Talk:Peanut butter argument
Shit! I'm allergic to this theory! G
dlessLiberal 19:46, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
- Hold on, what if you combined the peanut butter argument with the banana argument... --Kels 19:50, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
- Bananas are so good! At least, when they're still green. G
dlessLiberal 19:52, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
- Bananas are so good! At least, when they're still green. G
- I know, but I can't have bananas. I'm on a potassium-saving med, and I dont' wanna OD. --Kels 19:59, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
- That's so sad! I couldn't live without bananas. And grapes. And tangerines. And apples. And spinach. OMG have you had a grapple? G
dlessLiberal 20:04, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
- That's so sad! I couldn't live without bananas. And grapes. And tangerines. And apples. And spinach. OMG have you had a grapple? G
- Honestly, I love fruit, like grapes and such, but I've also got reflux and fresh fruit tends to activate it. So I'm good in relative moderation, but give me too much and it's horrible heartburn time, ferreal. --Kels 20:37, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
- Grapples are unnatural. Really. They inject them with grape flavor. Just have a nice Macintosh (at the beginning of the season!) or Jonathan. Maybe a Granny Smith, if you're feeling the need for a little tartness. Or a Dudley or Connell Red, but you can't really find those anywhere. MyaR 15:42, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
- Elvis also
likesliked (that's how it goes) sleeping pills. G
dlessLiberal 20:16, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
- Elvis also
Speaking of bananas, you know what's possibly the best food ever? Bananas in rum sauce....Locke Random 22:19, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
This argument is so stupid its funny. Silly creationists -- Elassint Hi! ^_^ 20:31, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Contents |
[edit] title
Should be "Peanut butter argument" - excess caps. ħuman
23:48, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Video
How about a sentence or two telling us what we get for our dime if we play it? (PS, thanks for adding that feature...) ħuman
16:57, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
[edit] How do we know?
Actually - how do we know life has never formed in a jar of peanut butter? I mean, if it was microscopic then probably nobody would notice it, and it would simply get eaten and destroyed before anybody noticed (poor thing). I don't think for a moment this is the case - but - well - how do we know?--Bobbing up 05:49, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
I agree - so I've added it to the article. Silver Sloth 06:04, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
- My understanding is that life formed in a Primordial Soup, & I ain't never heard of any soup that contained peanut butter. weaseLOId
~ 06:16, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
- Ain't never tried none of my signature peanut butter and macaroni soup then, has ya? Bachelor fare extraordinaire, for times when you couldn't lure someone into your lair to fix a meal for you. Tasty stuff, nude or dressed with anything you like, such as catsup, chopped onion, or whatever. Sprocket J Cogswell 14:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- The creationists who demonstrate this argument in videos always open the jar as though they're expecting to find some kind of alien civilisation inside.
- Actually, what they probably want to see is mould -- the kind of life we already observe "appearing out of nowhere".
Pink(Astronomy Domine) 06:23, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
- this is why one should not risk the crunchy type , if something evolves you might not be able to tell. Also the video is an excellent teaching aid,same experiment done many times = same result. Where do these guys store their PB ? a vey hot room with ultraviolet light and electric sparking ? Hamster (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
[edit] new lead?
It now reads "Peanut butter is a popular sandwich spread, enjoyed by many around the world, including such luminaries as President George W. Bush and Conservapedia village idiot Jinxmchue."
First, I donn't think "defining" peanut butter right off the bat really helps the article. Second, arcane references to idiots on another site in the first sentence of a mainspace article might not be best. Perhaps this bit could be moved lower? Third, we should describe more specifically that Jinx hi Jinx! doesn't eat the peanut butter if we're gonna bring it up... ħuman
19:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
[edit] What I Love About The Video
I love that, for the guy holding the peanut butter jar (I either didn't catch or care to catch his name), it says "Engineer/Author." Being an engineer myself, that just proves even more that he's full of shit, because engineers are not to be trusted under any circumstance to actually be able to understand anything (including the mechanical engineer writing this).The Goonie 1 13:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- When ever I see a creationist engineer I always think of the Salem hypothesis. Do we have our own article on this? - π 13:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Might as well start it here. - π 13:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- What is hilarious is that most, if not all, engineering has little to do with biology or biochemistry. I know we have an article about this concept somewhere (where someone who has some scientific background is suddenly an "expert") but I just can't remember the term for the concept.The Goonie 1 13:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Might as well start it here. - π 13:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Congratulations!
This comes right at the top of the first page of Google for Peanut butter argument. Is it ready for silver yet? Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Again, no on the argumentum ad googlum front, but yes in principle. I'd like to get The Atheist Nightmare duo up to silver, but I'm not sure how much more of a flogging this one can take. With the banana we have a lot of stuff about cultivation and artificial selection that's relevant, but this is just so plain dumb I'm impressed we've come up with anything more than "here's the video, hope your sides don't split". ADK...I'll scratch your aviator! 16:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I just can't think of anything more to add (or even take away for that matter). More footnotes would be nice, but again I can't see where they're needed. It's so daft we don't need to back up many propositions. So why the hell not!! ADK...I'll construct your gas tank! 18:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Silver should not mean "long", it should mean "fully fleshed out". If there's nothing left to be said, and 4 or 5 editors have had a run at it for language, structure, clarity, style, etc., and saying more would be "beating a dead horse", it might well be worthy of silver.
