Yet more fodder for my own theory that we're not in a war of left vs. right or good vs. evil in this country, but smart vs. dumb.

I agree - its not even religion v atheism, just 'smart vs. dumb'!

I love the authenticity he states his beliefs. I believe I could talk him into believing a 286 is a supercomputer.

I believe this is from Missler's "Genesis and The Big Bang", I can't believe someone actually wrote a nit-pick guide to these movies. I must say I admire the man's efforts.

not fair! that's clearly a jar of smooth peanut butter. all serious scientists know that abiogenesis happens mostly in chunky peanut butter.

the primordial soup was chunky.

this works in atheisms favour.
people should make similar vids and then at the end say "if you believe what we just said - you'd believe anything!" and then show some unquestionable truths and then ask what you really think now you've seen the facts. perhaps it'd make some people question more.

I get ever more mad at morons like these. These people can't even start to comprehend the way the universe ACTUALLY works.

Well there you have it. God Delusion my ass. Eat that, Richard Dawkins.

oooh, oooh, EMPIRE is about to tell everyone HOW the universe actually works. Start a campfire and gather round.

Not that I support this theory mind you, but I also don't appreciate pompous generalized statements that do not in any way make a point.

Hey! You got your chocolate in my primordial ooze!

You got your primordial ooze on my chocolate!

It's like he expects to see some fully evolved new rodent species popping out of there or something!

Brain - exploding! Stupidity - too much to - handle! AAAAAAAAHHHAHAAAGGHH!!!

The video is only 2 minutes long but it's SO stupid I had to stop watching the video twice, turn around and bang my head against the wall then start the video again!!! ;-)

Was I the only person on the edge of my seat as he was opening that jar of peanut butter? "Ooooo, what will he find? Awww, crap. Just plain, dumb peanut butter..."

comon cut him some slack if u belive the earth is only 6,000 years old then this is entiraly plusable. i think this is why alot people fall down on things like this becuse thay dont actualy reolise the time scales involved. and how smaller amount of time complex life has exsisted and how mutch time it took for simplistick life to get to this stage. evan how long it took complex life to get to human inteligance.

I like the analigy of if you were to stick your arm out and that reprasented the age of the earth (ore it could evan be just from dinaourse to mordern human life. ) then if u were to do one stroke of a nail file on your fatherst reaching nail you would have just wiped out the whole of human exsistance from the erleast man to now

allso i agree "Yet more fodder for my own theory that we're not in a war of left vs. right or good vs. evil in this country, but smart vs. dumb"

the iratoinal belife in something with no evidence would be Dum thus making the componant of annyone who is willing to belive in god ore somethign bassed of a text that is not proven and has no evidence for its exsistance Stupid.

OK... a) I thought, from the freeze frame, that it was going to be a Mel Brooks short

and b) FGKJHDFKG SDRIUWEMCASDMCASLK DALIEELRSHDGSDKFJLC MASLFJDSKA HSDARJEJFDOF : What preceded made as much sense as that video. DEAR GOD these people are stupid, AND to top it off they create this SH*T that actually CONVINCES other people!

It's stunning.

Stupidity is stunning.

Video aside, in a multiverse including string theory and quantum mechanics it seems rather pretentious to declare with 100% certainty, "There is no God."

Man-made global warming is an unproven theory and consensus of a fraction of climatologists, yet there are people who believe it to the point they can't wait to give away more of their money and freedom.

Atheists are no more reasonable or sane than anyone else.

Gah, downvote for the annoyance factor of that woman's voice.

I could smack that guy too. What. A. Jackass.

notice that the peanut butter jar that he shows us has been ALREADY opened when he shows it to us for the first time...
so he has already checked that there was no life inside before showing it to the camera.
what a scam!! i really want to believe him, but i'm not THAT stupid.

ant, QM - it's considered polite to explain downvotes.
(which makes ant the most inconsiderate Sifter ever).

Don't you want to defend the Jif theory?

I rather like the syllogism that the whole (processed) "food industry" is proof that God is our Creator and that evolutionary theory is bollocks. You just know that these people are on local school boards.

So stick that in your selfish gene and smoke it, Dawkins.

Quantumushroom: "Atheists are no more reasonable or sane than anyone else."

