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.

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

  1. Eric again;
    You are your own brand of “fundies” all; fully convinced that all of your beliefs are right on, vigorously proselitizing for converts, mocking those who believe differently than you, etc.
    Your right Swordsbane. God is a beautiful thing however this all happened. I observe that there exists loads of beauty in both arguments. Both sides are entirely too polarized.
    I accidentally stumbled upon this web site this morning and decided to make a simple posting. There hasn’t been a posting here since April 28th. I came back to see if my posting even made it on. The entire cast had jumped on my posting like a busted pinata. Two postings in one day for you self-described intellectuals to chop up? You may be close to getting a life. Ready, Set, Go ! Fundementalists, unite! Whatever your religion!
    P.S. If you happen to find any spelling or syntax errors, don’t use them to strengthen your beliefs!

  2. The entire cast

    Don’t kid yourself, fool.
    Most couldn’t be bothered responding because probably like me they were unable to guess at what you were on about.
    I noticed a coupla blokes were able to guess and commented accordingly but you shit on them anyway.

    I hope your job doesn’t entail being responsible for the safety of others; you sound as though you’re about ready to snap.

  3. Daltonboy: “There hasn’t been a posting here since April 28th. I came back to see if my posting even made it on. The entire cast had jumped on my posting like a busted pinata. Two postings in one day for you self-described intellectuals to chop up? You may be close to getting a life.

    We receive email notifications of new comments on discussion threads to which we are subscribed.  Threads sometimes come back to life that way when someone drops in and says something interesting, or in your case, exceptionally inane.  The way these technologically-enabled discussions wax and wane is sort of odd, I’ll grant you that.

    The charm wore off that old, “Duh, you guys are just as fundie, LOL, and I’m the first one ever to think of it” thing a long time ago.  You drop in on our discussion and you think we’re the evangelistic ones?

    Try reading some other posts, starting with the home page: this is a general-interest website.  Or just go on making broad generalizations about people you just met.  I bet you’re the life of any party.

  4. Eric again;
    You are your own brand of “fundies” all; fully convinced that all of your beliefs are right on, vigorously proselitizing for converts, mocking those who believe differently than you, etc.
    Your right Swordsbane. God is a beautiful thing however this all happened. I observe that there exists loads of beauty in both arguments. Both sides are entirely too polarized.

    Hmm, so if I’m enjoying a warm, sunny day and someone comes up to me and says “It’s probably midnight right now.”  And I check the sun, look at a thermometer and take off my shades for a moment, then reply “You’re wrong.  It’s daytime.”  I’m polorized because his argument left room for doubt and mine didn’t.

    Evolution makes more sense.  Intelligent design isn’t science.  Those are not a polorized arguments.  They are facts.  I have yet to hear anything that comes remotely close to being evidence to the contrary.  Truth is not fair and it does not care if your feelings get hurt or respect you opinion.  It’s there whether you believe it or not.

    And when you agree with me, agree with what I said, not what you want to think I meant.  I see beauty in the universe.  If you want to put Gods finger on the button of the Big Bang or even as the guy designing the button, then I won’t stop you, but don’t change the observable parts of the universe to control the argument.

    You see validity in both arguments?  Do tell, but both sides can’t be right in this.  If what we see in nature is real, then it paints a picture that makes Creationism wrong.  If the observable data is wrong, then God fabricated the evidence that tells us Evolution is a rational theory.  This isn’t one of those ‘everyone is right’ debates.  Science says one thing and the creationists say “You are entirely wrong.”  There’s no room for compromise in this.  One side is either completely right or completely wrong, and it was the creationists that made it that way.  They are basically saying “If it moves like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a polar bear”  If you make a statement like that, you have to have a better argument than “Well, the animal is white, and so are polar bears, so it must be a polar bear.”  Sorry, I’m not only going to say “That’s wrong.” but also probably “That’s stupid” and maybe suggest professional help.  If you say that makes me polorized, then so be it, but my reaction is perfectly justified, just as it is when someone tries to use peanut butter to disprove evolution.  If you want to debate me, debate me, but don’t jump on me for being stubborn when I ridicule idiocy like that.

