Chuck Missler disproves Evolution with a jar of peanut butter.

Hadn’t heard of Chuck Missler until I came across this video, but apparently he’s a businessman turned preacher who started the Koinonia House ministry in 1973. In the following video clip he argues that if Evolution were true then he should, on occasion, open up a jar of peanut butter and discover new life. Yes, he’s seriously making that argument.

It’s pretty funny until you realize that a lot of nutcases out there are watching this video and nodding in agreement.

622 thoughts on “Chuck Missler disproves Evolution with a jar of peanut butter.

  1. Seems to have some trouble differentiating between evolution and abiogenesis. But then they also sometimes confuse evolution with cosmology and geology.

  2. That logic was a masterfully performed by a genius.
    Why didn’t anyone else think of that?
    Damn! How’s Richard gonna get round this genius?
    He’ll have his work cut out.
    I can see him now – Um. Err. Um. Err.
    Are you for real, Chuckie?
    Ya fucking clown.  LOL

  3. They’re not confusing anything.  Most people don’t have any fundamental knowledge of biology past high-school and they’ve forgotten most of it.  These jerks know exactly what they’re doing because their audience doesn’t know enough to tell them they’re full of it.  This is why they target parents to put pressure on the school districts instead of try to convince reputable scientists that they’re right.  This is why they go after conservative politicians who have a vested interest in joining their side regardless of their scientific background.  They’re trying to force legislation and bypass any serious debate on the subject.

    Because they haven’t got a prayer (pun intended) of convincing anyone who actually knows something about the science.  This BS isn’t intended for anyone with half a brain.  This is intended for people who know nothing about biology and maybe have never heard of Darwin outside the ID controversy.  They know if they get ignorant people believing their argument it will be harder to change their minds later, and whent they run into serious opposition from people who might know what they’re talking about, isn’t it miraculous (pun intended) how their argument changes from “You guy are idiots” to “You need to give us the freedom to teach our theory even if you can prove it makes no sense.”

  4. Missler is one of the worst of the bunch because he speaks from a position of supposed authority, and then uses big shiny terms that he knows his audience will not understand.  This isn’t really shown well in the peanut butter clip, other than he (as JulianP said) is confusing in the viewers mind abiogenesis and evolution, but then again, thats all part of his act.

    Since he seems to knows what he’s talking about (why else use all the big, fancy, obviously scientific terms), and he uses the bible liberally in his speeches, he grabs both the sheep and the almost sheep and fools them. 

    He has no problem talking about his history in the defense industry and other things during his lectures, and does this because it adds to his position of authority.  He’s basically uses intellectual bullying tactics on his audience, and does it with a bunch of obvious contempt for his dumb audiences, but he keeps his contempt for his opponents/subject just higher enough that the audience feels they are in on a secret, not being insulted.

  5. It looked like the little safety seal had been pried back before they filmed that segment. Maybe the life created by evolution escaped?

    I would say what a nutjob but the bad pun keeps me from doing so…

  6. Time to take a trip back to the late 1700s (where these cretins want to take us all)…

    This idiot could be simply “disproved” by running John Needham’s experiment:

    1) boil broth in a flask,
    2) let it sit
    3) observe new life

    P.S., don’t tell him about Pasteur’s follow-up to Needham disproving the whole spontaneous generation thing.

  7. I would agree with Tafka that abiogenesis and evolution are being confused and misrepresented in the video.  As regards abiogenesis, the basic point that those that don’t believe in God have their own beliefs founded solely on faith and are roughly equivalent to statements of belief in the Pink Unicorn could stand on its own.  Life from non-life has always been the Achilles Heel and it is always mishandled by theists. 

    It’s a shame that a better presentation that highlights that point wasn’t made instead of something stupid and silly.

  8. Reminds me of the Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode on Creationism.

    My favorite quote, “And then there’s this asshole…”

  9. @Fall Downed

    My thoughts exactly on the seal already being opened.  Made me wonder if they felt the need to check before filming and make sure there really were no new life forms.

    @Jeff

    My favorite quote, “And then there’s this asshole…”

    Couldn’t you say that about any episode of Bullshit!?

    These kind of videos just make me tired.  I got stuck watching something similar with relatives last Christmas, and was overwhelmed by the fact that it takes very little time for some asshat to say something that seems logically sound but is totally wrong.  Such nonsense then takes much, much more time, facts, and logic to be disproven.  It’s intellectual dishonesty.