That is patently false. It is absolutely more reasonable to believe that in the absence of even a shred of evidence in support of the existence of god that he does not, in fact, exist rather than believe in an invisible man who lives in the sky who grants wishes.

Can I prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no god? No. But it's a far more reasonable conclusion.

There isn't conclusive evidence on either side, that's why we have this huge debate about it. The most reasonable opinion one can hold is to say: I don't know....

I disagree, like we all heard of UFOs there is inconclusive proof also if you look at both sides, that's the same there... yet it's perfectly reasonable to assume UFOs and aliens don't come to probe our cows.

One cannot prove that God exists.
One cannot prove that God does not exist.

These two things may be true, but the only thing that matters is: we all believe is something. We all have faith in something, be it God or Science. Those who believe in God can, to a degree, feel superior to those who do not by using the reasoning that they "really know what everything's about" while the non-believers are (in their eyes) clearly ignorant of the truth. The same holds true for non-believers who have faith in Science - clearly, the hayseeds believe who believe in an invisible man granting them wishes are ignorant...

Yes, in that last sentence I used the phrase faith in Science. Faith in Science? I know what you're thinking...that makes no sense, and this guy must be a bit daft. Well, I may be, but hear me out. The fact is that, just as the majority of Christians do not, in reality, know very much about their religion, the Bible that is behind it, or even fundamental world history, most atheists are not scientists themselves, nor do the majority of them know very much about any number of scientific disciplines.

Instead, just as the Christian goes to church and learns of the religion from their priest/pastor/preacher, the atheists watches the science channel (as a simple example) to learn about what they believe in. It is tempting to say that people do not "believe" or have "faith" in Science, because one can test the theories and demonstrate results. This would seem to negate the very concept of faith (and it does)...however, this type of logic can only apply in the broadest and most general way. In other words, it would be rather silly to say that one "believes" or has "faith" in gravity, when all one need do is drop a ball to the ground to witness proof of its existence. However, when asked to explain how and why the force of gravity works, its relation to the other forces in the universe, why it is the weakest, etc...you will find that most people quickly show how little they actually know on the subject. This is where the belief and faith come into play. All one need do to understand this is to simply replace the preacher explaining the Bible with a scientist explaining the universe.

In other words, we all believe in something. Science is an ever-changing, ever-growing group of concepts in which to believe. Religion, on the other hand, tends to be more static. Science does not demand faith, and anything that a scientist can do to test a hypothesis, another scientist can repeat...as can Joe Public, should he cultivate enough understanding and provided he has the necessary equipment. Religion is something far more variable and far more personal. What one person perceives as God is not quite what the person sitting next to him or her in church perceives. The dogma of any given denomination of Christianity is riddled with contradictions, both externally with other denominations and internally within its own belief system.

Clearly, those seeking knowledge and understanding of the universe in order to further the advancement of humankind and our place within it, will cling to Science. In contrast, those who seek to understand their personal place in a more personal universe in order to achieve varying levels of spiritual enlightenment will cling to religion. In either case, however, only a small few will ever commit to fully studying and understanding any given aspect of what they have chosen to follow. Most will obtain a cursory understand via the proxy of authority: the priest or the scientist. Most will, to put it another way, take it on faith.

** The Wow-This-Guy-Posted-Way-Too-Long-Of-A-Comment-And-I've-Scrolled-Past-Every-Rambling-Word Version Of This Comment **
"Believe what you want to, believe what you can...but all I ever really learned from this life of mine is: love's the only thing worth a damn." - Joshua Kadison

P.S. This comment ended up running way too long for me to bother even a quick proofing for either content or spelling/typos. I apologize in advance if it either makes no sense or is impossible to understand due to crimes against the language. It's late and I should have been asleep a few hours ago...

that's right, Matter+ heat + light = KITTENS!
I have never found a kitten in my peanut butter jar!

And every time I open a jar of peanut butter, I but out the electron microscope to confirm that there are no brand-new, unclasified organisms that spontaneously formed. Because we all know that every single organism that can and has ever existed has ben discovered and named.

Well yes UncleJeet, but you fail to make one difference, if one chooses to further explore sciene it is possible. While Religion relies entirely on the assumption of something and then holding it as the dogmatic truth.

I think this picture sums it up nicely.