  5. Consi said:

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

    I think Hell just froze over…

  6. I.D is not a hypothesis, unless you know a way we can test it.

    I’m just off to warn my parents their village is over run by polar bears.

  7. Daltonboy/Eric, if it makes you feel better, you go right on ahead convincing yourself that our knowledge of the veracity of evolution constitutes a religion and makes us “fundies.” Just stay far, far away from public schools.

  8. Eric again,
    The fossil record shows the abrupt appearance of fully functional organisms with stasis until present or extinction. If you find a fossil you can only prove that something died. You can’t empirically test evolution either. It has never been observed. Some adaptation has been observed, but that shows nothing of the origin of life or the widespread speciation we observe. It’s obvious that we see adaptation in bird’s beaks and the like, but that does not come close to explaining how we get complex systems that contain numerous components. If any one of the components were removed, it would have a deleterious effect on the organism. Just because Johnny can jump does not merit a postulation that he could fly to the moon. If evolution were entirely true, you would see the craziest blurring of speciation in the fossil record and in the present. If it is the breaking of the laws of science you are worried about, evolution disregards laws of thermodynamics.
    Evolutionists have been just as dishonest in their portrayal of their version of origins. The Homonid hoaxes, Eohippus displays that are still perpetrated on the public are a tiny sliver of some of the lies and deception. That may mean nothing to some of you because you have yet to understand that those scenarios and ideas have been sufficiently debunked by the scientific community along with embryology. Just remember that when you are up to here with the incredulity of many creationists. Some of your most revered evolutionists have outright lied about things to further their argument.
    Remember, this thread is not a total loss. The sidebar has useful Google Ads about peanut butter recipes, peanut butter lawsuits, and peanut butter salmonella. Sure Chuck’s illustration is goofy to say the least but at least it’s not a total loss. Ha! Lighten up, Francis!
    Jeez, I didn’t know some of you were so sensitive! I hope this reply doesn’t “shit” on anyone! Wow!
    Eric

  9. What makes me laugh is you atheist’s would take so much time on something you don’t believe. I wish you were all nileist, or born again, one of the two.
    Instead your just closed minded lurch’s waiting for someone who actualy believes in something larger than him/herself to say anything so you will have something to talk about all weekend.

    Only an educated person could say something so stupid, comes to mind. Also from Penn and Teller.

    Make fun of The creator all you want, just remember that I made sure to tell you there was one. His name is YHWH and his son Jesus Christ offers even you redemption. Take or leave it, but we will all be judged. On that day I will tell the father you should let me in because I a m washed in the blood of the lamb, your son has saved me.

  10. We should start an award for the first fundie who comes up with some original argument that we have never heard before.

  11. JoshBlade:  I wish you were all nileist, or born again, one of the two.

    As my dad would say, wish in one hand and crap in the other, and see which one adds up faster.

    Make fun of The creator all you want, just remember that I made sure to tell you there was one. His name is YHWH and his son Jesus Christ offers even you redemption. Take or leave it, but we will all be judged. On that day I will tell the father you should let me in because I a m washed in the blood of the lamb, your son has saved me.

    Next!

  12. Was your dad a mathematician it’s not “adds up” it’s fills up. Secondly the reason it’s not a new argument is because I don’t worship a new God.

    You will always be searching for your answers, personaly I think it’s sad. whether it’s the big bang evoloution or a combo.Perhaps you have not learned of the law of entrophy, evoloution is a lie. The word of God is truth the statistics proove it. The country began it’s decline when you people got the bible taken out of school. Sad part is your proud of that.

    So continue to be hateful continue to do only what suits yourself, and in the end you will be weighed and as you are now you will be then, found wanting.

