Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Peanutbutter, An Atheist's Nightmare!


Via Machines Like Us:

What proves that evolution is nonsense? Why, peanut butter, of course! Just open a jar—do you ever find any life in there? Of course not! That's because life never spontaneously sprouts from non-life. Now that's proof!

Watch the YouTube video here.

Posted by aalkon at March 30, 2007 1:31 PM


Wow, that even rivals the banana video...

Posted by: Jennifer at March 30, 2007 8:13 AM

The Imaginary Friend explanation of life's origins is just so much more logical-and scientific!

Posted by: Chrissy at March 30, 2007 8:28 AM

It's so stupid, I had hoped that it was put out by the Landover Baptist church!

It's gross and deliberate oversimplification to the point it's farce. Paint such a stupid scenario that does nothing to prove your point, but creates the comparison in people's minds...if you think life wasn't personally created by God, you're the kind of moron who thinks it should sprout from peanut butter...see how much smarter I am than you? Which is the intention to reinforce their position to people who don't understand biology and have no tendancy to think critically for themselves.

Saw this yesterday on Propaganda, pure and simple.

Posted by: Jamie at March 30, 2007 8:56 AM

Even though it is proof positive that evolutionary theory is an utter falsehood perpetrated by godless heathens who hate America, I still like peanut butter.

Posted by: justin case at March 30, 2007 8:59 AM

I've been a non-theist since age 9, but it converted me. I am saved, Lord!

Posted by: Machida at March 30, 2007 9:47 AM

Many healthy salmonella bacteria would probably disagree.

Posted by: Darry at March 30, 2007 9:47 AM

I'm not normally someone who resorts to violence, but these people are in dire need of a vicious BITCH SLAP!

So we're supposed to ignore MOUNTAINS of scientific evidence proving the validity of the evolutionary makes far more sense to believe that humankind was conjured out of THIN FU*KING AIR by someone's imaginary friend.

Oh yeah, and the only *proof* is “because it says so” in an archaic text written by religious fanatics.

The world would be SUCH a better place if being stupid caused PAIN.

Posted by: RedPretzel in LA at March 30, 2007 9:53 AM

My mom's favourite line was, 'If stupidy hurt, you would be screaming'.

Posted by: Chrissy at March 30, 2007 11:00 AM

Wouldn't mold sprout from it after a while?

Posted by: Pirate Jo at March 30, 2007 11:03 AM

Does that man have any jelly so I can make a sandwich for lunch?

Posted by: Gretchen at March 30, 2007 11:13 AM

You guys are just hitting an easy target. It's obvious that the majority of the people who comment on this blog do not believe in god (including myself). It would be like groups of people in a Christian blog making fun of an atheist for presenting an argument they think is not valid. Obviously atheists are the rational ones but to a Christian believing in a personal god is being more rational. Evolution, in my opinion, is the best explanation we have. However it leaves many questions unanswered and I'm sure in the future we will discover something completely revolutionary about the origin of life, something like 1. Life is not random like we thought 2. We didn’t evolve from monkeys but from watermelons. Instead of bashing this guy, which will accomplish nothing, we should discuss the points that Christians make regarding the validity of evolution. For example, a question they would ask is why do we see only in the observable world that only life brings life?

"Wouldn't mold sprout from it after a while?"
Using his type of reason, in a way that still proves his point that only life brings life. He could say that the peanut butter has living cells (peanuts come from plants) and this is why mold grows on it. Hence only life can sustain life.

Posted by: PurplePen at March 30, 2007 11:16 AM

Catholics by the way believe evolution to be true. So there is hope that other religions can accept it.

Posted by: PurplePen at March 30, 2007 11:35 AM

Hey everybody, please note that Palm Sunday comes on April Fool's day this year. It could only be better if it was Good Friday or Easter instead.

Posted by: Bill Henry at March 30, 2007 11:41 AM

I doubt Catholics accept evolution. I didn't read the last papal papers but they only agreed to a round earth in the 70's If I recall.

And if these idiots weren't in charge of a bunch of schools, would we really care what they believed.

I don't think they should be argued with point by point on anything. If they don't agree in the validity of their senses and they don't need to prove the positive, how do you disprove their arbitrary assertions.
Its the whole spaghetti monster thing. Attempting to disprove it is pointless.

Posted by: Jon at March 30, 2007 11:58 AM

Why is this guy making himself an easy target? He can believe whatever he wants, but who is he trying to convince with this peanut butter theory? Obviously the atheists aren't going for it, and the Christians already think the same way as he does.

The entire thing seems pointless, unless he wants to make himself look stupid on purpose.

Posted by: Chrissy at March 30, 2007 12:08 PM

I'm with Purp... Not only is this low-hanging fruit, you're passing up an opportunity to consider how these people perceive science and learnedness. It's not just that they're in love with their Bibles, it's that they hate the contemporary non-fiction that could take their brains to a better place.

Don't blame Sagan's corduroy jacket. There's something about the schoolmarms and apple-polishers that these people don't like.

