Talk:Peanut butter argument/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 17 December 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

title

Should be "Peanut butter argument" - excess caps. ħuman 23:48, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

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)

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?--Bob^{bing 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)

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)

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)

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)

It’s fully fleshed out so I’ve upgraded it to silver. Proxima Centauri (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

-- "This is true of any tinned, jarred, packaged or fresh food substance: with the exception of table salt, everything we consume is "alive" to one degree or another."

Not sure about 'one degree or another" but all cooked or severely heated stuff is actually pretty dead. It was alive, true, but once you dry and boil it, it's probably pretty sterile and has no living cells with metabolism whatsoever. Or does anybody think, pasta is still alive? It's true, however, that almost everything we eat is made up from organic matter that has been alive in the past.