Talk:Peanut butter argument

	This creationism related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Shit! I'm allergic to this theory! GdlessLiberal 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. GdlessLiberal 19:52, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

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? GdlessLiberal 20:04, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

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 supposedly liked deep-fried peanut-butter-and-banana sandwiches. --jtl^talk 20:14, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Elvis also likes liked (that's how it goes) sleeping pills. GdlessLiberal 20:16, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Speaking of bananas, you know what's possibly the best food ever? Bananas in rum sauce....Locke ^Random 22:19, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

User subhuman like banana. human^{be in} 22:36, 28 July 2007 (CDT) And rum.

This argument is so stupid its funny. Silly creationists -- Elassint ^{Hi! ^_^} 20:31, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Marmite/Vegemite

Surely these products would be a more appropriate subject of the argument? 171.33.222.26 (talk)

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}

Except what you're describing isn't evolution. One individual turning into another species, like Pokemon, is not evolution. Immortality would probably hinder evolution, due to genetic stagnation. Also, cellular degeneration exists. But genetic lines reproduce & continue for thousands to millions of years, so it's pretty successful. Size has nothing to do with how evolved something is. Microscopic tardigrades are far more suited for any environment than, say, the dodo. Perhaps you should actually learn what evolution IS before claiming it's "failed."69.249.111.215 (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

"Thing continues to age and die"? Pal, why you gotta remind old Ben that he's gettin' old? That's it, you crummy rat, it's clobberin' time!

What he said. --157.131.168.209 (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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}

How to take over humanity

Place 'essential chemicals'/nanobots and activators separately in peanut butter and bananas: humans consume peanut butter-banana sandwiches and components combine as sandwiches are digested and [1] is a male relative. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

??? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 18:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Is my brain slowly liquefying or is it normal to not understand what this is supposed to be about? Apart from "Bob's your uncle"? What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 21:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

A variant on 'two part glues' (and similar) and 'Bob's your uncle' (for those unfamiliar with BritEnglish). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry for my idiocy, but could you please elaborate on what those idioms are supposed to tell us? I gather that "Bob's your uncle" has some similarity in meaning with "piece of cake", right? What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 16:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Another counter argument

'But have you ever come across spontaneous peanut butter combustion?' (Though could the jar be affected by 'whatever causes tin cans to explode'? Various websites suggest different bacteria/moulds/botulism.) Anna Livia (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Humour

Could 'If you pay peanuts you get monkeys' be brought into the argument?

Is the peanut butter smooth, crunchy 'stripy' (with caramel or chocolate spread etc) or some other type? And does life spontaneously evolve in some other spread (honey, jam, marmalade, cheese...)? Anna Livia (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Summarising the argument

'This argument is nuts/nutty.'

If the theory worked we would see at least the occasional exploding peanut butter jar, as 'the life-forms' generated gaseous by-products the jar was not designed to hold (as with exploding tin cans) and/or 'the life-forms' tried to escape. Anna Livia (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

What is in the sandwich

An SD card here. Anna Livia (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

More arguments against

If evolution did happen so fast there would be issues with the Food Safety Agency (whatever name is used), and the Product Registration Agency (as 'the stuff is not what it says on the bottle').

There would also be 'any number of scientists' crawling around - a Nobel Prize for an explanation, and hiring by MegaBucks plc to develop practical uses. Anna Livia (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)