Peanut Butter Disproves Evolution [Archive]

Hannah

04-02-2007, 02:29 AM

http://www.glumbert.com/media/peanutbutter

There you have it.

Excluding the concepts of vacuum sealing, preservatives, and the fact that nothing in the human body, or any life-form for that matter, resembles anything artificial that we eat, evolution is just a fairy tale, and this video proves it.

....:cough:

The best part is that even if you DID manage to create life in peanut butter, you wouldn't be able to tell by just opening the lid. Via evolutionary theory, it'd be single-celled at best, and more likely just loose aggregation of amino acids that'd get eaten the moment anything else found it ;)

crystalforged

04-02-2007, 02:47 AM

YES! LET THE HATE FLOW THROUGH YOU /OT/! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvyQRdlKiwI)

I swear, that map near the end needs to be shooped just to show how retarded his "logic" is.
The video was bad enough, especially the stuff about the white house, especially considering, if I remember correctly, the pentagram is NOT a satanic symbol. Hell, christians used to use it to symbolize the five wounds on christ. The comments below it though...

Now let me say, before this, I've never had much faith in humanity. Individuals, I can believe in them, I can believe once I get to know them that an idividual can be a basically good and intelligent person. Humanity on the other hand I think is more or less destined to kill itself. Its unavoidable, sooner or later the stupidity is going to hit critical mass and we're all going to nuke ourselves into so many radioactive dust particals or whatever.

The comment though... They just killed what faith in humanity I had left. Killed it dead. If I went on a murderous rampage tomarrow I don't think I would have any remorse. Every single comment I had the mental fortitude to read AGREED WITH HIM! Not a single one disagreed with him let alone point out the logical errors in his video.

...now that I think about it, that right there may be strongest argument I have ever seen AGAINST evolution.

Hannah

04-02-2007, 02:51 AM

YES! LET THE HATE FLOW THROUGH YOU /OT/! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvyQRdlKiwI)

I swear, that map near the end needs to be shooped just to show how retarded his "logic" is.

I love how creationists often claim that if people came from animals, they're allowed to act like animals. Problem is... I was once a baby, so am I allowed to act like one? My ancestors killed and enslaved people all over the globe, so can I do that too?

I had a hard time figuring out if this particular guy was serious, though... he kept saying stuff that was obviously false, and there were a few places where it looked like he was having trouble keeping a straight face, but I've heard similar sentiments from so many people that it could easily be real.

Also... with his diagram of canines and a banana, what was that supposed to prove? As an "evolutionist", I immediately see it as proof that dogs and wolves are closely related, whereas bananas branched off a long long time ago, but I have no idea what a creationist would see. Maybe that God decided to use the same pattern a few different times when creating dogs and wolves, and then was in the mood for something completely different when he made bananas?

steelcobra

04-02-2007, 03:16 AM

The video was bad enough, especially the stuff about the white house, especially considering, if I remember correctly, the pentagram is NOT a satanic symbol. Hell, christians used to use it to symbolize the five wounds on christ. The comments below it though...

It also represented the five senses, five fingers, and the five joys of Mary:
Christianity
The pentagram was a Christian symbol for the five senses,[6] and if the letters S, A, L, V, and S are inscribed in the points, it is a symbol of health (Latin salūs).[citation needed]

Medieval Christians believed it to symbolise the five wounds of Christ. The pentagram was believed to protect against witches and demons.[7]

The pentagram figured in the heavily symbolic Arthurian romances.[7] It appears on the shield of Sir Gawain in the 14th Century poem, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. In the poem the five lines of the star are given multiple meanings: they represent the five senses, five fingers, the five wounds of Christ,[8] the five joys that Mary had of Jesus (the Annunciation, the Nativity, the Resurrection, the Ascension and the Assumption), and the five virtues of knighthood which Gawain hopes to embody: frankness, fellowship, purity, courtesy and compassion.

Probably due to misinterpretation of symbols used by ceremonial magicians, it later became associated with Satanism and subsequently rejected by most of Christianity sometime in the twentieth century.[7]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has traditionally used pentagrams and five-pointed stars in Temple architecture, particularly the Nauvoo Illinois Temple[9] and the Salt Lake Temple. These symbols derived from traditional morning star pentagrams that are no longer commonly used in mainstream Christianity.[1]

Another big mistake they made in the video was calling PB inorganic. A good 90% of the ingredients are organic.

Picho

04-02-2007, 03:52 AM

Doesnt anyone know the Peanut butter solution?

steelcobra

04-02-2007, 03:59 AM

It's at least 90% Peanuts, oil, and occasionally salt and/or sugar.

Hannah

04-02-2007, 04:08 AM

It's at least 90% Peanuts, oil, and occasionally salt and/or sugar.

