The Peanut Butter Refutation of the Theory of Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

The Peanut Butter Refutation of Evolution

Funny. The fundies are getting increasingly desperate.

If you expose peanut butter to light and heat after opening the jar, life forms do grow...

i saw this back when i was catholic, and it made me feel so ashamed of them. now i just laugh at them. i can respect those who have their beliefs and don't try to disprove science but i just have no patience for those who don't accept simple science.

HAHAHAHA!

It's just plain embarrassing!

Well it depends on what their intentions are for challenging science, if theyr challenging a theory or challenging something using an alternative scientific standpoint they may be able to offer knew knowledge, possibly knowledge that cotradicts what they had previously concluded. Knowledge is an ongoing process, leave no stone unturned.

true but refusal to accept proven science is what i was refering to. there are still people who believe that the world is flat

Life arising from non-life is proven science? Links please. I'm agnostic, but...

Yes, it is proven science.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_ch ... iller.html

I think that's an overstatement.

This, and related astronomical work showing the presence of organic molecules, including amino acids, in space only shows that the most basic building blocks of life can be generated without the active assistance of an intelligent designer. It doesn't yet show how you get from those building blocks to life. That question is still open over 50 years after the Miller-Urey experiment . I see no merit in the creationists' claims of irreducible complexity, so I see no obstacle in principle to a scientific explanation, but if that exists already, I haven't heard of it yet.

Cairns-Smith's clay model is, as the article says, an example of the kind of model that can fill the gap the creationists claim, because it suggests a possible series of intermediate steps that can be selected, instead of going to life as we see it today in one giant leap, but this specific model hasn't been widely accepted. I haven't followed theories of abiogenesis closely enough to tell you where this field has gotten to.

Unless you believe in miracles the various complex systems we label as "life" must of developed from less complex systems that we would not call "life." Of course we cannot prove how life in Earth exactly started, but we can look for genetic and metabolic "fossils" (some B vitamins and the reverse form of the citric acid cycle, for example, seem to very, very ancient) that may be relics of protolife.

I like the the Iron-Sulfur World hypothesis, which basically states that the origin old life resulted from the development of cyclical chains of chemical reactions (A becomes B becomes C becomes 2 As) powered by the oxidation of iron sulfide to iron pyrite (fools gold). The citric acid cycle, according to this hypothesis, developed from these pre-genetic cycles of chemical reactions. The nature of such cyclical chemical systems allows for a pre-genetic kind of very simple natural selection causing these cycles to become more complex and develop sub-cycles.

I am worried that the H5N1 Avian virus will evolve into something that is easily transmissible in people.

Yeah, when you have an entire planet (take the mass of that and multiply it by....I don't know....1,000,000,000,000,000,000, and then give it maybe 2 or 3 billion years (people forget how long that is) when you have the moon far closer to the earth and our seas were almost half as violent as some of Jupiter's storms.....then you add in the fact that its carbon, hydrogen, oxygen - the three most abundant things out there that are, especially with extremely violent waters very abundant....

...kinda shifts the paradigm a little doesn't it.


What I really wish was that these fundies could get over their hangup that god can only exist if evolution doesn't. The dogma of their respective denominations has their minds swallowed whole.

I agree with Gromit. There is absolutly nothing sure or proven about how life has started on Earth.

But that doesn't mean that it is impossible for life to naturally develop from inorganic. There are several hypothesis of how it could be possible.

Of course we can observe life on Earth now. But the fact that if life had not appeared on Earth we would not be there to observe it causes an issue. This is liked to anthropic principle.
Apparition of life could be an extremely improbable event, even at the universe scale, this would not prevent it to happen, and to have it observed by eventual local folks.

Geez, man. This not only contradicts molecular biology, but also basic thermodynamics, specifically the ideas of decay, which is a well-known defense for Creationists against big-bang. It basically contradicts itself on multiple levels.

I can smell the fishiness of this and I go to a Christian school!! !