DISCUSS (189)

Peanut Butter: Proof Evolution Doesn’t Exist

Posted by JacobSloan on July 14, 2010

Fundamentalist Christians’ newest real-world example that shows conclusively that evolution is a lie: peanut butter. Don’t know how the unbelievers will be able to answer this one.

Header Photo: PiccoloNamek via Wikimedia Commons

Related Posts with Thumbnails
  • Edkalonie

    That is amazing! Where did you find that? Comedy Central?

  • Killpeterpan

    this is so retarded

    cant creationists come up with new arguments

  • Anon.

    Faith means that we have to believe in a man in the sky who loves us and gave us the ability to make our own choices, but if we don't do what he wants… Swimming in a lake of fire with my bro Beelz for eternity!

  • D J Richert

    That is THE SECOND stupidest thing I have ever heard.

  • andlyn

    THEY CAN'T BE SERIOUS, Can they??????
    If they are it's really scary.

  • Bob B

    Christians are stupid: If all the different life forms were fit on a wooden yacht 2×2 2000 years ago, and that plus some ocean creatures and birds is all that survived the “great flood”, then where the fuck did 200,000 species of insects, 500 types of dogs, and so many races of men come from?

  • Bob B

    What are you supposed to do with the peanut butter on your nuts? I don't get it. Sounds sticky.

  • Minizoids

    You (And they) seem to forget the fact that evolution takes time. Besides, the only experiments that were conducted to test that theory included electrical sparks, which peanut butter is never exposed to.

  • Linktotheeverything

    Arent the ones that are not edible generally screened before they can get to your grocery store?

  • danpete

    example: there were only two “dogs” on the ark. NOT two wolves, and two cocker spaniels, and two chihuahua's. just TWO dogs. who knows what kind…the rest come from the ONLY kind of evolution we have hard proof of, MICROevolution. this explains the reason why, to use the previous example, chihuahuas and wolves are so different, yet NO ONE would say that either is NOT a “dog” of sorts.

    done.

  • youvegottobekidding

    That is so fucking hilarious. Instead of exercising my usual incessant need to antiproselytize these morons, I'm perfectly content to just let them keep believing that idiocy. I don't want them on my team.

  • Usarms

    Bob B. 2 by 2 of each species would have fit. Of the dogs and men, the different kinds are just sub-species of the same genome. All varieties are in the dna structure of each creature of each species.

  • howard

    so in order to believe that nature conducts itself and there is no God, we are filling in gaps? No i believe we are leaving those gaps open and waiting for FACTS to present themselves or be found out. Not plugging in a catch-all to make us feel better about the mysteries of the universe.

  • Areth

    ..Alright, I'm getting sick of seeing this micro/macro argument. When are you people going to learn that they are the same damned thing!? Micro evolution: Small variations developing over a (relatively) short period of time within a species. Macro evolution: Major alterations in a species occurring over a long period of time resulting in a new species.
    Now here's a quick experiment for you:
    Step 1:Take a piece of paper and draw a picture. I don't care what, just something. A stick man for example.
    Step 2: Erase or draw a random bit of line (flip a coin to choose erase/draw and pick the location or line at random)
    Step 3: Repeat step 2 100,000,000 times.
    Now you tell me, still got a stick man that even remotely resembles the original?
    The logical outcome of this is that you will have random chaos with little bits of line everywhere, some of them may even form letters, words, kanji, whatever. Those that form into something recognizable as a character or word in any human language are analogous with a species. The rest are analogous with evolution's failed experiments.
    So, since all of the changes were extremely small this is obviously micro evolution. With that in mind all of the characters will be the same. Or at least in the same language. What!? They aren't!? OMFG! What a f*'ng shock!!!

  • Areth

    Now there is a terrifying thought.

  • Areth

    The real question is this: Is he stupid or ignorant?
    If he is ignorant, the cure is education.
    If he is just plain stupid… Well… Might I suggest Uncle Louie?