  10. Peanut butter gets pastuerized, so he shouldn’t be finding much alive in it.  Except for heat tolerant salmonella.  Maybe he expects evolution to produce a snake jumping out of the jar.

    JulianP:  But then they also sometimes confuse evolution with cosmology and geology.

    swordsbane: This is intended for people who know nothing about biology and maybe have never heard of Darwin outside the ID controversy.

    Targeting those who don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground.

  11. as if i didn’t have enough to worry about with the salmonella in my peanut butter, now every time i open a jar, i’m going to have to inspect it for “new life”.

    who knows, perhaps i’ll see the face of jesus in it and become famous………….

  12. Maybe the salmonella infected peanut butter that I got really really sick off of was some kind of conspiracy by the Illuminati and the Liberal Media to disprove Mr. Missler? 

    Actually, that sounds kinda like some of the weird conspiracy theories that I’ve heard Missler give a nod of the hat to in the past.  All I can say is anyone who recommends Behold a Pale Horse by the batshit crazy William Cooper can’t be entirely of sound mind (Missler quoted the book in an off-hand way and said he recommend his audience read it during a lecture of his I attended back when I was a fundy.)

  13. Ah more rubbish from Consi.

    Yep I have no idea how the first life happened. Doesn’t make Abogenisis a matter of faith- that is just the name for something scientist postulate must have happened if there was no outside influence.  As there is no credible outside influence the money is on abogenisis.

    Only a complete arsehole would think that not knowing how something works infers the presence of a supreme being.

    Case 1) Lightning. 2000 years ago no-one understood how lightning works. It was believed that a god did it.  We now no longer believe in a god of lightning, because we understand the principles. Lightning still works despite this non-belief. So did belief work until we understood the mechanism thus making Thor redundant, or did lightning work despite belief systems?

    Case 2) Gravety. Still struggling to explain this one completely. So is there a) a mechanism within quantum theory (for instance) we haven’t yet discovered or b) are we ‘intelligent falling’?

    Case 3) The Eye. We don’t fully understand the eye/brain interface.  My son’s optician was telling me this a couple of weeks ago- how the firing of the rods and cones is resolved as an image in the conciousness bit of a mystery.  So do we a a) have an eye that is evolved/designed to work self sufficiently, but we just don’t know how yet or b) a god of some form is busy handling the input of 6 thousand million pairs of eyes?

    Case 4) Computers. Um bit embarrassing this one. We designed them, and there are bits where we don’t know how they work. We can predict the results, so we can still use them, but some of the processes are a bit of a mystery.  Is God handling that particular overflow stack.

    So are there natural processes with a non magic explanation we don’t yet understand, or did God sit there wishing scientists would work out aerodynamics so he didn’t have to concentrate on keeping birds in the air?

  14. Wow. One can only hope that the Creationist movement is shooting itself in the foot with this idiocy. Keep ‘em coming, Chuck!

    As regards abiogenesis, the basic point that those that don’t believe in God have their own beliefs founded solely on faith and are roughly equivalent to statements of belief in the Pink Unicorn could stand on its own.

    Not quite. The theories concerning abiogenesis are far from complete. As such, some must be taken on faith (notice the small “f”—faith versus Faith), but the evidence that we currently have suggests that the prospect of life having arisen without supernatural intervention is hardly a “belief founded solely on faith.” The Miller experiment of 1953 sheds some light on the possible origins of life in Earth’s harsh early environment. Others have postulated that the origins of earthly life may have even been extraterrestrial, having been brought to Earth via meteorites. It’s fascinating stuff, and for me requires far less faith than believing that life was consciously created by a benevolent supernatural entity.

  15. Apparently nature does not really abhor a vaccuum.

    The salmonella in peanut butter was probably contaminating the jars before the peanut butter was squirted in.  There are two points in the peanut butter process (according to a radio interview that I heard with a real peanut butter expert, anyway) that would kill salmonella.

  16. There are two points in the peanut butter process (according to a radio interview that I heard with a real peanut butter expert, anyway) that would kill salmonella.

    When I was quick checking to make my pasteurization crack, apparantly some salmonella would survive the heat due to what seemed (to me) like the peanut butter acting as an insulator.  Not how it was described, but my interpretation.  Not that container contamination couldn’t be a vector.

