Peanut Butter, the atheists nightmare!

Posted:
in AppleOutsider edited January 2014
Here.



Makes "Bananas, proof of God's plan" and "Nature had it first" look like episodes of Cosmos.



I don't intent this as a slap at I.D. folk, because it is so thoroughly confused on pretty much everything that I don't think anybody would want to defend it.



I am sort of mystified by how completely off the rails the people who made this must be and how they managed to not know anything, whatsoever, about biology, primordial conditions, what evolution even claims to be about, or modern product packaging and still felt motivated to make a video about those very topics.



If it wasn't for real it would be one of the great parodies of our age. Unless it is. Is it?



Edit: you have to love the terribly adult sounding lady at the beginning who appears to be hanging out in a courtroom, which probably means she's a lawyer or smart or something.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 46
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    At least they're just making videos, and not selling sudanese into slavery or making bombs.
  • Reply 2 of 46
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    At least they're just making videos, and not selling sudanese into slavery or making bombs.



    I believe that would be "setting the bar extremely low."
  • Reply 3 of 46
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    First of all, if you're going to plagiarize digg.com -- do it faster. This is last week's material!



    The point about the peanut butter is about randomness -- that we don't live out lives in terms of it as a concept.



    You wouldn't think it very possible to find a nice 1999 Chateauneuf du Pape in place of your Listerine; in fact, you might say that is an impossibility. You wouldn't even expect that in a bottle of American Syrah.



    (You would however assume some sort of intelligent agent was behind that replacement.)
  • Reply 4 of 46
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Sweet spaghetti monster, you're not actually going to bat for this thing, are you?
  • Reply 5 of 46
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Sweet spaghetti monster, you're not actually going to bat for this thing, are you?



    Well, they mean well.



    It's a good point -- but it's pretty much obliterated in the delivery.
  • Reply 6 of 46
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dmz View Post


    Well, they mean well.



    It's a good point -- but it's pretty much obliterated in the delivery.



    It's not clear to me how one can have "a good point" that is "obliterated in the delivery". I would have thought that a good point, by definition, is well made.



    I think what you're saying is that you agree with whatever the makers of the video think they're getting at, so far as that may be discerned, but that's a different thing.
  • Reply 7 of 46
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    It's not clear to me how one can have "a good point" that is "obliterated in the delivery". I would have thought that a good point, by definition, is well made.



    I think what you're saying is that you agree with whatever the makers of the video think they're getting at, so far as that may be discerned, but that's a different thing.



    Yes, they're trying to 'prove' something they shouldn't. It's a dogmatic position on either side.



    They'd be better off saying "It's inconsistent to..."
  • Reply 8 of 46
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dmz View Post


    Yes, they're trying to 'prove' something they shouldn't. It's a dogmatic position on either side.



    They'd be better off saying "It's inconsistent to..."



    Except what the video says doesn't make the case for the inconsistency of anything. There is nothing, obviously not in the evolutionary theory literature, which doesn't even address what is being contested, but in any scientific theory at all that would imply that life might spontaneously arise in a jar of peanut butter.



    OK, now that I've been obliged to write that sentence I need to go lie down.
  • Reply 9 of 46
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post




    . . . life might spontaneously arise in a jar of peanut butter.






    It does! I know for a fact that life spontaneously arise in a jar of jam, when it has been sitting in the refrigerator too long. So, I guess it's possible in peanut butter too.





  • Reply 10 of 46
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Except what the video says doesn't make the case for the inconsistency of anything. There is nothing, obviously not in the evolutionary theory literature, which doesn't even address what is being contested, but in any scientific theory at all that would imply that life might spontaneously arise in a jar of peanut butter.



    Well, in theory, the door is technically open to that possibility. It's still a bit of a strawman though.
  • Reply 11 of 46
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by snoopy View Post


    It does! I know for a fact that life spontaneously arise in a jar of jam, when it has been sitting in the refrigerator too long. So, I guess it's possible in peanut butter too.









    I have to admit, I've seen a few jars of this or that that looked like aliens had seeded them with something.