  13. We should start an award for the first fundie who comes up with some original argument that we have never heard before.

    We may have a winner, JulianP:

    That may mean nothing to some of you because you have yet to understand that those scenarios and ideas have been sufficiently debunked by the scientific community along with embryology.

    The scientific community has debunked embryology?  That’s a new one to me LOL

  14. Was your dad a mathematician it’s not “adds up” it’s fills up.

    Nope, but he’s done remarkably well for himself, considering that he dropped out of high school at seventeen and later earned his G.E.D. At least his command of spelling and grammar is superior to yours.

    Perhaps you have not learned of the law of entrophy, evoloution is a lie.

    Next!

    The word of God is truth the statistics proove it.

    Oh? And what statistics would “proove” such a thing?

    The country began it’s decline when you people got the bible taken out of school. Sad part is your proud of that.

    Crimes rates have actually steadily decreased in this country in recent decades. Next!

    So continue to be hateful continue to do only what suits yourself,

    I’m not hateful at all. Stop projecting.

    and in the end you will be weighed and as you are now you will be then, found wanting.

    I’m sure you wish this to be the eventuality.

  15. Blades. Please provide evidence of your God. Before you answer, I already have the Bible and the ‘Look around you at wonderful Creation’ angles covered.

  16. and in the end you will be weighed and as you are now you will be then, found wanting.

    Weighed? Heaven has weight requirements?

    That’s just fucking weird, that is…..

  17. Josh: The word of God is truth the statistics prove it.

    And this is proved where?

  18. Weighed? Heaven has weight requirements?

    No, I think this actually does have a church basis. Something along the lines of your sould is weighed against something (Egyptions believed something similar- they weighed the heart against a feather). St P does the tech stuff, and it will show if your soul is weighed down by sin.

  19. law of entrophy

    Is that some requirement to stuff and mount everything you kill?

  20. Hussar- that feather stuff also comes up in the delightful Tom Robbins book Jitterbug Perfume.  Wren has the job of weighing souls against a feather.  When asked how she landed the job, she says her own soul wasn’t feather light, but feather bright.  We could use more feather-brightness around here.

    Eric and Blades- seriously, we’ve heard all this stuff before.  Please go check out the archives here: do a search on “evolution”.  You are just repeating the standard Answers in Genesis and ID lines.  If you want to engage people who have some knowledge of science, do some science reading of your own.  TalkOrigins is a good place to start.

  21. The fossil record shows the abrupt appearance of fully functional organisms with stasis until present or extinction. If you find a fossil you can only prove that something died. You can’t empirically test evolution either. It has never been observed. Some adaptation has been observed, but that shows nothing of the origin of life or the widespread speciation we observe. It’s obvious that we see adaptation in bird’s beaks and the like, but that does not come close to explaining how we get complex systems that contain numerous components. If any one of the components were removed, it would have a deleterious effect on the organism. Just because Johnny can jump does not merit a postulation that he could fly to the moon. If evolution were entirely true, you would see the craziest blurring of speciation in the fossil record and in the present. If it is the breaking of the laws of science you are worried about, evolution disregards laws of thermodynamics.
    Evolutionists have been just as dishonest in their portrayal of their version of origins. The Homonid hoaxes, Eohippus displays that are still perpetrated on the public are a tiny sliver of some of the lies and deception. That may mean nothing to some of you because you have yet to understand that those scenarios and ideas have been sufficiently debunked by the scientific community along with embryology. Just remember that when you are up to here with the incredulity of many creationists. Some of your most revered evolutionists have outright lied about things to further their argument.

    I see I should have been more specific.  Try debating using NEW arguments, not stuff that has already been debunked a long time ago.

