempts to stump evolution, get more absurd every year...

Yes, I know what everyone is thinking "Oh great, another evolution thread". Youll manage.

I do believe the peanut butter thing is a few years old now.

Banana anyone?

Is it? I just saw it today. I assume you speaking of the banana with Kurt Cameron and his moronic buddy?

Oh dear. Can't we just have him dragged out and shot?

There may well have been new life in that jar, but seeing as it would start off as microscopic (say, an Amoeboid) it would of course be invisible to the human eye, and being an extremely simply life form, we wouldn't even notice it in taste, texture or effect.

Goons. Goons the lot of them.

It is amusing since that man in the video was an Engineer. I thought you couldn't be a complete fool to be an Engineer?

It also seems that anyone who tries to make a "legitimate" argument against Evolution, don't know the difference between Evolution & Abiogenesis.

And they are aware that those who (sensibly) put stock in the theory of evolution freely admit the very first step in the creation of life from energy is as yet unknown?

And what is their response 'God made it'. And their only evidence is a book. Dear dear dear.

InfernalMajesty wrote:It is amusing since that man in the video was an Engineer. I thought you couldn't be a complete fool to be an Engineer?

http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/science/english/e_scien

Just because you are knowledgeableat one thing, doesn't mean you have any more authority over another, no matter how related they may first appear.

I know being an Engineer doesn't require knowledge in Biology. But to make such a moronic statement about peanut butter? To be an Engineer, you should need to be at least mildly intelligent. His argument it something a 13 year old would try and argue.

Let's assume everything evoled form a single cell. How did that single cell become? Life had to start out of no life, and the last time i checked science has not been able to answer that question.

jbunny wrote:Let's assume everything evoled form a single cell. How did that single cell become? Life had to start out of no life, and the last time i checked science has not been able to answer that question.

It's already been admitted in this thread science doesn't know, but that in no way validates a creationist's view.
Centuries before people didn't understand lightning or the change of the seasons so they said the Gods did these things. It's the same thing, IMHO.

I'm not doing this again, it makes my stomach turn. Bye.

I'll bet they've only put the Engineer title in because they want to say 'look! the Scientists agree with us!'.

Has anyone else ever seen this piece of genius?

Let's assume everything evoled form a single cell. How did that single cell become? Life had to start out of no life, and the last time i checked science has not been able to answer that question.

That has nothing to do with Evolution. That is Abiogenesis. Your correct, science has not been able to answer that. But that doesn't mean its wrong. 500 years ago, science didn't know alot of the things we know now. You cannot expect science to know everything within a few decades.

But there has been quite a bit of evidence supporting Abiogenesis.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Scientists have created parts of the building blocks of life, from non matter. That says quite a bit in support of Abiogenesis.

I'll bet they've only put the Engineer title in because they want to say 'look! the Scientists agree with us!'

I wouldn't doubt it lol.

InfernalMajesty wrote: You cannot expect science to know everything...
.

I agree with this 100%. My problem is ever few decades scientists discovery something, and all of a sudden they know everything. At least that is the way they make it seem. They ignore the fact that the scientist before them knew everything, and in another few decades another group of scientist when know mor than them, and will claim to know everything.

My whole point on the evolution and the start of life argument is I hear people (not scientists) say We can prove evolution, and that disproves existence of God. But yet they can't prove how life started, but they know it was not God because evolution proves there is no God.

You will NEVER hear any self respecting scientist say that Evolution disproves god. Nothing can disprove god, and nothing can prove god.

Just because you hear random people say this, does not mean that is what the scientific community says.

This seems to be the issue with people who don't accept Evolution. They simply hear things that random people say on the interwebs, and think thats the view of modern science. ITS NOT.

jbunny wrote:My whole point on the evolution and the start of life argument is I hear people (not scientists) say We can prove evolution, and that disproves existence of God.

No it disproves a section of a book. God is not the bible, the existence of God does not require a literal interpretation of the Old Testament.

J.Black wrote:I'll bet they've only put the Engineer title in because they want to say 'look! the Scientists agree with us!'.

Has anyone else ever seen this piece of genius?

Hmm. It's not evolution going backwards, it's just plain old evolution. It has proven advantageous for that species of Bat to hunt on the ground, so they have done so.

God, save me from your followers.

So the thread is essentially arguing about whether or not peanut butter is proof of the existence of God? Of course not. Peanut butter and jelly on bread, on the other hand, most definitely is.

Frazzled wrote:So the thread is essentially arguing about whether or not peanut butter is proof of the existence of God? Of course not. Peanut butter and Jam on bread, on the other hand, most definitely is.

That's better.

And you're wrong. Because Scones replete with Cornish Clotted Cream, a high quality Strawberry Jam, and nice pot of Tea is in fact proof that mankind has reached the pinnacle of evolution.

So the thread is essentially arguing about whether or not peanut butter is proof of the existence of God? Of course not. Peanut butter and jelly on bread, on the other hand, most definitely is

Depends, creamy peanut butter or chunky?!?!?! Strawberry jelly, or grape??!?!?!?!?!

These are the details that matter my friend.

JAM! IT'S CALLED JAM YOU CRETINS!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

Wrong you Scottish barbarian! Jams and jellies are different things. you would know this if your brain wasn't addled on haggis and the world's strongest beer (see other thread).

As to the smooth vs. crunchy issue. Clearly only the image of God can be found in the correct aplication of smooth peanut butter to bread (with jelly). This "cruncher" movement is nothing more than a band of heretics, bent on subverting the Greater Glory. To the stakes with them. I'll get a match.

There is a differnce between Jam and Jelly.

Crunchy is nothing more than the peanut butter company doing a half-ass job of making smooth peanut butter.

Frazzled wrote:Wrong you Scottish barbarian! Jams and jellies are different things. you would know this if your brain wasn't addled on haggis and the world's strongest beer (see other thread).

As to the smooth vs. crunchy issue. Clearly only the image of God can be found in the correct aplication of smooth peanut butter to bread (with jelly). This "cruncher" movement is nothing more than a band of heretics, bent on subverting the Greater Glory. To the stakes with them. I'll get a match.

Pfffrrt. Stoopid Yankee. You don't know nuffink! Though you do show some redeeming wisdom on the Nut Butter (fnarr fnarr!) issue. Smooth is indeed superior.

But all Peanut type products fade into insignificance next to the sheer loveliness of Dry Roasted Peanuts, in a Pub, with a nice pint of lovely, brown, booze.

What about Reese's Peanut Butter cups, with a nice ale, or perhaps a chocolate stout?

No no no. Whilst I am indeed partial to this particular confection, has to be Dry Roasted Peanuts, preferably KP.

Though should I feel extravagant, and trying to impress a lass, I get all cosmopolitan and get Nobby's Nuts Chilli flavour.

Chocolate and peanut butter together in candy form is proof of God's existence.

Chocolate alone is proof there is a God.

Balls! The Incans and that invented it, and God chinned them for it.

You heard it here first folks, God hates Choccies!

Fateweaver wrote:Chocolate and peanut butter together in candy form is proof of God's LOVE.
.

There I fixed it for ya.

So God is a bumboy?

*runs away*