    Great George Carlin routine, btw.
  • Reply 12 of 46
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dmz View Post


    Well, in theory, the door is technically open to that possibility. It's still a bit of a strawman though.



    If by "in theory" you mean "anything can happen, maybe, if you wait long enough on account of who knows what wonders this world holds?" then yes, sure.



    If by "in theory" you mean "explicitly or implicitly suggested by any extent theory of science", then no, absolutely not.
  • Reply 13 of 46
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Yeah addabox, "it's bit of a strawman."



    I've got an idea. Let's collect these peanut butter and the banana videos and the chick comics and put them on a road show. It would be the best thing to happen to science.
  • Reply 14 of 46
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    At least they're just making videos, and not selling sudanese into slavery or making bombs.



    Low, yes, but there are religious fanatics who are in fact doing these things. If all this group is doing is peacefully exercising a right to free speech, I'm not too worried, no matter how ridiculous the message.
  • Reply 15 of 46
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    Yeah addabox, "it's bit of a strawman."



    I've got an idea. Let's collect these peanut butter and the banana videos and the chick comics and put them on a road show. It would be the best thing to happen to science.



    Oooh, I think you're on to something there. Maybe make it a musical?



    And at intermission we could hand out Global Warming Skeptic Bingo cards!
  • Reply 16 of 46
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    dmz:



    Quote:

    You wouldn't think it very possible to find a nice 1999 Chateauneuf du Pape in place of your Listerine; in fact, you might say that is an impossibility.



    You could say it’s an “impossibility”, but you’d be wrong.



    Let me quote my boy Dawkins on this one in saying that the initial origin of life is allowed to be mind-bendingly improbable simply because it only strictly had to happen once in the vast expanse and time of the universe. After that natural selection takes over and it is (relatively) smooth sailing from there.
  • Reply 17 of 46
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    dmz:







    You could say it’s an “impossibility”, but you’d be wrong.



    Let me quote my boy Dawkins on this one in saying that the initial origin of life is allowed to be mind-bendingly improbable simply because it only strictly had to happen once in the vast expanse and time of the universe. After that natural selection takes over and it is (relatively) smooth sailing from there.



    Well, the devil is in the details there.



    addabox & groverat: This is a flash animation (from Harvard) of lymphocytes responding to inflammation.



    Better than peanut butter.



    The more I see things like this, the more it seems evolutionists need to ante up, by giving concrete step-by-step examples of how to build something like this through transcription errors, etc.



    And this is only one, tiny, mechanism in a huge system.
  • Reply 18 of 46
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dmz View Post




    I have to admit, I've seen a few jars of this or that that looked like aliens had seeded them with something.






    Nothing wrong with a little panspermia to get things started.





  • Reply 19 of 46
    hardeeharharhardeeharhar Posts: 4,841member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dmz View Post


    Well, the devil is in the details there.



    addabox & groverat: This is a flash animation (from Harvard) of lymphocytes responding to inflammation.



    Better than peanut butter.



    The more I see things like this, the more it seems evolutionists need to ante up, by giving concrete step-by-step examples of how to build something like this through transcription errors, etc.



    And this is only one, tiny, mechanism in a huge system.



    The thing is that a step by step mechanism for it's development is supported by the fact that most, if not all, of the constituents of the inflammation pathway, let alone the entire remainder of the human body, have nearly exact duplicates in monocellular yeast.
  • Reply 20 of 46
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dmz View Post


    Well, the devil is in the details there.



    addabox & groverat: This is a flash animation (from Harvard) of lymphocytes responding to inflammation.



    Better than peanut butter.



    The more I see things like this, the more it seems evolutionists need to ante up, by giving concrete step-by-step examples of how to build something like this through transcription errors, etc.



    And this is only one, tiny, mechanism in a huge system.



    Awesome video, thanks for the link.



    And yes, the mechanisms of life are beautifully complex and varied. Good thing they've had billions of years to evolve, and that many of the structures that served for less elaborate organisms (or indeed, the organisms themselves) could be folded into the gradually complexifying systems that arose.



    However, all of this has precisely zip to do with insane claims about abiogenesis and peanut butter, the mesmerizing weirdness of which being why I posted the video.
Sign In or Register to comment.