http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2007/03/creationist_sez_peanut_butter.php
Am I the only one that finds this disturbing?
Am I the only one that finds this disturbing?
Peanut Butter Disproves Evolution!!
- Thread starter hithesh
- Start date
- Status
I love the peanut butter one.
The banana one... well... that could have some stills photoshopped to make a hilarious parody.... but I still prefer the butchering of Pasteur's experiment.
The banana one... well... that could have some stills photoshopped to make a hilarious parody.... but I still prefer the butchering of Pasteur's experiment.
Upvote
0
G
GratiaCorpusChristi
Guest
That's fantastic.
So, apperantly, 'evolution' (skimming over the typical linguistic anthropomorphization of this scientific friend-turned-monster! mwahaha!) states that abiogenesis (nevermind the distinction between the fields) happens all the time and isn't an extremely rare occurance. Apperantly, Mr. Evolution says that abiogensis might just happen several times in your lifetime, in your personal encounters with peanut butter.
Fantastic.
And the banana piece..... wow.
It's a good think those 'contents don't squirt in your face,' because the banana is made just right for 'ease of entry,' being 'curved toward the face' and 'just the right shape for the human mouth.'
Wow.
So, apperantly, 'evolution' (skimming over the typical linguistic anthropomorphization of this scientific friend-turned-monster! mwahaha!) states that abiogenesis (nevermind the distinction between the fields) happens all the time and isn't an extremely rare occurance. Apperantly, Mr. Evolution says that abiogensis might just happen several times in your lifetime, in your personal encounters with peanut butter.
Fantastic.
And the banana piece..... wow.
It's a good think those 'contents don't squirt in your face,' because the banana is made just right for 'ease of entry,' being 'curved toward the face' and 'just the right shape for the human mouth.'
Wow.
Upvote
0
lol, it's much funnier when someone repeats it, like a bad SNL sketch, but the sad thing is, Kirk Cameron and his pal took it serously, as if they finally solved some riddle, and found a sword (well, a banana) to slay the big bad evolution monster, one jar of peanut butter at a time.
But the truly sad thing, is the comments section. It's easy for us to laugh, it's another thing when are you making unbelievers laugh, and walk away from the Kingdom of God.
Upvote
0
pastorkevin73
Senior Member
As funny as the banana one was, it is true that all creation declares the glory of the Lord. I don't think that the video was the best way to go about it. None-the-less there is truth there.
Upvote
0
If you actually check out the link (particularly the banana one) you'll find the evidence you're looking for in the rebuttals.
Upvote
0
Pats
I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
- Oct 8, 2004
- 5,554
- 308
- 49
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Unfortunately there are a lot of college kids out there and what not who think the majority of Christians are YEC, think that being Christian means accepting stuff like that as iron clad, and it does deture some people.
Upvote
0
Well, have no fear for evolutionist have invented "Finch's Mutation Paste" :
I'm sure no evolution believer want to be without it to give their children a head start.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
crawfish
Veteran
- Feb 21, 2007
- 1,731
- 125
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
*sigh*.
Ray Comfort wants to debate atheists
Honestly, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. A definite train wreck, but he ends up portraying Christianity as being quite stupid, and that offends me.
Ray Comfort wants to debate atheists
Honestly, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. A definite train wreck, but he ends up portraying Christianity as being quite stupid, and that offends me.
Upvote
0
busterdog
Senior Veteran
And, if not the banana, then what?
The grand canyon? Sunsets? Puppy dogs?
A recent one I heard was about the woodpecker's tongue, which needs to rap around four times to cushion the brain, failing which the woodpecker can't peck.
Maybe I was hoaxed. Sounds too incredible.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=woodpecker+tongue+creator&btnG=Google+Search
It is essentially the same argument as the flagellum argument. Supposedly the flagellum argument was de-bunked. How do you debunk an elaborate creation by a hypothetical random process?
If we just look at the process of how random selection would move the woodpecker from unsuccessful woodpeckers that wrap once around the brain to woodpeckers that wrap four times, how do you show that this is probable? How do you do that with a flagellum?
Upvote
0
You seem to miss the whole point of the Finch's Mutation Paste. While the site doesn't take "mutation creation"serious yet evolutionist surely do ...or do they?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Please, show me any evolutionists on this board that touts that the theory of evolution suggests we should take Finch's Mutation Paste. On the flip side, we know that Creationists do use the banana argument (the people that created the video do). It's just another example of the differences between Evolutionists and Creationists. One side uses science, the other side doesn't. I'll give you a hint which side uses science, take a look at the biology program of any major university and you'll be able to figure it out.
Upvote
0
Exactly yet the heart of evolution is mutation. Science as well as common sense tells us why "mutation creation" is bananas. When it comes down to it I seriously doubt many evolutionist actually believes what they preach.
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
So, you think engineers who want to take a building down wait for it to fall naturally? Or seek to increase the rain on a building so it will fall sooner?
No, they go in and plant specific charges to get what they want done over with quickly and as safely as possible.
Why do you feel that biologists would act any differently?
If all one wanted to do was to increase the chance of mutation, then there would be no limits on x-rays or radiation exposure.
To change the human genome, scientists are working on ways to inject specific dna changes to specific areas to get specific results.
While random change is just fine if you want no specific results and have no specific time line you have to make, it is not what scientists or people want from their medical treatment.
Upvote
0
Oh now we are bring in engineers. Engineers surely doesn't wait for the building to mutate into something else. There are a lot more ways to destroy than to create.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
No, the site you brought up confuses engineering with evolution.
The idea of the paste was to bring changes more rapidly than natural and have those changes be positive more than neutral or negative. That is engineering not evolution.
That is one of the problems in the scientific vs anti-science debate. The anti-science side cannot tell the difference between engineering and natural progression.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
