The Peanut Butter Refutation of the Theory of Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

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!! !

They also display their ignorance of the food industry. For peanut butter I don't know, but for plenty of other products still having living micro-organisms inside is not dangerous and normal.

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

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.

what we classify as life is ambiguous too.

ppl still argue over whether or not viruses = living organism