    Hoaxes and mistakes are the fault of specific people, not science, and if we want to get into a contest for who has made the most tragic “mistakes” or had the most frauds associated with it, religion will lose.  Attacking the scientists is not going to help debunk the science.  If someone got it wrong, then you should be able to show that regardless of the content of their character.  Interestingly enough, it was other scientists who uncovered those hoaxes, not religious people.

    The fossil record is the record of organisms complex enough to have substantial skeletons or something for fossilization to take place.  Early life did not have those qualities, and fossilization is not a common occurence.  A lot of factors have to be right for a fossil to be formed, so the gaps we have in the record are huge, which is one of the reasons why evolution continues to be a THEORY, but it is so far the only theory that fits all the observable facts.  Creationism doesn’t.

    The law of thermodynamics does not apply to COMPLEXITY in living organisms.  It applies to energy in a system.  You can’t get more energy out of a process than is in it without adding more.  f you use electricity to heat something up, then manage to return that heat to electricity at 100% efficiency, then you will only have the electricity you started with, no more.  What you’re referring to is entropy, the tendancy of everything to break down.  But in biology that relates to an organism dying, and has nothing to do with speciation or evolutionary changes.  The only thing that would apply from the law of thermodynamics is that as a whole, the planet’s ecosystem can’t have more energy than the energy it already has…. oh except heat from the earth…. oh and heat from the sun is always added too.  Organisms can use that new energy in any way they are built to use it.  If evolution is true, then there is no theoritical limit to how complex life can become… at least until the sun goes out.

    The rest of your post is more “They’re all lying and you shouldn’t believe people just because they’re smart.”

    Please.  If that’s the best you got, go home.  Do some research.  Tell us something we HAVEN’T heard before.

    I suppose it would mess with your mind to say that ALL fossils are technically transitional fossils.  If you want to be technical, since evolution is still going on, all the traits you see in animals today might become something different at some later point.  We CALL them transitional when they seem to blur the lines we came up with that separate one trait from another, but a million years from now something we think is a trait in our own species might be considered transitional by scientists.  We’ve only been at this a short period of time.

  22. Swordsbane,

    Thanks for engageing in discussion. Someone else posted and derailed the others onto a name-calling and spelling critique trip. Probably because most who visit can’t come up with more argument than “evolution=fact ;I.D.=crap”. I’ve heard all of your arguments before as well. I can predict what an Evobot is going to say. Most are going to ape (no pun intended) what they have heard others say, not because they have examined the “evidence”.

    In my mind the theory of evolution has enormous insurmountable problems, too, and I observe that many evolutionists aren’t being honest about it. I know it’s hard for you to take, but that stems from a preconceived philosophical bias. I don’t say that’s why you believe it. I don’t say that’s why all evolutionists believe it.  I observe that a great many people that believe that evolution explains everything haven’t studied origins to any valid extent either, which isn’t to say that I haven’t just because I don’t reached the same conclusions that you have. You don’t bad-mouth them. There are a vast number of people that believe evolution primarily because it takes God out of the equation.

    I never said anywhere that “they are all lying and you should’nt believe people who are smart”.  And yes, if you insist in grading on a curve (it does take a lot of pressure off of evolutionists being accountable !) religion takes the cake in doing stupid things. Should I therefore accuse you of saying that all religious people are liars? There are many who want to engage in honest, heartfelt discussion. The only reason I brought up dishonesty of prominent evolutionists is because of the blanket attack of the integrity of religious people you see posted here frequently (to say the least) and that someone posted and pretended to care a great deal about what’s going on in public schools. Oh, and by the way, many of the lies and hoaxes are still in text books and publicly funded museums to this very day! Oh, and by the way, who cares! Religion has lied alot more! Oh, and by the way, I generally don’t say “Oh, and by the way” often.

    You are right that both ideas cannot be right. Only time will tell which one is. As we well know, new ideas have a habit of shattering the status quo. And I am the one that is in the enviable position as far as that’s concerned. You seem smart, and you and others are fond of saying you’re smart. Tell me you are smart enough to have fire insurance on your house at least.