  17. Thriceberg; your name reminds me of what my favourite ex-PM Paul Keating once said to one of the Opposition members: Well, the thing about poor old Costello, he’s all tip and no iceberg, you know.

  18. I have read your opposition to Missler, that’s fine, it isn’t about Missler.  It is about TRUTH vs. FICTION.  You believe that evolution is the truth even though most ‘true’ scientists find no reason to believe this theory that seemingly changes daily.  I believe that you choose to believe evolution because you don’t want to believe the truth.  If you accept the fact that there is a creator, then you must accept all that comes with that.  It is much easier to live out your sinful lives and try to convince yourselves that there is no after-life.  But remember, just because you say there is no God and no heaven or hell, does not make it so.  The bible talks about your type, Paul writing to the Corinthians wrote, “…the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”  1 Corinthians 1:18.  He went on to write, “the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 

    You cling to what you consider the truth and your believe a lie has blinded you to the actual truth that God created the heavens and the earth.

  19. Sometimes I don’t know why I bother.

    It is about TRUTH vs. FICTION.

    Agreed. Trouble is, you’ve got it backwards about what is true and what is fictional. Evolution is a fact. Biblical creationism is a myth.

    You believe that evolution is the truth even though most ‘true’ scientists find no reason to believe this theory that seemingly changes daily.

    Hmmmm…evolutionary theory is the backbone of all the life and Earth sciences. Odd that true scientists would reject it…oh wait! By “true” scientists you’re referring to creationists. Next!

    The bible talks about your type, Paul writing to the Corinthians wrote, “…the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” 1 Corinthians 1:18.  He went on to write, “the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

    Most of us do not believe in the Bible, so your adducing it to us as if it actually meant something is just idiotic.

    You cling to what you consider the truth and your believe a lie has blinded you to the actual truth

    Are you familiar with the concept of projection? Look it up.

    …the actual truth that God created the heavens and the earth.

    Got some evidence for this “fact?” No? I didn’t think so. All you’ve got is the Bible. You’ve got to do better than that—circular logic doesn’t cut the mustard.

  20. Jeff: most ‘true’ scientists find no reason to believe this theory that seemingly changes daily.

    Which particular pastor scammed you into believing it changed daily?
    The same one who conned you into believing in the invisible Pterodactyl like swooping man theory?

    Please watch a 2 hour YouTube video by Ken Miller at:

     
    He explains the difference between science and theory – neither is what you think.
    He’s a Christian; he’s a PhD Professor of Biology; he understands evolution.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller

    Why am I wasting my time?

  21. Oh my.  Is Chuck Missler aware that he’s been scooped by a schoolgirl?

    Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life – carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) – into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes.

  22. It boggles the mind that these fundies feel so threatened by a theory that they feel has so many holes in it that it is quite useless, yet they seem so frantic in their attempts to disprove it.  Don’t they understand that if evolution were that fragile, it would indeed be useless to scientists as well.  We would not be able to use it to build our view of he world nor derive any practical benefit to society out of it.  To be useful, a theory has to have practical applications or be able to be part of something that has practical applications in some kind of process.  If evolution is bunk, then you would not be able to use any of the conclusions in the theory in any practical applications in the real world.  They wouldn’t work the way we need them to work and that would be the clearest and most profound evidence that they are false theories.  If you constructed a light bulb using the “theory” that there was a fairy with a tiny zippo inside providing the light, you would construct the lightbulb wrong and it would not function.  It wouldn’t not work because you couldn’t explain your theory of fairies well.  Perhaps you could explain it very well, using charts and graphs or a 20 minute power point presentation.  You’d still be wrong and the light bulb would not work.

    The concepts found in evolution on the other hand are used in practical applications in medicine and treatment of illnesses.  They have been used for quite some time in the breeding of horses and dogs and cats.  If our theories were wrong, then those treatments and those medicines would not work, and we wouldn’t have on the one hand dogs that look like small ponies and small dogs that look like they were hit in the face with a shovel.*  But we do have those animals, and those medical treatments and medicines DO work.  It is ridiculously improbable that we simply “got lucky” and it is some tremedous coincidence.  The only other explanation is that there is something to this wacky theory called evolution.

    *=We also wouldn’t have the platypus unless God smokes crack.