QM's assertion that "man-made global warming is an unproven theory and consensus of a fraction of climatologists" is demonstrably false in numerous ways.

although you canot say god exists ore dosenot exsist what you can say is that things always start simple and over time become more complex this rule aplies to everything in the known universe so it would be more ratoinal to asume that things were created from a very simple chemical reactoin ore basic event than everything beang created by an all inteligent all knowing complex "thing" Aditoinaly still u couldnot say if there is ore isnot a god but it would be ratoinal to say it is very unlikely that the god as described by manny religoins exsists. and then to belive varouse stories asoseated with these gods litraly would make u an idoit by definitoin

once again westy proves his total genius.
I'm not really an aethiest per say, more of an agnostic, I feel that there has to be some higher power that brought this universe into existance, but has no way of interacting or controlling it(which would totally defeat the purpose of the universe). Moreover, i strongly believe that animated life capable of interacting with the simple matter in this universe cannot be started from a lightning bolt or a lucky combination of atoms, i'm convinced the original organism started life somewhere else in our universe and found its way to us... via a comet or otherwise.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Westy, did you read The God Delusion? That whole "simple to complex universe" thing was one of Dawkins' arguments.

I'm with you Ren. It's like the story of the Seven Sisters. Different cultures around the world share similar myths which describe the original home of humans as being somewhere in the Pleides. The ancients can't be wrong! The loss of oral tradition in western culture means we've lost our early stories and forgotten where we come from.

"In other words, we all believe in something. Science is an ever-changing, ever-growing group of concepts in which to believe."

I'd like to say something here: Science is not "a group of concepts" Science, to me is the very opposite of religion, because it is, like I've said before A way of thinking the very Idea of "lets try to find out" Its in other words more like a verb than a thing, just like "Hunting" isnt "a pile of dead animals", its not "a rifle", its not "a spear", its not even the sum of those things, its an idea, a verb.

This is an important difference IMO, and its vitally important to point out that difference to a religious person.

Otherwise I largely agreed with your post. I still find it remarkable how science is more than good enough for religious people if its supporting their irrational faith. They usually have to spin the truth a little to make that happen, but man, once thats done, its remarkable how much "faith" an otherwise religious person has in the ways of science.

Imagine, for instance, if they found some DNA from Jesus or something, and it turned out the genetic codes were Out-if-this-world remarkable, like if it was from some "perfect being" or something, Imagine the rejoice of the catholic church, hailing genetics as the peak of human understanding, then two days later the B-samples returns and it turns out the A-samples were infact contaminated, and it was just normal carpenter-DNA afterall.. That would be so cool.

upvote for tags

Just for fun, whenever these types of discussions come up, I often consider the idea that we are living in a simulation. There are some compelling philosophical arguments out there for this that are, if nothing else, interesting to read through. I'd provide some links, but a quick google search should provide you with ample reading.

Simulating life based on 3 rules - http://abc.net.au/science/holo/lablife.htm

And it is worth mentioning that religion (at its best) is as dynamic, conversational, and relational as science. It is a social construct that is influenced in a tremendous (and arguably deleterious way) by changing cultures, expanding conceptions of locality, the forces of politics, and the changing moral constructs found in law. And I believe that a scientific perception of the world and the requirements of testable hypotheses can actually complement and inform the definitional search for a deity and really any meaning derived from belief in a deity. The problem with Creationists is that they treat Science as the enemy and resort to the most awful drivel. And then they try to mandate that in schools.

The best aspect of "faith" is its acknowledgment of doubt and fallibility and (hopefully) the critical questions generated from that individual and communal awareness of doubt and fallibility.

So we may or may not be able to prove/disprove now the existence of tangible Chunky Peanut Butter God. But we may certainly test why the social construct of religion is meaningful or damaging and what that social construct contributes to the world in this short time that we exist.

Well funny you say that i have this idea that we live in this computer world and the mechines are controling us all becuse thay use us all for pawer.

but yah if you belive in us as biological cerquit bords with the alusoin of free will and allso belive that the frequency of life in the entire universe (ore multivurse) is high then it would be more likely that we are a simuatoin than creatuers that wer a pure acident of time.just think how manny games ore basic simulatoins we have made then emgin how complex thay would be in 10,000 years time ore to a culture that erly on found a way to have computers grow themselfs. still not a sign of god this would just be a more evlolved life creating simple life.

as a rule i dont have arguments about religoin in the phisical world its mostly piontless. trying to have a philasophical descussoin thats purly bassed on ideas and free thought dosenot work to well when you one person that catagoricly belives there thiroy is corect. one of the best things to do in philosiphy is to adopt varouse rule sets and then pursue your own idea with them rules. your rules may be a compleat fictoin and bare no corilatoin to realty however. it enables you to exspand your mind and you can acidentaly find concepts you wouldent dreem of thinking up normaly

Hmm...So no new life in peanut butter when subjected to light and heat. OH! They left out a small, little ingredient in their recipe. TIME.