    You would be fun to talk to about his. We could enjoy a warm, sunny day, discussing origins and the meaning of life (probably whether or not it actually has meaning!). I’ll bring smelling salts. You may faint when I don’t tell you, “It’s probably midnight right now!”.

    Keep wearing your shades!

    Eric

  23. Okay, eric:

    In my mind the theory of evolution has enormous insurmountable problems, too, and I observe that many evolutionists aren’t being honest about it.

    Your evidence for dishonesty on the part of many evolutionists is?

    There are a vast number of people that believe evolution primarily because it takes God out of the equation.

    And your evidence for this vast number of people would be?  I don’t know the numbers, but my impression is that more people reluctantly give up God because evolution shows the Bible to be inaccurate.

    Oh, and by the way, many of the lies and hoaxes are still in text books and publicly funded museums to this very day!

    Evidence, please.

    And in case you’re wondering, although I am not a scientist, I did take enough upper-division courses for a minor in paleontology, and I’ve kept up as much as possible with recent developments in the field.  So my conviction that the evolutionary picture of the world is far more accurate and plausible than the Biblical picture is based not only on websites, but also on hundreds of hours in the lab and in the field.  Where does your knowledge of evolution come from, pray tell?

  24. Hi Zilch,

    1. You just restated many of the things I said from your own flipside P.O.V. What you said is a given in the context of the argument.

    2. See my other postings for hoaxes; for starters, you can find the Eohippus display almost everywhere. The Homonid display, complete with fakes, can be found in many books and museums. I’ll bet there is one in your locale.

    3.No I’m not wondering;

    4.I’ve studied passionately for years but have no degree.

    5. Are you trying to recuscitate a fossil in that picture?

    Eric

  25. I’ve studied passionately for years

    Studied what, Daltonboy?  Propaganda from AIG or DI, etc., are not biology sources.  Given that your missives spout that content nearly verbatim, I’m guessing that’s where you’re getting your information.

  26. decrepitoldfool,

    I’m not afraid of any sources; I study both “sides” if you will. A fossil is a fossil is a fossil. You forget that belief in God is O.K. with any and either scenario from a “where did this all come from” point of view. And from a Biblical point of view both origins theories will square with literal 6-day, gap theory, or day-age rendering of scripture. Your point of view is the one that mutually excludes one of the two main ideas on origins, not mine. My faith can be in any theory if it’s in God. Your brand of faith will permit only one. You have everything to lose, I have nothing.

    Now…go back to spewing your own brand of verbatim garbage. decrepitoldfool, you sound like any other Evobot I’ve ever contended with. Go tell Swordsbane it’s probably midnight.

    Eric

  27. Daltonboy, you have made it clear that you are not open to debate. Any evidence corroborating the claims of genuine scientists (in other words, evolutionists) gets dismissed with a wave of the hand by you. Why? It seems that you simply don’t want to believe in the veracity of such claims. There’s no use arguing with someone like you. Have a nice day.

  28. Now, now I can come up with better arguments for evolution. I just get so tired of making the same points over and and over. How does ID explaine the evolution process that we see happening around us? Every day germs evolve into drug resistant strains,
    we can breed cats and dogs to have certain traits. I get tired of hearing that I am unwilling to understand the real facts with out being shown any facts.

  29. Daltonboy has spouted all the major canards and fallacies, including now one of the common variations of Pascal’s wager.  Since he’s read all sides of the issue and is an accomplished scholar of scientific literature on evolution, there’s no point arguing with him.  Our puny intellects are clearly no match for his. 

    Congratulations, DB – you’ve gone from newcomer to “ignored” in record time. You’re exceptionally boring and I’m done with you.

  30. Since he’s read all sides of the issue and is an accomplished scholar of scientific literature on evolution, there’s no point arguing with him.