  23. It boggles the mind that these fundies feel so threatened by a theory that they feel has so many holes in it that it is quite useless, yet they seem so frantic in their attempts to disprove it.

    The same argument can be and is used against us (people frantically debunking creationism).

      We would not be able to use it to build our view of he world nor derive any practical benefit to society out of it.  To be useful, a theory has to have practical applications or be able to be part of something that has practical applications in some kind of process.  If evolution is bunk, then you would not be able to use any of the conclusions in the theory in any practical applications in the real world.

    ——————————————————————————————————————snip———————————————————————————————————————

    The concepts found in evolution on the other hand are used in practical applications in medicine and treatment of illnesses.  They have been used for quite some time in the breeding of horses and dogs and cats.  If our theories were wrong, then those treatments and those medicines would not work, and we wouldn’t have on the one hand dogs that look like small ponies and small dogs that look like they were hit in the face with a shovel.* But we do have those animals, and those medical treatments and medicines DO work.

    They simply do not accept that evolution has any practical applications or uses. Hard to argue against blind faith.

    There are none so blind as those who will not see

    ……somewhere in the bible (I think)

  24. The same argument can be and is used against us (people frantically debunking creationism).

    The operative word is “frantically.” It doesn’t take much to debunk creationist explanations of cosmology or speciation. On the other hand, attempting to debunk evolution entails colossal, unfounded leaps of faith that I can only suspect lead to frustration and cognitive dissonance among the more intelligent creationists.

    There are none so blind as those who will not see

    ……somewhere in the bible (I think)

    It’s also from “I Know You’re Out There Somewhere” by The Moody Blues.  smile

  25.  

    It boggles the mind that these fundies feel so threatened by a theory that they feel has so many holes in it that it is quite useless, yet they seem so frantic in their attempts to disprove it.

    The same argument can be and is used against us (people frantically debunking creationism).

    Science only threatens lies, and anyway I’m not trying to tell schools which science to teach and which to not teach.

    I can handle blind faith.  If they came at me saying “This is what I believe and I reject evolution” then I wouldn’t presume to debate them.  Unfortunately THEY decided that they could play by the rules of science to debunk something that science accepts.  I don’t try to support evolution by using their scriptures.  They try to get creationism taught AS science.  That is not only wrong, that’s dishonest and insulting.

  26. We also wouldn’t have the platypus unless God smokes crack.

    Yes Les- What the fuck were you thinking- you had some left over bits or something?

  27. Sword: That is not only wrong, that’s dishonest and insulting.

    But it’s by lying that Extreme Theists spread their disease.
    Insulting? They’re so used to dealing with the not very bright [no pun intended] they forget there are people who can detect bullshit quite easily.
    Even Ken Miller gives a coupla examples where Fundies lied during a trial he was a witnessed at.

  28. SS:

    The operative word is “frantically.” It doesn’t take much to debunk creationist explanations of cosmology or speciation. On the other hand, attempting to debunk evolution entails colossal, unfounded leaps of faith that I can only suspect lead to frustration and cognitive dissonance among the more intelligent creationists.

    swordsbane:

    Science only threatens lies, and anyway I’m not trying to tell schools which science to teach and which to not teach.

    You are both correct however that’s not the way that fundies see it. They actually honestly believe that the science supports them. It’s the scientists who they think are perverting science for their own ends. You have to realize how little they understand evolution. Remember they make statements like “Evolution contradicts the orbit of Venus” and “How do evolutionist explain [some phenomenon] about Jupiter”

    I wasn’t trying to defend Missler; I was trying to explain (kinda) how fundies think (kinda). They DO see scientists as satanists is lab-coats frantically running to-and-fro trying to disprove (we would say debunk) creationism so that the atheists can get back to unworriedly leading our sinful, godless, heathen and hedonic lifestyles. And they DO ask why we spend so much time arguing against religion/gods (it has happened on this blog more than once) and defending evolution if their theory has so many holes.

    And remember that they see any attack on any aspect of their faith as a personal attack.

    Again I’m not defending them; I’m just saying that your arguments, valid though they are, are pretty useless when used on them.

  29. They actually honestly believe that the science supports them. It’s the scientists who they think are perverting science for their own ends.