Like, a couple of millions years or so. Do this experiment, get you some peanut butter, seal it...subject it to heat and light for like, I don't know....20 million years....and then see if any new life evolves in it. Until you complete that experiment, don't go off half-cocked and say it doesn't exist.

westy I think you are insane. Nobody makes typos like that. You expend more energy making intentional typos than you would just typing away normally.

I think I'm Agnostic. If there is a God out there I certainly don't want to piss him off.

Evolution does not defy the existence of a higher power and its objective has no reference to faith whatsoever.

(Personally, I lean more to the Atheistic side of Agnostic but have compassion for people with beliefs disimilar to my own.)

Thanks for this silly clip. Now the question is how many years DOES it take for an anaerobic life form to evolve inside a jar of peanut butter? Question: Is the jar exposed to sunlight and it is in a plastic (not glass) jar?

This clip has Demonstraited the Valid and worth while scientific debates that christain fundies creat. i think we should definatly get hawlkins working on a likely time span it would take for life to form in a peanut butter jar. i wonder what the best jared substance is for life to spawn.

I don't believe I made any assertions that we are living in a sci-fi movie plot. Rather, I simply mentioned the current "life in a simulation" idea because it is an interesting notion and not at all new. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of philosophy will recognize the core ideas of the "life in a simulation" notion as having been around for quite a long time. Whether or not something is "true" (an interesting requirement for a philosophical discussion) is irrelevant if you, like me, just enjoy the questions. Read a bit of this, if you like: http://www.transhumanist.com/volume7/simulation.html

Obviously this clip was created before the e. coli-peanut butter scare. Or whatever horrible disease was in the peanut butter. Because obviously, through the addition of energy into various shipments of peanut butter, the disease was created. If the guy eats that peanut butter and dies of the disease, then his death will prove the fallacy of his argument.

@UncleJeet's super-comment;

To argue that the impact of molecular biologists, neuroscientists, particle physicists, or journalists on humanity is the creation of belief, and requires faith in their trustworthiness is a perfectly valid semantic and philosophical point.

But to imply that what these individuals test, create and share requires equivalent faith to believing the scriptures, in the minds of John Q. Public, is silly and borderline offensive.

You argue that if an individual can not personally explain the tests, data and analysis that indicate the relative truth of all discoveries off the top of their head, then their understanding of these discoveries is equivalent to faith in the gospels. Which of these are false: A)George Bush Jr. is 6ft tall, B)two planes crashed into two skyscrapers in New York in 2001, C)the amygdala in the brain plays a large part in fear responses, D)a few amino acids in different sequences, held in place by a sugar backbone, form the basic mechanism for the coding of all life on Earth.

You're one step from arguing that if I've never met George Bush or the people he hangs out with I can't tell you what his height is. If I wasn't staring at the twin towers on Sept.11th, I'm just expressing my faith that TV is showing my the truth. If I don't ablate the amygdala in a subject animal and then try to scare it, I'll never really know if neuroscience is BS'ing me. And if I can't tell you how exactly DNA and RNA code for living organisms, well, obviously its just faith.

I can only assume that no-one called you out on this because your comment was soo long.


On a similar note, many scientists are spiritual and/or classically religious. Things are hardly ever black and white.

Actually this guy just proved evolution, they *did* find life in a number of Peter Pan peanut butter jars that are being recalled.

there is a difference between micro organisms like bacteria that exist already, and forming a new strain of life with no previous evolutionary relatives.

ren, under the conditions on earth today you won't be finding new life as they are trying to argue would not happen or whatever they are on about. Anyway all has been said. Good thread this is

Three votes against it? I think with the qualifying tags, this is a good sift.

Of course everyone knows that life came from a can of chicken noodle soup not peanut butter. Silly religious nuts.

