1. To bad creationists don't know how to google, otherwise they may learn about fish that breathe air such as the lungfish, mudskippers and walking catfish. As for peanut butter ... all they prove when the open a jar of peanut butter and find no new life is that pasteurization works! But you gotta love'em as they desperatetly look for a reason to stay in the first century and ignore all the science since.

Jim at 9:55AM on Feb 11th 2008

2. My favorite argument so far against evolution came from a someone who virtually screamed at me that there was no way we could possibly come from tadpoles. I asked if they'd ever seen sperm under a magnifying glass.

We can see the "miraculous" evolving from conception to birth in 9 months, and what each of us changes into over the course of a lifetime. Whether or not you believe in the divine is irrelevant to the argument on evolution. But if you're still going to believe in the stork baby delivery business, then there really is no argument to be made until you grow up.

Sean on LI at 10:40AM on Feb 11th 2008

3. im not an atheist.
im an ordained minister who teaches cultural religious history.
i also find evolution to be the most beautiful and poetic realization of the creator's brilliance.
far more interesting and engaging than the book of genesis.
what most christians dont know,is that the book of genesis was greatly influenced by earlier zoastrian creation philosophy,and is actually a metaphorical representation of the ten sepiroth from the "tree of life".which today we know as part of the kabballah text.

to take biblical writings on such a literal basis is silly.when the evidence of creations grandeur is much more profound and regal.when you take the book of genesis and apply it to the ten sepiroth and their inherent meanings,genesis makes much more sense.
to take the book of genesis literally,closes your mind to a much more vast,and rich universe.genesis is limited,while evolution is not.all you have to do is go outside and look around.nature is forever in a state of change,while the book of genesis is static.which one do you think is a clearer representation of the creator?

lets take science for instance.
before the christian church's reformation,science was considered heresy.things either came from god,or were manifested by the devil..period,end of discussion.this type of absolutist mindset gave birth to things like "the inquisition".thats a dark piece of history for the christian church.but after the reformation,the dark ages ended and science was allowed to flourish unimpeded.say hello to sir isaac newton.

science is the study of the physical universe by observation,experimentation and acceptance by consencus.now if science is the study of the physical universe,and the creator CREATED the physical universe.would that not mean that science is actually the study of god?
evolution is a miracle to behold.biology professor ken miller,who is a devout roman catholic,made an argument for evolution that is absolutely brilliant.
by using bacteria,he proved with little room for doubt,that evolution is happening all the time.
you will never see this man's argument on dinesh d'souza's blog.nor on any creationists website.
for good reason..
they would be found wrong,on every point.
check him out.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/
till next time..peace.
Enoch D.D.S

enoch at 10:42AM on Feb 11th 2008

4. The problem is Jim, that they are either unable to comprehend the information, or they prefer to be uninformed, so they can continue to believe their happy fairy tale of a better life in the here after. (I guess life here on earth, living as complete morons, is not fulfilling enough for them.)
By the way, if the people in the videos are representative of the inhabitants of heaven, I'd rather burn in hell than listen to their blatherings for all of eternity.

dani at 10:47AM on Feb 11th 2008

5. I cannot believe that there are people out there that are so stupid. I hate to say the word stupid, but when it fits, you need to wear it.

This is why the majority of the thinking people out there - and I have to believe they are the majority or I will slowly go mad - shake their heads in wonder.
How can you fight this?
If intelligence was designed - there would be no religion.

Help me baby Jesus!!!

Help me Tom Cruise!!!

TJ at 10:49AM on Feb 11th 2008

6. Geez, Ada, thanks for posting that stomach-turning, pro-stupidity video!
The conviction with which he is talking about the peanut butter "speculation" is laughable, though I felt more like crying, suspecting that kids are being taught these falsehoods. He makes it sound like a hundred years are an eternity, when it took an estimated 9 billion years for life to evolve in an atmospheric composition completely incomparable to ours today.

Wonder how he'd respond to, say, Flavobacterium K172. My guess is he's never heard of it. And to call evolution a "fairy tale." The nerve...

Where is my checkbook...I need to go make that donation and my daughter and I will have another nice evolution chat over tea this afternoon...just to be quadruple sure she knows what's up!

Enoch, very thoughtful comment...as always.

emma at 10:57AM on Feb 11th 2008

7. Well, his argument is valid because ancient earth was indeed made of peanut butter.

a born atheist at 11:15AM on Feb 11th 2008

8. That is hilarious. Are we certain this isn't a spoof?

I just have a hard time thinking that these people really believe this...people like Huckabee. But alas, I know they do...makes me want to seek dual citizenship in another country. Just in case they "win."

And they could - U.S. citizens are more interested in American Idol than science, facts, reality, and voting for Prez.

brandon at 11:17AM on Feb 11th 2008

9. I was never more convinced that there was a God than when I took Human Physiology in College. It's wonderful to read comments like Enoch's and know that there are believer's with brains. Thank you!

Heidi at 11:20AM on Feb 11th 2008

10. A very smart Methodist minister pointed out in my confirmation class that Genesis has two creation stories. Chapter 2 is what creationists point to, while Chapter 1 lines up very nicely with Darwin's theory as to the order in which various species appear, with man being last.