    I’ve developed a sneaking suspicion that those who feel the need to repeatedly or forcefully allude to their having “studied up” on the issues or “looked carefully at both sides” have in fact done no such thing.

  31. Hi all,

    If you want to bow out early, go ahead.  decrepitoldfool, I can see why your done; you got nothin’!

    Timmeh, that is not evolution and I agree that those things happen every day. It does nothing for your argument. It doesn’t explain everything; in fact in the big scheme it doesn’t explain much. It’s a huge extrapolation. It is a leap of faith. I hope you meant you have better arguments than the ones you just gave. Look up “evolution” in Webster’s and read definition #5, then tell me your still all about dogs, cats and germs.

    The only one so far that has said anything that makes any sense is Swordsbane. You guys should not cripple his brilliance with your vaccuous comments. He is like Lebron James; he carries the whole team.

    You guys always end everything with personal attacks. I do happen to agree with most evolutionists on alot of things. Most of you fear giving in a bit because you think you’ll have to swallow the whole elephant (Jeez, did I leave myself open to Sadie Jane making a pithy quip about elephants?!).

    God Bless You All,

    Eric

  32. I’m sorry, but I’m too busy laughing at Daltonboy to bother trying to engage him. We’ve been over all his arguments before. They were wrong then and they continue to be wrong now.

  33. daltonbutt: 4.I’ve studied passionately for years but have no degree.

    There’s an old saying, 1 year of experience, ten times, does not equal ten years of experience.

    Call us when you graduate from 4th grade….

  34. As “The only one so far that has said anything that makes any sense” I think you might want to actually refute my arguments.  You said you’d heard all these arguments before, so you should already have something prepared.  Let’s hear your practiced refutation of my refutation.  In the high-class parlance of the street “Bring it, bitch.”

  35. Eric: all religious people are liars?

    Maybe not all of them knowingly but, are you a liar only if you know you are or can you also be a liar if you peddle lies unknowingly?

    In my mind the theory of evolution has enormous insurmountable problems

    And you have PhDs in which relevant disciplines?

    As we well know, new ideas have a habit of shattering the status quo.

    Yeah – you see status quos (or is that stati quo?) being shattered every single day … and only on Fox News, where facts are fickle and facts are few but we’re doing our best to scam you too.

    Zilch: Where does your knowledge of evolution come from, pray tell?

    Probably some old version of The Goat Herders’ Guide to the Galaxy or from his Petulant Priest or the other Parasite Pastor who studied Creationism at Liberty University.

    Eric: you sound like any other Evobot I’ve ever contended with

    Irony just writes itself, don’t it?

    Daltonboy, I know you’ve intimated you’ve looked at all the evidence but have you seen Ken Miller’s video on YouTube?
    It’s rather long at 1:57:10 but it’s very informative; it’s obvious you’re smart enough to understand what he talks about and you’ve convinced me you have a genuine desire to study both sides.
    I’m sure you know that Ken Miller is a Professor of Biology and has a PhD. He is also a Christian and is able to reconcile Evolution with his Faith – just like you?
    If you haven’t seen him he’s quite entertaining.

  36. So a germ evolving to be drug resistant, in order to survive in a host that contained once toxic chemicals, isn’t evolution? You won’t look at the man induced evolution of cats and dogs, so I’ll go a differnt road. Take a look at man himself and how our sepicies has turned out. The “whites” tend to be from places like Scandinavia and England. Places that have cloudy cooler weather. “Blacks” from places like northern Africa, LOTS of sun so the skin needs to protect it’s self. Native americans brown-red skin, from America, sunny hot summer months and colder dark winters. The list goes on for every “race” out there. So the question is, did man evolve to what he is now, or does the tower of bable explain it?

  37. And another train wreck I observed from the sidelines wink

    For all his grandstanding, Eric/whatshisname hasn’t made much more of a case than “neener-neener-neener”. It is obvious that he’s not interested in an honest debate. His basic assertion that creationist views are an equally valid explanation for the descent of species as the scientific theory of evolution is risible and a claim that has to be shown rather than presumed.