    Most are true believers, but I think most of the ‘regulars’ at the top have some kind of inkling that they’re wrong, if they don’t know full well.  The believers stick to the science trying to find an answer that supports their ‘theory’.  But the ones that changed Creationism into Intelligent design, the ones that avoid public scientific debate on the subject, the ones that concentrate on targeting parents with their propaganda so they put pressure on the school boards to bypass any significant debate on the subject, the ones who lie and say that “even scientists don’t really believe in evolution”  Those are the one’s who know exactly what they’re doing, like the TV evangelist who preaches simple faith in Jeezuss and how humble before God he is when he drives the most tasteless, gaudy Rolls Royce or Caddy and lives in a mansion.  Innocent faith doesn’t hide.  It might be blind, it might be unconvinced by the facts and stubbornly refuse to let go of it’s pre-convieved notions and prejudice, but it doesn’t avoid the confrontation and try to cheat to win.

    I like most Christians.  Many of my friends are Christians.  None of them believe in creationism or Intelligent Design and even they notice that something is ‘fishy’ at the top.  Did you ever notice that eventually, the true believers always refer to one of their leaders when you back them into a corner?  “Well, so and so already has the arguments that refute what you say.” and then they refer you to a web site or a book that has stuff in it that has already been found to be bogus.  When they stop refering you up the food chain and start saying things like “Scientists don’t believe” or “Darwin was an ID proponent” or engage in personal attacks instead of bringing up facts, they stop attacking the science and start attacking the scientists.  Those are the people I have no respect for.  If they have half the brains they claim to have, they already know that what they say is false even before they open their mouths, but what they’re saying isn’t aimed at convincing smart people to believe in ID.  It’s aimed at naive people so they will begin to distrust what science tells them, so they stop listening to silly things like facts and simply accept what they are told by ID proponents.  Trusting the source goes a long way.

  30. I look at your photos and read your words and it is very clear that it would be a waste of time to try to rationalize with you. But maybe you should research more the inconsistancies of the theory of evolution and just how many scientists have gone out in search of proving the theory of Creation wrong. Then find there is NO WAY evolution could possible to true.

  31. I look at your photos and read your words and it is very clear that it would be a waste of time to try to rationalize with you. But maybe you should research more the inconsistancies of the theory of evolution and just how many scientists have gone out in search of proving the theory of Creation wrong. Then find there is NO WAY evolution could possible to true.

    [DarthVader voice]  The stupid is strong with this one! [/DarthVader voice]

  32. I look at your photos and read your words and it is very clear that it would be a waste of time to try to rationalize with you. But maybe you should research more the inconsistencies of the theory of evolution and just how many scientists have gone out in search of proving the theory of Creation wrong. Then find there is NO WAY evolution could possible to true.

    Have a look at what you said and replace Creation with Evolution and Evolution with Creation. It’ll make a lot more RATIONAL sense.
    Hang on – I’ll do some magic for you:

    I look at your photos and read your words and it is very clear that it would be a waste of time to try to rationalize with you. But maybe you should research more the inconsistencies of the theory of CREATION and just how many scientists have gone out in search of proving the theory of EVOLUTION wrong. Then find there is NO WAY CREATION could possible to true.

    Voila!! Pretty clever aren’t I?
    See how it makes much more sense?

    Karen, have you been listening to those pesky pastors, priests and padres again.
    You know they only tell you lies to keep you enslaved so you’ll keep coming back so you’ll give them money.
    You know none of those bastards would work in an Iron lung.
    Haven’t you seen thru their scam yet?

    Click on this and have a listen to this bloke.
    He’s a Christian and a Professor of Biology WITH a PhD – that means he knows stuff – probably knows more stuff than your priest.

  33. Speaking of creationist “reasoning”- a Google ad on this page of SEB sent me to Creation or Evolution, where I was treated to a video with cheerful music and a voiceover saying: “If you think there’s any proof that this monkey is your relative…”  And the “monkey” in the clip?  A chimpanzee.

    If creationists can’t tell the difference between monkeys and apes, you can imagine how reliable they are on evolution.

  34. Karen, have you been listening to those pesky pastors, priests and padres again.
    You know they only tell you lies to keep you enslaved so you’ll keep coming back so you’ll give them money.
    You know none of those bastards would work in an Iron lung.
    Haven’t you seen thru their scam yet?

    From MC Hawking…..

    They need to read a book that ain’t so damn old old,
    let reason take hold,
    though truth to be told,
    they’re probably already too far gone,
    withdrawn, the conclusion foregone.
    But maybe there is still hope for the young,
    if they reject the dung being slung from the tongues,
    of the ignorant fools who call themselves preachers,
    and listen instead to their science teachers.