And of that, peanuts are definitely organic, as is sugar... and no clue what's in the oil, but I would expect it's organic too. Salt is inorganic, of course.

steelcobra

04-02-2007, 06:41 AM

All oils are fats, and therefore, organic.

Hank the Tank

04-02-2007, 09:59 AM

The video was bad enough, especially the stuff about the white house, especially considering, if I remember correctly, the pentagram is NOT a satanic symbol. Hell, christians used to use it to symbolize the five wounds on christ. The comments below it though...

Now let me say, before this, I've never had much faith in humanity. Individuals, I can believe in them, I can believe once I get to know them that an idividual can be a basically good and intelligent person. Humanity on the other hand I think is more or less destined to kill itself. Its unavoidable, sooner or later the stupidity is going to hit critical mass and we're all going to nuke ourselves into so many radioactive dust particals or whatever.

The comment though... They just killed what faith in humanity I had left. Killed it dead. If I went on a murderous rampage tomarrow I don't think I would have any remorse. Every single comment I had the mental fortitude to read AGREED WITH HIM! Not a single one disagreed with him let alone point out the logical errors in his video.

...now that I think about it, that right there may be strongest argument I have ever seen AGAINST evolution.

He likely does something with his comments section in order to make only the ones that agree with him appear. VenomFagX reposted VenomFangX's video (note the "n") and there is a lot of dissention there.

Unfortunately, VenomFagX made a lot of comments parodying VenomFangX and most of the people didn't pick up on that. Just goes to show, it doesn't matter whether a person is an evolutionist or creationist, they can still be complete dumbasses.

Tollwutig

04-02-2007, 10:11 AM

I know of the peanut butter solution....but anyways on to the video...

what's sad is if high school teachers could actually teach evolution with out summing it up we wouldn't have but about half of these misconception videos.

Oh and also to the makers of the video, Peanut butter is organic already, and light from florescent lights is not enough energy to jump start life. Not to mention peanut butter doesn't last the few million years it'd take to for recognizable life, and even then you'd need a pretty powerful microscope at hand when you opened the jar.

04-02-2007, 12:00 PM

I like how the second video reinternates that Satan is indeed THE DEVIL in parantheses. I love it when they do that.

I found the "the banana proves god created the universe" explanation more hilarious. I'll try to find it.

Demontestament

04-02-2007, 12:01 PM

Was I the only one who thinks the guy in the video blinks to ****ing much? I was hoping this was some sort or clever April Fools day thing but now I have just increased my sith powers ten fold.

Ohma

04-02-2007, 12:34 PM

Actually there *is* life in peanut butter, even after vacuum sealing you still end up with some microscopic life on...well...anything... However just hovering a florescent light over a jar of peanut butter isn't MaGICalY going to make those life forms evolve in a split second.

Now if it had sat there for...mmm...say a couple million years (by which time the jar, peanut butter, and the surrounding area would have drastically changed) then *MAYBE* you would have new, more complex life in the area of the jar.

Theory?

04-02-2007, 12:46 PM

Also, the "energy" needed to create life would need to be exponentially stronger than stagnant light attempting to penetrate plastic/glass and a vacuum seal.

EDIT: I also forgot to mention that a peanut is already living thing, it's a plant. It's long-dead once it's peanut butter, but it was a living thing at one point.

EDIT 2.0: This video was also posted on YouTube and amongst the comments I found a really good one that said something along the lines of "Creationists themselves disprove evolution as they haven't changed that much since the dawn of ignorance."

Jabrwock

04-02-2007, 01:18 PM

I can't watch the whole video. The stupidity makes my head hurt...

Picho

04-02-2007, 04:44 PM

Evolution is fact.

My fist evolved into your face. Therefor Evolution is the devil. Cause not your face is my fist.

Demontestament

04-02-2007, 04:51 PM

I can't watch the whole video. The stupidity makes my head hurt...

I mean even his evolution of cutlery is wrong! The spork the is single most powerful piece of cutlery around! And yet he has it evolve into a spoon then a fork? Is he high or something?

Jabrwock

04-02-2007, 04:55 PM

Evolution is fact. No, it's just a really, really, really, really, really, really, really well supported scientific theory.

Not to be confused with plain old theories, like creationism, which only have one document and no scientific evidence to back them up. ;)

Remember kids, just because theory A could be shown to be false doesn't mean theory B is automatically true! Because there just might be a theory C you're ignoring!

Such as noodly appendages. :p

Picho

04-02-2007, 04:56 PM

Oh i didnt see where he futher increased the hilarity by compairing living things next to neverliving things.

Guess he says that God can spawn forks as well. (why are we paying people?)

But that being said.

Calculator
PS1
|
|
|
V
My dream computer.

No, it's just a really, really, really, really, really, really, really well supported scientific theory.