    The one point worth addressing briefly is the issue of dishonesty (the irony is killing me). It’s a stunning claim and my hopes of him pointing out examples in the research literature were dashed. It doesn’t detract from the science if populist publications and museums lag behind modern views.

    Back to lurking mode…

  38. One last try.  Eric say:

    1. You just restated many of the things I said from your own flipside P.O.V. What you said is a given in the context of the argument.

    Say what?  I asked you for evidence for specific claims you made, viz:

    In my mind the theory of evolution has enormous insurmountable problems, too, and I observe that many evolutionists aren’t being honest about it.

    and:

    There are a vast number of people that believe evolution primarily because it takes God out of the equation.

    Do you have evidence for these assertions or not?

    2. See my other postings for hoaxes; for starters, you can find the Eohippus display almost everywhere. The Homonid display, complete with fakes, can be found in many books and museums. I’ll bet there is one in your locale.

    I haven’t been in the Naturhistorisches Museum here in Vienna for a long time, and I don’t remember whether or not there are displays of homonid and horse evolution.  Here and here are two Austrian websites with some information about the evolution of horses, which probably more or less reflect the official Austrian position vis à vis horse evolution (in German- sorry).  No hoaxes as far as I can tell.  I suspect your beef with horse evolution is the standard fundie objection that there is not a linear geneology from Eohippus through Merychippus to Pliohippus to Equus.  I’ve got news for you: paleontologists have known this for a long time.  Elwed might be correct that there are still populist publications kicking around that present an oversimplified picture, but they must be few and far between- I haven’t been able to find any.  Or do you have a counterexample for us?  Of course, I mean something published in the last forty years or so.

    Same goes for the homonids- show us the hoaxes.  And puleeze don’t resuscitate poor old Piltdown Man- he’s been out of the running for more than fifty years.

    3.No I’m not wondering;

    Gotcha.

    4.I’ve studied passionately for years but have no degree.

    Nothing wrong with that- degree holders have no monopoly on the truth- but if you call us “evobots” for explaining science, you can expect to be asked how it is that you know better than we do.

    5. Are you trying to recuscitate a fossil in that picture?

    No, I’m communing musically with Neptune on bull kelp.

  39. DaltonBoy.
    Evidence against Argument ‘A’ is not necessarily evidence in support of Argument ‘B’, as there may be Argument ‘C’.

    e.g. A: 2+2=5
    B: I say 2+2=3
    A: I have 2 stones, and to these I add 2 more stones. We can both see that there are more than 3 stones. Ergo I must be right.

    What is your evidence that Creationism is correct?  Also I thought that the current ‘official creationist’ dogma was 1 day is 1 day, and you can add up all the numbers in the bible and get 4004BC.

    Will someone please explain the kangaroos- I do keep asking.

  40. Hi all,

    Thanks for jumping in, all.

    KPatrickGlover; daltonbutt ? Are you kidding ?

    Swordsbane; I can hear Lebron say, “bring it, bitch!”.

    Luckyjohn19; You’re wrong about where my knowledge of evolution came from. It came from Charles Darwin, Stephen J. Gould, etc. I agree with alot of things that they observe. It would be my pleasure to look at that video on Youtube, long or not. Thanks for the info and thanks (seriously) for the spelling correction. I have no fear of the truth unless someone tells me a that piece of clothing makes me look fat.

    Timmeh; I hear what your saying but still have trouble with that extrapolation.

    elwedriddsche; You mean error doesn’t detract from science if that error doesn’t disagree with your views.

    Zilch; Don’t call me a “fundie” and I won’t call you an “evobot”. Thanks for being good-natured about the “resuscitating a fossil” thing. Good luck with that Neptune calling. And thanks for being the only person to grant that degree holders don’t corner the market.