GodotThe Peyote God awaits 18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, and indeed this is one of the reasons I didn't want hard-and-fast criteria. I'm just thinking that "first impressions" are also a bit of a factor - i.e., 40 references will certainly make it look like we know what we're talking about without reading it. It's unfortunate, but inescapable. ADK...I'll deconstruct your ax murderer! 18:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't actually read the article, cause I'm off on some feminist rant against cutting up little girls - but one small thing that I'm not sure how you fix. The video, as placed, really makes it look like we have nothing below it. I almost thought all we had was the stub, till I looked at the index box. You *might* consider if there is a way to embed the video differently (or remove the side bar) so you can see at first glance we have a well developed article.
GodotThe Peyote God awaits 18:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is always an issue with embedding video. Though speaking of it, does anyone know what documentary it came from? I know it's from the same ministry that made something like 'Proving The Bible True' but can never remember the name of it. ADK...I'll deport your classified ad! 18:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't actually read the article, cause I'm off on some feminist rant against cutting up little girls - but one small thing that I'm not sure how you fix. The video, as placed, really makes it look like we have nothing below it. I almost thought all we had was the stub, till I looked at the index box. You *might* consider if there is a way to embed the video differently (or remove the side bar) so you can see at first glance we have a well developed article.
- I agree, and indeed this is one of the reasons I didn't want hard-and-fast criteria. I'm just thinking that "first impressions" are also a bit of a factor - i.e., 40 references will certainly make it look like we know what we're talking about without reading it. It's unfortunate, but inescapable. ADK...I'll deconstruct your ax murderer! 18:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Silver should not mean "long", it should mean "fully fleshed out". If there's nothing left to be said, and 4 or 5 editors have had a run at it for language, structure, clarity, style, etc., and saying more would be "beating a dead horse", it might well be worthy of silver.
- Well, I just can't think of anything more to add (or even take away for that matter). More footnotes would be nice, but again I can't see where they're needed. It's so daft we don't need to back up many propositions. So why the hell not!! ADK...I'll construct your gas tank! 18:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
It’s fully fleshed out so I’ve upgraded it to silver. Proxima Centauri (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Question
Why shouldn't plants somewhere in the be sentient? (Prince Charles, a self-confessed speaker to plants, is actually talking to the Mothership...) 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Marmite/Vegemite
Surely these products would be a more appropriate subject of the argument? 171.33.222.26 (talk)
[edit] Plagiarist
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2013/08/without-attribution.html It's the same Missler, isn't it?--ZooGuard (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Reverse logic rebuttal to the argument
The #peanut butter itself# has been intelligently designed (by us humans) - and the peanuts with mould (which are a cause of problems) have, hopefully, been eliminated. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
[edit] BON posting
This was added to article by BON
Lets assume Chuck is wrong, and evolution theory is right. And I assume it is a little too late now for anyone to travel back to time billions years ago to check out what happened. as of 2013, time travel is not possible, as per Einstein, time is just an illusion, aging is not, sequence of movement and events always happen, but there is no public CCTV recording what had happened, how a thing come to being. I do not have a theory to prove any other theory right or wrong, but I do can raise a point here. now we look are a micronorgansime, which probably smaller and take longer time to evolved. and compare to an infant just born today, can we leave it on the bed, the infant will find a way to survive? This throw us into the question, what is the real meaning of purpose of evolution, to survive and be stronger and more flexible to the environment? or just to look bigger or different? if Evolution means to survive differently, then evolution has either had failed of has not occurred, because since no body knows when until today 2013, nothing has live forever. meaning, thing continues to age and die. if things died then it cannot evolve. meaning, evolution has never occurred. Death occurs a lot. no human on earth really knows how many human died so far, I don't thing there is any human out there keep track of how many microorgansime died each day and so far. Unless a microoragansime speak to me now says that, "hey, I was here millions years ago, I record all the event, here, take the pendrive and watch it yourself" — Unsigned, by: 203.115.196.49 / talk / contribs
[edit] Numbers of experiments
While millions of experiments with peanut butter NOT forming new life may be performed each year, every time someone opens a jar, God could, theoretically, turn any jar of pasta sauce into a goat in any Planck time he wanted to. Therefore, we need to multiply the average number of jars in existence by 5.850227064e+50 to get the number of proofs of God's non-existence per year. Therefore, there is more evidence against creationism than against evolution.— Unsigned, by: 92.9.90.221 / talk / contribs
[edit] Wrong type of leaves on the line
(AKA [1])
'Actually, actually' "they" should be using crunchy/smooth/organic/reduced fat/artisanal peanut butter - or possibly a different type of nut butter, a different type of container, in the fridge or freezer/on the windowsill/down a mine and leave for 'three minutes longer than you think suffices...' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- And it has to be the best(peanut butter) #with no crumbs on the knife#' (Alice in Wonderland, Mad Hatter's Tea Party). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)