Posted by: Crid at March 30, 2007 12:22 PM

PS- I havent seen the clip yet

Posted by: Crid at March 30, 2007 12:23 PM

Jon, I'm totally with ya. I don't care what these willfully delusional people believe either, and I certainly don't give a fig about countering their so-called "arguments." I simply refuse to waste my time "discussing" some stupid idea about the flood of Noah creating the Grand Canyon or the earth only being 6,000 years old. I might as well try and debate physics with my dog.

My own mom is a fundie Jehovah's Witness, but I stopped arguing with her in my head a long time ago. They aren't going to change their minds, because their entire worldview would collapse if you pulled out the 'Imaginary Friend Who Lives in the Sky' card. Further, they've gotten each other convinced that questioning these kinds of things is a sign of moral weakness.

I'm glad I got away from all that nonsense before I wasted my life on it, but what's your average 65-year-old going to do?

Posted by: Pirate Jo at March 30, 2007 12:32 PM


I was a believer in people like the one above. They had a very powerful pull in my family because of family connections. The only thing that convinced me otherwise was arguments made point by point by scientific compassionate minds. (Not someone calling me a fucking idiot, though I'm almost inclined to call you one Jon). You are not trying to convince someone like the Peanut Butter Man, you are trying to convince someone who is a regular person. Someone that has doubts about both evolution and intelligent design. The problem with people who accept evolution is that they expect you to know exactly how science works. This is the trick ID people use, they explain how they arrived at a conclusion whereas evo people just tell you the conclusion.

Catholics do believe in evolution to a certain extent. Whenever I go to Poland and stay with my very Catholic friend she was ridiculing a politician because he was supporting ID. . It's not universal among Catholics, but the Church has always moved toward accepting the validity of evolution. Ever since that Nazi Pope I believe.

Posted by: PurplePen at March 30, 2007 12:50 PM

Oh and Poland is just about the most Catholic country you can imagine. They do it to the maxxxxxxxxxx (sorry).

Posted by: PurplePen at March 30, 2007 12:58 PM

Thanks Jo
PPen I didn't call you the fucking idiot - dunno where you get off being all bent out of shape. My family is religous too (Pastor in the family) It's not a topic of discussion anymore.

Convincing someone their philosophy is wrong is a tough sell. Generally, it is best to present a rational philosophy based on reason to young people and *pray* it catches. If they choose the mystical or the irrational, that is too bad, but their perogative. And for kids in a religious home, well, there is always The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

It would take a real hero to reject religion after - I don't know 50 years or so - of believing. I guess they compartmentalize "real life" Monday through Saturday and leave Sunday out. Morality - what works during the week vs what God says is right. the guilt.
no thanks.

Posted by: Jon at March 30, 2007 1:17 PM

This terrific video compellingly explodes creationism with no bloodletting or anger:

Posted by: Dave at March 30, 2007 1:20 PM

I would've loved to see the look on his face if someone had put one of those snake-spring-things in his jar of peanut butter...

Posted by: Morbideus at March 30, 2007 1:20 PM

Pope John Paul II gave final approval on evolution during the mid 1990s. I think it was 1994 to be exact. When the press asked him why the sudden change in Vatican policy, his response: "There is too much evidence out there that supports Darwin." Also, the Vatican has one of the best Science University in the world, unlike the peanut butter crowd or Falwell's Liberty University's museum of evangelical oriented Natural History.

There is a huge problem with Catholics believing evolution though. The basic premise of Natural Selection is the evolution of simple organisms to a more complex development over a long period of years. Would natural selection apply to the existence of a god? Was god a simple organism at one time? How can god be perfect and all knowing without going through some sort of process of natural selection? All living things go from simplicity to complexity. What disqualifies the Supreme Being from natural selection and can the Vatican back up their claims through the scientific process?

Posted by: Joe at March 30, 2007 1:20 PM

Sorry Jon, you're right you never called me a fucking idiot. Got angry at you for no reason.

Whenever talking to Poles, i was very suprised that they accepted evolution. That explains it, it was Pope John Paul.

Posted by: PurplePen at March 30, 2007 1:56 PM


Most Europeans accept evolution. In the UK they placed an image of Darwin on one of their currency notes. Could you see that happening in the USA? The reason why Europeans accept Natural Selection is because they do not see it as a threat to their existence.

The reason behind the hostility towards evolution by evangelicals is because they fear it is correct. Fear is an irrational emotion and it explains the odd behavior like the guy with the peanut butter and the wild ramblings of Pat Roberts on the 700 Club.

The only reason I am concerned about evangelicals is because they are a powerful and well connected political force in this country. They want to share their biblically inspired beliefs to the rest of America and in some cases with the world too. In any other situation they should be pitied, mocked or marginalized from the mainstream.

Posted by: Joe at March 30, 2007 2:40 PM

> Could you see that
> happening in the USA?

OF COURSE WE COULD. Of course we could. Hell, for all I know, we've already put Darwin or Wallace on a postage stamp.

> they do not see it as a threat
> to their existence.

They don't see ANYTHING as a threat to their existence, and why should they? Estados Unidos has picked up the check for their pink asses for more than half a century. Europe has been, profiteering excepted, a lackluster continent since the the 1940s. The brains left just as surely as the spirits were chased away, and the place has never recovered. Don't credit them to heavily for their disbelief.