I'd like to believe that I'm on the side of smart, since I know I'm smart, but I also know smart people who are on the other side.

It's not smart vs. dumb. I wish it was. Smart people have an easy time convincing things to stupid people, save for when there's an emotionally activated mob involved.

"Smart people have an easy time convincing things to stupid people"

This is not the case. The only people I can think of that have ever changed their mind on anything at all significant are the very, very smart.

Your average person forms their opinions incredibly quickly and with barely any thought, usually based on the attitudes of their peers, and then immediately becomes unshakeable in those opinions. Witness the power of the factoid; the standard moron overhears something in the pub one night, that people only use 10% of their brains or that dogs can't look up and spends the rest of their life parroting it like an expert. Tell them it's a myth and they'll defend their delusion with all the vehemence and conviction of a pro-wrestler, probably without even being able to remember the original source of the idea. How much more difficult then to convince someone they're wrong about a belief they've held deeply all their lives.

LOL. Kudos for using Shaun of the Dead to make a point---and for not invalidating that point in the process.

I agree with arrendek's point - even the smartest person on the planet may not be emotionally or socially intelligent, and thus can compartmentalize different points of view in their brains -- and that's why you hear about PhD's who evangelize or argue against global warming.

I have found that it is a good to not see your ideas as a component of yourself. that way you wont be personaly afended when sumone seas that is wrong ore that idea is bs instead you will look at there argument and non emotavily asses your argument over therse and from that u can only end up geting closer to the truth.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Well put Westy.

People who try to turn creationism into something like science are capable of fascinating leaps at high frequency between antilogic and logic.

Obviously life could not have appeared without God, well, it's just self-evident. But here's a trite pseudological argument anyway.

for god's sake, you cant make life where there is no life. evolution or not, there will never be a rat in my peanut butter.

The negative coments on the video don't address what the guy says, just parrot party line.

Thousands of generations of fruit flies have been deliberately bred, selecting for characteristics. But nothing other than a fruit fly results.

Thousands of years of forced, selected dog breeding, and all you get are dogs.

Drug resistant bacteria are the same bacteria with better defenses, but biologically the same.

The evolution of one species into another has NEVER been observed. The origin of life from non-life has NEVER been observed. If Darwin was right, everything should be in the process of transitioning to something else as a result of environmental pressures.

That's what the video is pointing out.

Darwin was wrong wrong wrong. Those of you parroting party line and stupidity vs. smart (of course you being smart for believing the party line) need to look around. You're on the same side of history as flat-earthers.

The reason you believe Darwin's 19th century understanding of biology despite the evidence of all of reality, is that the alternative means you are a designed thing, thus accountable to a designer. Even the aburdity of Darwinian evolution seems preferable to THAT ...

ok... for one thing, spontainous creation of life has NEVER been observed. Define "better defences". They have adapted biologially, with the bacterias who's DNA codes for the specific protiens that make them immune taking prevalence over the bacteria that lack the gene.

Imagine if you will, a pack of wild yorkshire terriers (absurd bacause yorkshire terriers are pretty much artificial dogs created as you mentioned by years of selective breeding). If you let a pack of yorkies out in the wild for a thousand years.. assuming they survived, would they ever try to breed with a wolf (technically a breed of wild dog)? thus you have different "species" (the exact deffinition of wich is still disputed by biologist).

People like you do a disservice to humanity. You simply accept the simplest method as truth and stop looking and trying to discover, which is in human nature to do. If the world didn't have people who challenged the accepted norms, imagine what it would be like today?

The evolution of one species into another has NEVER been observed. The origin of life from non-life has NEVER been observed.

Kudos for making the dumbest statement of this thread.

Molecular phylogeny is so crucial in understanding the minute changes associated with evolution.

On the web, there is pubmed.org
- I'm sure some of you go to this site a lot. Whether looking up a human nucleotide sequence http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=Nucleotide
or protein sequence
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=Protein
and then running - or BLAST-ing the particular sequence with all with other genomes including other organisms
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/BLAST/
will show the years & years of hard work that strongly supports evolution.

Don't get me started on molecular phylogeny !!

Molecular inferences about whale ancestry conflict with morphological inferences; molecular phylogenies of animal phyla conflict with each other. Inconsistencies in molecular phylogenies have convinced many biologists to jettison the idea of common ancestor entirely.