  • luciousbenrys

    I'm sure we are exist here not from evolution, from monkey to be human. How does it comes? So this experiment prove that evolution is wrong theory. procerin

  • Fifthbeatle3756

    Ditto, VoxMagi…The example that is used to disprove Evolution is sad. I hope that the old man that they had to represent them isn't the smartest one among their ranks. That would indeed be pathetic. What they should concentrate on is finding a way to prove that their god and their jesus exists. That should take them a lifetime…..that should shut them up for good (since there is no way to prove the existence of either).
    I tire of arguing this point with “them”. It's too easy when all of the ammunition that you need to disprove all of their so-called religious fairy tales comes from their “bible”……..YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN…..

  • anonymous

    This one example is conclusive proof that we should all give the church the money we normally spend on peanut butter and sinning.

  • Fifthbeatle3756

    Peanut butter….maybe. Sinning……that'd be way too much. After all, isn't that what we spend the most on?!

  • Fifthbeatle3756

    OK…………you sound as though you're just repeating what you heard being said around you. You haven't researched it, you haven't read much on the subject and you just don't “get it”. First of all, cut the ghetto speak and write in a form that we can fully understand. You see, you have no theological leg to stand on when it comes to your god or your jesus (I only capitalize when I think that it warrants it). The evidence is OVERWHELMING when it comes to your god and your jesus….they DO NOT exist……get over it.

  • Greendale

    I agree with this bloke: “Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Science involves testing theories, recording the results and drawing conclusions. Intellectually lazy people are frightened by it and hate it.” Which sounds like my attitude towards football.

  • Greendale

    I agree with this bloke: “Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Science involves testing theories, recording the results and drawing conclusions. Intellectually lazy people are frightened by it and hate it.” Which sounds like my attitude towards football.

  • thatssowhitty

    ignorant THAN themselves

  • Joe

    There are a few major flaws in this which I want to point out.

    1) First of all, the introduction says “Evolution teaches that energy, such as lightning or heat, plus matter, can, occasionally, create new life.” This is not what evolution teaches. Evolution teaches that, over the course of several million years, thus giving the time for thousands upon thousands of new generations, DNA will undergo mutations which, if the mutation is beneficial, perpetuate themselves, while dying out if they are detrimental. Now that I’ve shown that the entire starting premise of your argument is completely invalid, I’ll take a look at some of the other fallacies you’ve made.

    2) The next part of their argument says that “peanut butter, which is matter, and is exposed to light and heat” never creates life. Now, *by your own statement*, you said “lightning”. Light is not lightning. Sorry, folks. Sure, heat can also trigger the right initial reactions, but we’re not talking about someone keeping it in their kitchen cupboard, we’re talking about something HOT striking it.

    3) My absolute favourite part of your argument is truly hysterical. “When we open a jar of peanut butter, we look in there, there’s no new life.” How the HELL do you know? Let me give you a lesson in 3rd grade science. Things tend to be made up of smaller things — and those, too, consist of things which are even smaller. People don’t consist of 1 single object, as I’m sure even you know. In fact, humans are made up of these little things called “cells”. Cells are very, very tiny things that make up your body, and there are about 10 ^ 14 cells in the average human body. That’s even more than the number of logical fallacies you made in your argument, so it MUST be a lot! But the human body isn’t really that big — in fact, the average adult male takes up about 4500 cubic inches of space, or about 2.6 cubic feet.
    So, if there 10 ^ 14 cells are being stuffed into 4500 cubic inches, they’ve gotta be pretty damn small, right? Approximately 222,000,000,000 cells are in each cubic inch. For reference, If I took about 26 M & M’s, and smushued them all together, they’d take up that amount of space. 2.22 * 10^11 is such a large number that our brain can’t even BEGIN to comprehend it. Which, obviously, means that each individual cell is so INCREDIBLY tiny that, yes, you need a microscope in order to see it. Sure, I rounded some numbers (4482.8 to 4500 and the subsequent 222,222,222,222.222222222222222222222222… to a neat-looking 222,000,000,000), but the point still stands that they are TINY.