  35. Does that mean Karen won’t dazzle us with her brilliance?

    Interesting turn of phrase, though, to rationalize—as opposed to to reason. It made me chuckle…

  36. Karen don’t feel you have to rationalise or reason with us. Just give us something that is a) true and b) disproves evolution. Examples being Species with no DNA common to any other. Species showing regressive features,  species showing more DNA commonality than should be possible, credible explanation of why a species has a useless feature (eg a whale’s legs), credible explanation why a ‘designed feature’ is poorly designed compared to similar in another animal (eg the position of the prostrate), especially in relationship to a lesser feature (eg the Human eye).

  37. Hi Swordsbane and everybody else. Thanks for coming to this website that is entirely dedicated to “so frantically attempting to disprove” something that you don’t agree with. It’s sick how many double minded people there are on both sides of the fence. Keep “attacking the straw man” and good luck “bullying people intelectually”. That is one instance where you had better at least believe in luck. May you be satisfied with your obsession.
    Eric

  38. Daltonboy, It’s 9.24 am, I’m sober, I’m not too stupid, English is my first language, your post is relatively free of grammatical and spelling mistakes and there are 74 words I have no problems in reading and understanding individually, but WTF are you talking about boy?

  39. Daltonboy:  What ‘fence’ are you talking about?  The fence between rational and irrational?  I got no problem with people trying to ‘disprove’ evolution, and I got no problem with religous people saying “I don’t care, I don’t believe in evolution.”

    But what we got here is people playing in the sandbox and saying there aint no sand.  If you’re going to use science to help you disprove evolution, then the very first thing you have to have is SCIENCE.  You can call creationism anything you want, even the TRUTH and I won’t speak one word against you or try to “bully you intelectually” but you can’t call it science.  It just isn’t.  That isn’t arrogance or ‘bullying’  It’s a fact, over and above all the other things both sides are claiming.

  40. My obsession, Daltonboy, is keeping church and state separate so children can be educated in reality rather than religion, and public policy (which affects the world my kids live in after I’m gone) can be decided based on science, not superstition.

    But the fundamentalists “frantically” want to insert their old legends into education and public policy.  That’s what bugs me and why I bother writing about this stuff.  Can’t speak for the others, we all have our reasons. 

    Whatever you want to believe privately, hey, knock yourself out.

  41. Eric:

    Thanks for coming to this website that is entirely dedicated to “so frantically attempting to disprove” something that you don’t agree with

    Unless I’ve misread Les’ intentions for the past year-and-a-half, your characterization of this website is pretty off.

    It’s sick how many double minded people there are on both sides of the fence.

    To what are you referring?

    Keep “attacking the straw man” and good luck “bullying people intelectually”.

    Done and done.

    That is one instance where you had better at least believe in luck.

    I did believe in luck, until I discovered the concept of probability.

    May you be satisfied with your obsession.

    And may you find joy in your nonsensical musings.

  42. The silly thing is that it used to be enough for men of faith to say “God works in mysterious ways” when they were confronted by things that didn’t exactly meet the text of the bible.  The bible doesn’t even pretend to be the literal word of God or Jesus, but a faithful transcription of what happened by people who knew God and Jesus very well, and again translated down through the ages.  Even the first major meeting of religious minds after Christianity was made the state religion of Rome was about (among other things) what to keep and what to discard when creating the official bible, and I’ll believe in the existence of an almighty savior of mankind before I believe that no politics took place at that meeting or didn’t have a hand in what to do with the bible.

    Isn’t it entirely possible that we poor fallible humans got parts of the bible flat out wrong?  and Isn’t it possible that even if God exists, that evolution shows a more elegant supreme being than some magic man who just snaps his fingers and makes everything the way it is today?

    Why would true believers choose to have a God who has no creativity, who has no sense of the complexity of what he was creating, no sense of what takes place after his creation is created, and links their entire faith to the finger-snapping God instead of accepting what they see and what others see and simply saying “Oh, so that’s how he did it.” ?

    Which God would YOU rather believe in?

  43. I can’t believe I’m going to post this.

    Ditto…………..to………….what…………..L     J…………s….a….i…d…………..a…..b…..o…….v…….e.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.