The problem with molecular phylogeny is it ASSUMES the common ancestry it claims to prove. The entire field is circular.

Descent with modification has to be imposed on the molecules as the starting assumption. It's no better than reading chicken entrails, really.

Meaningless self-delusion.

As far as global warming, who was burning fossil fuels 100,000 years ago to cause that warming?

How about 18,000 years ago at the end of the Pleistocene? Lots of fossil fuel burning going on then?

Climate is a described by coupled sets of non-linear relationships whose actual variables haven't even been convincingly identified.

Those pointing to computer models are either frauds or incompetent; as the models are worthless. Every single line of that code needs to be held up to the light of day; the fudge factors, approximated physics, poor math, and then the whole sections where they have no idea but just wing it.

Global warming is just a tool to empower bureaucrats and unaccountable international organizations who want to control you. With communism and socialism disreputable, it's the new vehicle.

Known causes of climate change:

(1) Astronomical Causes

11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit ( tilt )
100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )


(2) Atmospheric Causes

Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water vapor (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other miscellaneous gases-- the "greenhouse effect"
Solar reflectivity: Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, polar ice caps


(3) Tectonic Causes

Landmass distribution: Shifting continents (continental drift) causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It seems that whenever there is a large land mass at one of the Earth's poles, either the north pole or south pole, there are ice ages.

Undersea ridge activity: "Sea floor spreading" (associated with continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement.

I'll say this for you, atritium - you sure can cut and paste.

atritium, what do you actually know about molecular evolution? Did you read someone's blog on their thoughts?

The evidence is there for anyone to read. While there are conflicting theories in this field a few certainies can be obsevered. Like the presevation of vital amino acid sequences. There is a cost to change, if that cost is too high that change is wiped out. However less vital sequences show a great deal of change between speacies.

What I am trying to say is that the evidence for evolution is there. Like the links above. Don't discount it because you can't comprehend it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070405/peanut-butter-salmonella

does this count as proof of life?

This video seems to lack something. Can't put my finger on it, but there's definately something missing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNuq47yfrU0

Ah, there we go. dankwilliams must've found the original

"Man-made global warming is an unproven theory and consensus of a fraction of climatologists" - quantumushroom

sucks 4 u that the fraction is 9/10

If there's two ways to explain something, and one makes a lot more sense than the other, in the absence of proof one way or the other, I choose the one that makes more sense to me.

Whichever you think makes more sense, religion or science, this movie does not. It's the equivalent of someone jumping off a cliff and dying, proving that God doesn't exist because the bible says that God loves us and is all-powerful and therefore would have intervened if he existed. And then making a movie about it to keep the atheists in line.

I doubt a religious counterpart of Sift would post Dawkins videos and ridicule them the way we do these banana and peanut butter videos, but they probably don't post these either because they are stupid, and are good for passive reception by people without critical thinking skills, or ridicule. I wonder what kinds of things they do post and approve of.

upvote for great stupidity

Nice tags
Also, even if peanut butter somehow managed to generate life, it would be some microorganism that nobody would notice, and it would just get eaten. Even if *every* jar of peanut butter ever produced managed to produce some new microorganism, it's very likely that nobody would ever notice. Nobody looks at EVERY mililiter of peanut butter in a jar under a microscope.

*religion *terrible *wtf

Adding video to channels (Religion, Terrible, Wtf) - requested by Zonbie.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid' to 'stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, creationist, creationism, evolution, darwin, wtf' - edited by Zonbie

Agghh, aarggghg.. my brains is coming out my ears. This may be the most misinformed and misinforming video I have ever seen!

Like it has been said so many times before, evolution does not cover the beginning of new life, that's abiogenesis and is a chapter of its own, evolution covers the multitude of life. From the point of abiogenesis, which the religious party line describes as "lightning striking a mud puddle" (which is pretty close to the truth), evolution by natural selection takes over, in the sense that it explains what happens then.

It's funny how completely convinced the woman is that her case is right: "Life from non-life, apart from God's intervention, is a fairy tale. But apart from the obvious truth (...) blah blah"
Me dumb, me no understand simple scientific theory. Duuurrr.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, creationist, creationism, evolution, darwin, wtf' to 'stupid, creationist, creationism, evolution, darwin, wtf' - edited by gorgonheap

I'm now dumber for watching this