Not to be confused with plain old theories, like creationism, which only have one document and no scientific evidence to back them up. ;)

Remember kids, just because theory A could be shown to be false doesn't mean theory B is automatically true! Because there just might be a theory C you're ignoring!

Such as noodly appendages. :p

Dont mess with my shortsighted and destructive nature.

Theory?

04-02-2007, 07:43 PM

No, it's just a really, really, really, really, really, really, really well supported scientific theory.

Not to be confused with plain old theories, like creationism, which only have one document and no scientific evidence to back them up. ;)

Remember kids, just because theory A could be shown to be false doesn't mean theory B is automatically true! Because there just might be a theory C you're ignoring!

Such as noodly appendages. :p

No, again, evolution is fact. The principle of organisms physically adapting to their environment over time has been proven on various microscopic scales. Of course, as you start to deal with larger organisms, namely animals, you're talking about significantly longer, and harder to document time periods.

The evolution of MAN is a theory, but it's based on fact. The fact that evolution does occur.

Hannah

04-02-2007, 11:09 PM

No, again, evolution is fact. The principle of organisms physically adapting to their environment over time has been proven on various microscopic scales. Of course, as you start to deal with larger organisms, namely animals, you're talking about significantly longer, and harder to document time periods.

The evolution of MAN is a theory, but it's based on fact. The fact that evolution does occur.

Well, it's still not 100% fact, but then again, neither is gravity. In both cases, we've observed them to occur and can use them to make predictions (ie. things fall, things change over generations), plus the wealth of evidence wouldn't seem to suggest any other theory, but there's always a chance that there's something going on that we haven't thought of yet. And of course, the mechanisms are all still very theoretical, and many of those theories seem to get revised/tweaked every decade or so as our knowledge of genetics advances, but... just as the errors in Newton's theory of gravity don't disprove gravity, poking holes in Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't disprove its existence either. In fact, many evolutionary scientists make a living doing just that... it's what science is all about.

Theory?

04-02-2007, 11:13 PM

I'm curious to hear Bayu's oppinion on this video. I want to see if he would consider this video to be viable "evidence" of anything.

04-02-2007, 11:19 PM

I'm curious to hear Bayu's oppinion on this video. I want to see if he would consider this video to be viable "evidence" of anything.

Even I don't consider him capable to fnd this anything less than completely absurd. This says something.

Ace_ofspade

04-02-2007, 11:30 PM

http://www.glumbert.com/media/peanutbutter

There you have it.

Excluding the concepts of vacuum sealing, preservatives, and the fact that nothing in the human body, or any life-form for that matter, resembles anything artificial that we eat, evolution is just a fairy tale, and this video proves it.

....:cough:

>_O

That is so far removed from any real-world interpretation of evolution and science that it physically pains me.

Theory?

04-03-2007, 12:15 AM

Well now KN, let's not jump to conclusions.

Wow. Simply WOW. Fremen, I have a mind to ban you right now.

For the first time in the history of these forums, King Nintendoid made a civil and almost complimentary comment regarding his arch nemesis, Bayushisan.

Gravity itself began to loosen it's grip upon the world, and a worm hole leading us to "The Ultimate Truth" began opening.

But then a new wind blew, because you, Thefremen, countered it, with the animosity that should have been expected from King Nintendoid.

I want you to think about what you've done, because we're going to be having a little talk soon.

Jabrwock

04-03-2007, 12:05 PM

No, again, evolution is fact. The principle of organisms physically adapting to their environment over time has been proven on various microscopic scales. Of course, as you start to deal with larger organisms, namely animals, you're talking about significantly longer, and harder to document time periods.

The evolution of MAN is a theory, but it's based on fact. The fact that evolution does occur.I'm talking about the entire mechanism of evolution as a whole. Which is considered a scientific theory, because it's so complicated.

Micro-evolution has so much lab evidence, that you'd need to have failed grade 9 science to not acknowledge it. But macro (namely one species changing into another) is not so well supported, but that's just because it takes thousands-to-millions of year to occur. We have tons of paleantological evidence, genetic evidence, etc. But we can't just point to a petri dish and say "see, watch". That's why it's a scientific theory, and not a scientific law.

There's also so many facets to evolution. Natural selection is a rule to it's own. Genetic inheritance. Genetic expression. Reproductive systems. Genetic safety mechanisms. Migration. Population exclusion. All of which work together to make evolution work.

Many of which can be handily documented and observed. But some take so much time that we can't observe them directly, and so rely on things like fossils and genetics to fill in the blanks.

You are correct though, that the process of evolution is extremely well documented. It's the effect over vast tracts of time where it gets a bit tricky.

Theory?

04-03-2007, 12:54 PM

I'm talking about the entire mechanism of evolution as a whole. Which is considered a scientific theory, because it's so complicated.