    Last_Hussar; kooky bait and switch. Good luck with that. Yes, the 1 day thing is official Creationist dogma. That doesn’t mean every Creationist believes it. The original Hebrew allows for a much (!) wider interpretation.

    Finally, if being a hard-core evolutionist means being a consummate, punitive name-caller, count me out.

    Eric

  41. Last_Hussar; kooky bait and switch.

    I’m sorry. You come on here, tell us we are all a bunch of pillocks, then avoid answering questions. So what was the bait and switch? Asking for your alternative to the masses of evidence?

    We are refering to science that no ID’er has been able to refute to a reasonable standard.  The difference is while the details of evolution may have unknownsa or disputes, the broad picture is solidly agreed. Very little has changed with the general thrust of the big picture over the last 150 years. You admit your self that religeon doesn’t actually have a unified position.

    Yes, the 1 day thing is official Creationist dogma. That doesn’t mean every Creationist believes it.

    See, evolutionist don’t disagree on evolution.  My point was even if you came up with killer evidence (and not the -what is frankly- rubbish rehashes you have already used) about evolution, you have not advanced anything to support your alternative.

    Finally, if being a hard-core evolutionist means being a consummate, punitive name-caller, count me out.

    It’s nothing to do with being an evolutionist. It’s about trying to debate with someone who ignores what doesn’t fit with his own ideology.

    Kangaroos?

  42. LH, we all have yet to see a creationist touch upon your kangaroo query. The only possible conclusion is that the cute little buggers don’t actually exist—they’ve been planted by Satan as a means of testing the faithful.  wink

  43. cute little buggers

    Perhaps LJ can disabuse you of the notion that they are either cute or little. Giant violent rats would be a better description.  I got chatting to an Aussie ex policeman once. He was posted in an outback town, where they used to shoot on sight any entering the town, before they seriously assaulted someone. Satanic indeed!

    Still the Kangaroo question remains.

  44. Now that we’ve finally gotten to the kangaroo portion of this program- when I first came to Vienna you could buy t-shirts with a crossed-out kangaroo that said: “no kangaroos in Austria”.  This was a feeble joke about the fact that people, especially Americans, sometimes confuse Austria with Australia.  In fact, my daughter Rosi attended a semester of highschool in SF last year, and had to explain over and over again that Austria was not Australia.  As a result, she picked up the nickname “kangaroo”.  Not only that, but at least twice I’ve gotten mail in Vienna from America, after a month or two, via Sydney.

    In any case, twenty years ago there really were no kangaroos in Austria.  Now, even though the public zoo in Schönbrunn still doesn’t have any, there are private parks that have them, and one even caused some excitement by escaping last year.

    So maybe the answer to the Noah’s Ark Kangaroo Question is, that kangaroos came to Australia from Austria in the last twenty years, on Qantas, and what you Aussies had before that were just overgrown jackrabbits.  That’s as logical as the Biblical version…

  45. Good story, Zilch.

    The name “Australia” is derived from the Latin Australis, meaning “of the South”. Legends of an “unknown land of the south” (terra australis incognita) dating back to Roman times were commonplace in mediæval geography, but were based on no actual knowledge of the continent.

    And Austria, etymologically, is completely unrelated.

    Zilch; I’m not an expert on marsupials but I reckon that little thing on the road, near the snow, is a well-fed Wallaby.
    “In general, a wallaby is smaller and has a stockier build than a kangaroo”

  46. Swordsbane; I can hear Lebron say, “bring it, bitch!”.

    I’m sorry.  I’m afraid I didn’t make myself clear.  When I asked for you to explain your evidence and refute my arguments, what I was really asking you to do was…. well… explain your evidence and refute my arguments.

    I can help you if you don’t know what the word ‘evidence’ means.  I know some creationists have trouble with terms like that.  You don’t seem to want to fully associate yourself with creationism, so I just assumed you knew what it meant.

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.