    4) Now, if spontaneous germination were to occur in your example jar of peanut butter, and you took it to a microscope, you would see some bacterial cells. Hell, there are already plant cells in the peanut butter to begin with (after all, peanuts do come from plants and thus have cells), so unless you’re an expert (or you go and map its DNA structure), you’d be unlikely to be able to tell the difference between the already-present cells and any new life.

    5) Again, *if* spontaneous germination *did* occur in your peanut butter, or in any other sealed food item, for that matter, it would almost certainly die within moments. Peanut butter does not harbor conditions suitable for life to thrive. Cells largely consist of water, and they require plenty of oxygen for respiration (to get enough energy to do stuff), as well as nitrogen for DNA and proteins, phosphor for the phospholipids that prevent the insides from spilling out, and a whole mess of other stuff, but they mainly require water, which is usually not available in large enough quantities, and oxygen, which is limited, or, often, removed completely to prevent — yep, you guessed it — unwanted life from growing on your delicious JIF peanut butter.

  • Dumbledore!

    He was joking… :|

  • namron

    What a crock of crap!!! Early earth had little or no oxygen in the atmosphere, there was tons of iron dissolved in the oceans and the temperatures were a lot warmer than they are now. Peanut butter is nothing like that. Also the early earth lingered with those conditions for 100’s of millions of years before life formed. Just how long were you planning to hang on to that jar of peanut butter anyway? Also, once life formed, it changed the earth. It consumed all the iron in the ocean’s waters, and the amino acids in the water in order to reproduce. In short, life itself changed the conditions on earth so the formation of new life was less likely. Fundies are such imbeciles.

  • Slammy101

    holy shit i think we have a candidate for idiot of the year here.

  • Butter Knife

    Shotgun to the face?

    It works for insubordination…

  • Stromy42

    How does this video being ignorant indicate that God doesn’t exist? The two ideas present don’t indicate that God and Evolution are necessarily mutually exclusive.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_X44UVV2R2ETDTYSQJZNQC22ZPI Betsy

    I think if we examine a jar of peanut butter, we’ll find….peanut butter. If we find anything else, we are due a refund or a replacement jar of peanut butter.

  • XD Master

    I’m a Christian myself, but even I find this retarded and hilarious, but mostly retarded. As any true troper would say You Fail Biology Forever dude.

  • none

    Wait they are assumeing that evolotion can go from nothing too animals in a few days in less than ideal conditions. it took it OVER 1 MILLION years too get started. soo unless that jar is that old then this is utter crap.

  • Dinovoff

    Wow this guy has really debunked “The theory of lifes origin from peanut butter”
    Back to the drawing board!

  • Drashgorth

    I was thinking along those lines as well…

  • Narfnra

    While I do believe that this guy is totally crazy and not able t understand the theories he is arguing against, I’d like to say that being Vacuum sealed has pretty much nothing to do with it. You seem to be arguing that life requires oxygen, which anyone who has ever studied Tetanus can tell you is wrong. There are many bacteria who find Oxygen to be deadly to them, actually. It’s a very corrosive material.

    However, it is true that the chances of a Unicorn popping out of a peanut butter jar is probably zero.

  • Petergrenader

    Dear God…. please save us from ourselves! This was frightening to watch. For what’s it’s worth…Chuck Missler is NOT an scientist!!!!! He’s a evangelist: http://www.khouse.org/

  • Guest

    This is ridiculous. I showed this to my eleven-year-old cousin, and even she agreed that these people have no clue what they’re talking about.

  • Michael stone

    That isnt how evolution works. Firstly, the seal was made to prevent any bacteria from forming in the peanut butter. That is what the food industries rely on. THE SEAL under the lid. Secondly, you wouldnt see the new life because it would single-celled organisms. Not ants as you showed in this video. On another note, peanut butter is indeed organic. It came from peanuts. The early earth had super heated water, similar to geysers and undersea vents, and scientists have discovered simplistic bacteria living near or on these vents and geysers. The discovery of these bacteria only solidifies the scientific theory and widely-accepted fact if evolution, along with the mountains of other evidence, fossils, DNA, etc,. Next time you make a video supposedly disproving evolution, make it so that a 16 year old, such as myself, cant easily prove your research-lacking ideas as completely false.