Micro-evolution has so much lab evidence, that you'd need to have failed grade 9 science to not acknowledge it. But macro (namely one species changing into another) is not so well supported, but that's just because it takes thousands-to-millions of year to occur. We have tons of paleantological evidence, genetic evidence, etc. But we can't just point to a petri dish and say "see, watch". That's why it's a scientific theory, and not a scientific law.

There's also so many facets to evolution. Natural selection is a rule to it's own. Genetic inheritance. Genetic expression. Reproductive systems. Genetic safety mechanisms. Migration. Population exclusion. All of which work together to make evolution work.

Many of which can be handily documented and observed. But some take so much time that we can't observe them directly, and so rely on things like fossils and genetics to fill in the blanks.

You are correct though, that the process of evolution is extremely well documented. It's the effect over vast tracts of time where it gets a bit tricky.

Exactly. That's what I'm saying. It has more basis in fact than the circular logic that explains creationism.

Jabrwock

04-03-2007, 01:21 PM

Exactly. That's what I'm saying. It has more basis in fact than the circular logic that explains creationism.
Oh absolutely, but it's still a scientific theory. Just a well-rooted scientific theory.

Creationism, while a theory, is most certainly NOT a scientific theory. Nowhere close.

steelcobra

04-03-2007, 01:25 PM

Closer to mythology. And just as realistic.

Jabrwock

04-03-2007, 01:28 PM

Closer to mythology. And just as realistic.
Which is why it can be argued successfully that if creationism aka intelligent design should be taught, then pastafarianism is a valid candidate too...

Theory?

04-03-2007, 01:46 PM

Which is why it can be argued successfully that if creationism aka intelligent design should be taught, then pastafarianism is a valid candidate too...

Yes, see that was the point. See here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony).

:D

Pelor

04-03-2007, 05:52 PM

Which is why it can be argued successfully that if creationism aka intelligent design should be taught, then pastafarianism is a valid candidate too...

ID isn't specific about a creator or method of creation. So Pastafarianism is covered under ID theories.

Besides, creationism is more often taught in social studies classes because it's "historically important." So, I think Astrology makes for a much better comparison.

Jabrwock

04-03-2007, 06:07 PM

ID isn't specific about a creator or method of creation. So Pastafarianism is covered under ID theories.ID does cover method in a vague way. It acknowledges micro-evolution, but then says the "designer" is the one guiding the direction, and somehow causes the jump between species. As well as "designing" the original species.

It's so hard to nail down just what the heck ID does describe, because they castrated Creationism in an attempt to make it constitutionally friendly. So it ends up being so vague that it doesn't really describe much at all, let alone a mechanism...

It's especially bad, in that it basically says "well <insert designer here> did it", which only causes you to ask "well where did X come from then?" As opposed to evolution, which doesn't need a designer, and can be explained (at the most simplistic level) by natural forces that behave the same when applied in any other field of biology, chemistry or physics...

Besides, creationism is more often taught in social studies classes because it's "historically important." So, I think Astrology makes for a much better comparison.As do wicca, paganism, and aboriginal folklore...

Pelor

04-04-2007, 12:25 AM

Not so much Wicca. It's only fifty years old, and never did anything worth mentioning.

I mentioned astrology because it was the one pointed out to me. And I can say it with a straight face.

Jabrwock

04-04-2007, 12:58 AM

Not so much Wicca. It's only fifty years old, and never did anything worth mentioning.Er, right. Sorry, meant druidism. I have a few friends who are fashionably Wicca, and I keep having to remind myself to turn on the BS meter when they talk about being members of the ancient druid organization... The one the Romans wiped out...

Pelor

04-04-2007, 05:11 PM

steelcobra

04-04-2007, 05:20 PM

Er, right. Sorry, meant druidism. I have a few friends who are fashionably Wicca, and I keep having to remind myself to turn on the BS meter when they talk about being members of the ancient druid organization... The one the Romans wiped out...

You mean the fuzzy bunny wiccans.

As for the real ones, I've found that they are easily the least BS-filled group of believers I've ever met. Most of it is "be good to each other and respect nature."

Jabrwock

04-04-2007, 05:24 PM

ummm.... funny, they don't look Druish.
Ouch, I'm hurting from the laughing.... ;)

Anjin-San

04-04-2007, 06:00 PM

You mean the fuzzy bunny wiccans.

As for the real ones, I've found that they are easily the least BS-filled group of believers I've ever met. Most of it is "be good to each other and respect nature."

That's a little dismissive. I have no qualms with people who're into sex and magic and Gaia and crap like that. However...when you meet these people it's the equivalent of swarms of dudes on a nude beach expecting chicks. Swaths of ugly people and fat women...acne....God what the hell am I saying?

(Seriously though there are people who do practice it well.)