Another Methodist minister pointed out that the two stories in Genesis, as well as numerous other conflicts in the Bible, show why the Bible can't be taken literally.

Then, there is the scientific discovery that Neaderthal man and Homo Sapien overlapped. Scientists that are Christian evolutionists have theorized that God may have been unsure if Neaderthal was his long-term solution for the smartest species, so He created Homo Sapien and watched the two. He decided that Neaderthal wasn't the best choice and allowed the species to die out.

Finally, I heard a lecture from the late Prof. Victor Weisskopf, the former chair of the Physics Dept. at MIT and a member of the Manhatten Project team. He explained the Big Bang theory, then posed the question as to the origin of the Bang. His answer was God, because any other theory has flaws, while God, while incapable of being proven, has no flaws that can be readily shown.

Kent at 11:32AM on Feb 11th 2008

11. The first time I watched some of the videos, I felt sad that there were really people that could believe such tripe. Then I went back and rewatched all of the videos, and now, I'm kinda pissed off that they are blatantly misleading people, especially kids.

William is going to flip!!!

dani at 11:35AM on Feb 11th 2008

12. So I looked into these insane videos a bit more and came across one in which an argument for god was based on the make-up of a banana.
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/08/banana-and-peanut-butter-arguments-on.html
(1st one is the banana video!)

Here is my question...
If the banana was shaped the way it was to allow easy entry into our mouths, was the penis shaped that way for the same reason? Or are we maybe supposed to stick the banana somewhere else?
Why was the zucchini and the cucumber also shaped that way, though we are not supposed to eat them like a banana? And why does it take forever to peel an orange, if they could also be shaped like a banana with a "perforated" peel (they REALLY say that!!!)? As a matter of fact, why is every fruit not equipped with the perfect "non-slip" (they really say that, too), perforated, easy open, peel, so we can stop bothering with knifes and messes altogether? Do my ridiculous questions adequately reflect the absurdity of the banana argument?

emma at 12:11PM on Feb 11th 2008

13. These gawd tube videos may help explain why Mike Huckster won Tennessee, Kansas, W. Virginia and Georgia.

JefFlyingV at 12:52PM on Feb 11th 2008

14. His answer was God, because any other theory has flaws, while God, while incapable of being proven, has no flaws that can be readily shown.

Kent at 11:32AM on Feb 11th 2008

xxx

god o' the gaps. That excuse has been around forever. Even Newton use the god of the gaps to explain orbital perturbations until laplace's time.

It's a logical fallacy that has been prevalent throughout history but that's all it is. The fellow being quoted probably never heard of inflation or m-theory. How old is that quote anyway?

I should mention that since PCR, progress in evolutionary science is now in the area of cladistics.

No creationist is going to hold sway over this with abstractions and metaphors. If there is to be any argument against evolution now, it must somehow counter cladistic evidence of complete genomes and I'd say there's zero chance of a creationist being able to do that.

It would ultimately require that they demonstrate a fatal flaw in chemistry, physics and ultimately mathematics and number theory.

It's pretty hard to argue that a chemical bond in a specific reaction under specified conditions doesn't take place when you can demonstrate over and over and over again that it does and never be able to demonstrate a single incidence of when it doesn't. It's also prettty hard to argue that a chemical isn't there when you can prove it is.

Creationism can't really go there because it deals only in confusing illiterate people.

You have science or magic, and I guess you can take your pick, but science produces and magic doesn't.

Anyone who is trying to argue against evolution is after somebody's money. Don't be a chump. It's their burden of proof to counter cladistic evidence, and they can't.

Clif Kuplen at 1:23PM on Feb 11th 2008

15. ATHEIST

Actually, God is a POOR answer. The age of the universe is 13.7 billion years. Our home, the earth, has only been around for 4.6 billion. If the universe was created BECAUSE God wanted a personal relationship with us, WHY did God wait for NINE BILLION YEARS to make our planet?

Here's an interesting example of Natural Selection:

http://www.dynamism.com/

If a random mutation has some Survival Value, it is passed on to the next generation... but only when you have the luxury of several hundred or thousand generations for it to spread through a large population.

Mutations such as race (skin color) spread through a small group in a few hundred generations... but not into the overall population.

Over and over, the concept of a "God" has been proven to be the Wrong Answer. and Christian ministers LIE about this, and try to fool us.

Reply to: Finally, I heard a lecture from the late Prof. Victor Weisskopf, the former chair of the Physics Dept. at MIT and a member of the Manhatten Project team. He explained the Big Bang theory, then posed the question as to the origin of the Bang. His answer was God, because any other theory has flaws, while God, while incapable of being proven, has no flaws that can be readily shown

Anyone can SAY that. If it's not their field of knowledge, they might even believe it.

But, like the AGE of the earth, there's a Correct Answer and dozens of wrong answers out there. You've got to find the Correct Answer and ignore the people who post the Wrong Answers.

William Hays at 1:55PM on Feb 11th 2008