Creationists rejoice! A plastic-haired wingnut has finally disproved that silly "theory" of evolution using a jar of peanut butter!
[1]
Links:
[1] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fthehindsightfactor.com%2Fdarwin_chunky_or_creamy&linkname=Darwin%3A%20Chunky%20or%20Creamy%3F
Comments
Re: Darwin: Chunky or Creamy?
Re: Darwin: Chunky or Creamy?
Here's the thing, apart from the fact that what he's refuting isn't Evolution, but Abiogenisis (also known as Spontaneous Generation) he's absolutely correct. This is a point that has never been refuted despite numerous attempts in the lab. That's not to say it never will be refuted, but thus far it hasn't.
 Louis Pasteur did a very good job of refuting Abiogenisis (check Wikipedia for an explanation of what he did.)
Stanley Miller did some clever experiments in which he duplicated the Earth's early atmosphere (at least what the theory on what the Earth's early atmosphere said it was at the time) and managed to produce some amino acids. (More stuff for you to Wikipedia if you're interested.) This is quite a feat, but still no life from non-life.
 In summary, I'm really not sure what, if anything, you find silly about this man's arguement; but I am sure that you can't refute it; it's supported by at least one of the greatest minds in scientific history (Pasteur).
(P.S. I'm not a Christian, nor am I a conservative, nor do I support the teaching of Creationism in schools, just so we're clear on that.)Â
Re: Darwin: Chunky or Creamy?
To clarify back on your PS, I myself fall into the school of compatibility when it comes to creationism vs. evolution. In other words, the origin of life is, imho, no way incompatible with its evolutionary process. While I believe life on this planet is billions of years old, I am completely open to the idea that the process was started by an external power, entity, process, or whatever.
What I find silly about this guy's video is not his opinion about Abiogenisis, but that he uses completely shoddy logic while smugly acting as though he has demonstrated a contradiction. The point is, who is to say that given a sufficiently large dormancy period a jar of peanut butter might not eventually spawn a race of giant schnigers (that's schnauzer combined with tiger). Or nothing at all. Hell, if the guy had a jar of peanut butter mixed by George Washington Carver himself, it would still only have been around for a ridiculously small fraction of the time that the "primordial soup" would have supposedly taken to produce life.Â
By his logic, I could point to the lack of life on the moon as proof that we are completely alone in the universe. Either way, it seems to me that this guy is trying to combine his pseudo-logic with a smug face to dupe the weak-minded into believing that they are now armed with "proof" that Darwin = Satan.
Re: Darwin: Chunky or Creamy?