Posted by: Crid at March 30, 2007 6:13 PM

Too. Y'know, too heavily.

Posted by: Crid at March 30, 2007 6:17 PM

The only reason I am concerned about evangelicals is because they are a powerful and well connected political force in this country.

I'm with Joe. If not for that, they'd be like astrology buffs -- silly, wasting their money and time, but harmless.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at March 31, 2007 12:51 AM

> If not for that, they'd
> be like astrology buffs

Do you really think so? There are a lot of people in the church who believe in God, but there are also a lot who see the place as a convenient setting in which to pursue power. As Hrisskopoulos noted, the church gave us the concept of the mundane technocracy. But these structures molded themselves to human nature, not the other way around. We're not treacherous, conniving creatures because the church made us that way; the church was built as a place for treacherous, conniving humanity. Catholic, Islamic, whatever.

Three times a week for the last few months, you've had a post that goes like this:

> In Islam, there's a concept
> called "Sha-booti". This
> translates as "You can keep
> the candy you take from the
> baby carriage as long as long
> as nobody catches you."

In every instance, the bad behavior the Koran authorizes is something that gets beaten out of American school children before they're old enough to surrender the crayons. Keep your hands to yourself; lying is deplorable; cowardice is reprehensible; stealing is punished, raping the little girls at recess will get you in trouble. Etc.

The problems we're having in the middle east are human nature problems, not just religious problems. The same tendencies toward selfishness and cruelty are in Western hearts too, we're just better at controlling them.

When thinking about it this morning, I'd decided that Ronald Regean was the secular leader of my lifetime best able to pander to the religious while have nothing for it in his own heart. Then I thought of Clinton and how he always likes to feel up the widow at the funeral, and realized that he was the indisputable stainedglass champion. No one works a pew like the Boy from Hope. Specifically, we've seen that the Shrew from Chicago has no such talent... Remember how she fucked things up in Selma this month? The inability to move deftly in church could cost her the White House. You can bet she feels just like you do about the church.

Amy, speaking of voodoo belief, this was on Cosh this morning. On the other hand, tinyurl seems to have come up with remarkably coincident link-name:

Posted by: Crid at March 31, 2007 9:00 AM

"the bad behavior the Koran authorizes is something that gets beaten out of American school children before they're old enough to surrender the crayons. Keep your hands to yourself; lying is deplorable; cowardice is reprehensible; stealing is punished, raping the little girls at recess will get you in trouble."

They really are very much like overgrown children, who have never been shown any limits on their behavior. I guess that's what happens when you keep women completely powerless and unable to discipline their kids like a normal mother would.

Posted by: Chrissy at March 31, 2007 9:45 AM


Posted by: Crid at March 31, 2007 9:48 AM

It has to do with the use/abuse of religious authority that concerns me. Is there any physical or scientific proof that validates this authority?

I won't use the religious inspired government interference with stem cell reasearch, but an incident that is quite common in the Middle East. There are many scientists and researchers at various universities in the Middle East who are about to conduct some form of experiment, but before they do it they need permission from a religious cleric on whether the tests will violate Imshallah. The process of making a legal/spiritual decision is called Ijtihad. If the scientific process violates the will of Allah... the researcher is given a no and a fatwa is issued. (I’ve had 2 fatwas issued against me in Egypt)

In some cases an Istihsan (preference) is issued by the religious courts. This would allow any research or technological device used as long as it advances the expansion of Islam. It still violates the will of Allah, but is given a temporary approval until the goals are reached.

Outside the scientific community in the Middle East... Islamic terror groups (A.Q.) use Istihsan by their pet clerics when using email, cell phones, audio recordings, satellite communications equipment, personal computers and any other tech devices in achieving their goals. Also, the liberal reformers within Islam try using them too under the guise of Istislah (what deems proper) or Maslaha. (what is in the public interest)

It goes back to the first part of my comment on the actual evidence of this authority. Both reformers, theocrats and terrorists use ALL these legal/religious terms within the M.E. to pursue their individual agendas and it contributes the present schizoid environment. I have one simple solution: Separation of Mosque and State. That's it. Let the Fiqh courts be what they are in the USA... intellectual and theological inquiries/discourse that have no validation or enforcement, because of our separation of Church and State and other secular laws. Similar to the Roman Catholic Church’s Canon Law court systems.

All these problems stem from the fact that someone (Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha and the modern wannabes) took an experience that occurred inside their brains and place a dogmatic religious system that cannot be challenged through evidence based scrutiny.

Posted by: Joe at March 31, 2007 10:29 AM

Hey, I've been having the same problem with my water never turning to wine.

Posted by: Paul Hrissikopoulos at March 31, 2007 2:42 PM

Luckily, Beaujolais is cheap.

Posted by: Paul Hrissikopoulos at March 31, 2007 2:42 PM

Anway, people who dismiss peanut butter as predictable and mundane haven't seen my favorite episode of Miami Vice.

Posted by: Paul Hrissikopoulos at March 31, 2007 2:47 PM

Leave a comment