The Worst Argument Against Evolution

Find a worse one than this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

I do not think this is a parody.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Find a worse one than this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

I do not think this is a parody.

Yikes.

Ray Comfort also has an "argument" against evolution (or at least for creationism) that is based on food -- the banana. For those who have already seen Ray's banana video, you might want to watch it again. This time it has been modified for effect:

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

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Find a worse one than this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

I do not think this is a parody.

Nope. The strawman argument is one of the favorites.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Find a worse one than this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

I do not think this is a parody.

That is pretty horrendous and yet funny 🙂

For the tiny idiot minority that just might think the video has a point:

1, evolution theory says nothing about the creation of life, only on how more complex life forms developed from simpler life forms.

2, scientists don’t claim that if a mass of organic chemicals and energy come together that life will automatically and inevitably be created. Obviously , the earliest life on Earth must have been created by a particular complex set of conditions that are not replicated in the modern day -and certainly not by the food industry!

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Find a worse one than this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

I do not think this is a parody.

Are you denying the truth?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Find a worse one than this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

I do not think this is a parody.

i am afraid to watch it

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i am afraid to watch it

A man infers that abiogenesis (although he calls it evolution due to his conceptual confusion, lack of education, or remarkable stupidity) is false since in a hundred years, new life has never been observed to have arisen in a freshly opened jar of peanut butter. He opens a jar for a demonstration in which the camera pans in and sees no bugs crawling around inside.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
A man infers that abiogenesis (although he calls it evolution due to his conceptual confusion, lack of education, or remarkable stupidity) is false since in a hundred years, new life has never been observed to have arisen in a freshly opened jar of peanut butter. He opens a jar for a demonstration in which the camera pans in and sees no bugs crawling around inside.

Cochran
Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Gerald Broflovski
Damn it!
Chef
What?
Gerald
He's using the Chewbacca Defense!
Cochran
Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.[1]

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
That is pretty horrendous and yet funny 🙂

For the tiny idiot minority that just might think the video has a point:

1, evolution theory says nothing about the creation of life, only on how more complex life forms developed from simpler life forms.

2, scientists don’t claim that if a mass of organic chemicals and energy come together that li ...[text shortened]... of conditions that are not replicated in the modern day -and certainly not by the food industry!

Yep - that's a lot of non-science in expecting some self-generating evolution of new life to come pouring out of your jar of peanut butter. Dude, what was your control? You didn't use chunky, did you?? How the hell do you expect LIFE out of chunky peanut butter?!?

I just love watching the kiddies play with a video camera.

I would like some creations defend this video - or say that those creationists believing that life can be generated in a jar of peanut butter are stupid.

However, believing that life can be pruduced by itself has once been totally normal. Why? In the old days you could see bugs in your flour sack, and where did that come from? Nowone had laid it there? So the idea that life can be generated everywhere was concidered sound at those times.

Pasteur proved that this kind of auto-genesis was false long ago. Creationists still believe in this. Creationists are blind in the terms of science.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Find a worse one than this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

I do not think this is a parody.

I think you missed the point.
The argument is that science has not demonstrated by scientific experiment what it claims, that is, that life came about by the interaction of matter and energy.

Originally posted by josephw
I think you missed the point.
The argument is that science has not demonstrated by scientific experiment what it claims, that is, that life came about by the interaction of matter and energy.

And the poster has not demonstrated what he claims. He claims that in 100 years no-one has observed life being created in a jar of peanut butter yet he has not infact observed every jar of peanut butter over the last 100 years. I have personally found life in a jar of peanut butter proving his claim false.

As for your 'scientific experiment' comment, I could equally point out that nobody has yet demonstrated by scientific experiment how nuclear fusion works in the sun, yet I am sure you accept that as fact.

My one gripe about this topic is people often out of hand claim that no spontaneous creation of life has occurred when what they really mean is that it simply has not been observed in the tiny tiny tiny fraction of the earth that has actually been observed (eg one the surface layer of a jar of peanut butter).
In fact, a couple of new cells of life on the surface of the jar of peanut butter wouldn't even be visible, so even that one jar was not infact observed.

Originally posted by josephw
I think you missed the point.
The argument is that science has not demonstrated by scientific experiment what it claims, that is, that life came about by the interaction of matter and energy.

since organic compounds can appear through reactions of inorganic compounds, your theory that life has something extra is deficient.
life is just a bunch of chemical processes. nothing about the human body requires a magic element that scientists have not discovered. all can be explained either now, or later through further advancement.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And the poster has not demonstrated what he claims. He claims that in 100 years no-one has observed life being created in a jar of peanut butter yet he has not infact observed every jar of peanut butter over the last 100 years. I have personally found life in a jar of peanut butter proving his claim false.

As for your 'scientific experiment' comment, I ...[text shortened]... jar of peanut butter wouldn't even be visible, so even that one jar was not infact observed.

I'm not a scientist. My knowledge of science is only that of a layman, so I'm not qualified to speak to the issue scientifically. But I would question your assertion that you have found life in a jar of peanut butter, that is, that you have found an entirely new life form. I find that difficult to believe.

Either way, if God did create all life, then science will never prove otherwise, and until it does evolution will remain a theory.

I understand your gripe about no one ever observing the spontaneous creation of life. No one was there when it happened.

Originally posted by josephw
I'm not a scientist. My knowledge of science is only that of a layman, so I'm not qualified to speak to the issue scientifically. But I would question your assertion that you have found life in a jar of peanut butter, that is, that you have found an entirely new life form. I find that difficult to believe.

Either way, if God did create all life, then scie ...[text shortened]... out no one ever observing the spontaneous creation of life. No one was there when it happened.

Yes, you are a layman in science. Therefore you have misinterpreted the definition of the scientific word "Theory".

Yes, of course evolution is a theory, it's the best theory there is! It explains what is observed pretty well. Creationsism is not a good theory, it's mere guession, leaning of an old black book with thin pages and ancient English. Creationsism is guessing, not at all a theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory says

"The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity."

Anti-science people have very big difficulties to understand the word "Theory" in scientific meaning...