In case 2 minutes and 6 seconds is too much time out of your day, I'll quote the relevant portion here.
Life from non life, apart from God's direct intervention, is a fairy tale. ... If the theory of evolution was viable, then I should, occasionally, by subjecting this [the jar of peanut butter] to energy, end up having new life. ... On some occasion, I should find new life inside. And so, when we open the jar of peanut butter, we look in there, there's no new life. You may smile at this, but hopefully you'll never forget it. ... The entire food industry (of the world) depends on the fact that evolution does not happen.Chuck Missler, you are correct; I will never forget this monumental failure of a rebuttal to a theory you clearly don't understand. Evolution, at its simplest, is the change in gene frequency over time. It has nothing to do with life coming from non life, and even if it did, your shoddy demonstration proved nothing but your ignorance.
Abiogenesis is the field of study that deals with life from non-life, but that isn't what you're attacking. You're attempting to disprove the entire theory of common descent with modifications and natural selection, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion of abiogenesis. Evolution deals with life when it already exists. It doesn't matter how it got here - a god created it, it spontaneously arose, chemical reactions caused it to happen - because the theory of evolution only deals with existing organisms. You are, in effect, setting up an egregious straw man when you show the ant in the peanut butter because that is apparently how you understand evolution. Completely uninformed.
I strongly suggest you do some research on the field, but the basics of abiogenesis are that you have an aqueous solution filled with certain chemicals that react according to the same physics that we have today. When subjected to energy, compounds do tend to form (a basic tenet of chemistry) and some chemicals are able to replicate. These chemicals are not, however, ants, or even cells. You couldn't really even call them life. But as they continue to duplicate and change ever so slightly, they grow in complexity until eventually, after a very long period of time, you have some very very simple organism that you can classify as life. And it's a judgment call on our part when it can be classified as "life," because after all, we define what that means.
Nonetheless, we wouldn't expect to see these kinds of chemicals necessary for life in abundance inside a packaged food product. We certainly wouldn't expect to see any kind of "new" life inside even if it had just come into being, because it would be too small. It would be on the chemical level. You wouldn't know it was there if you were staring at it.
But again, none of that matters, because it is all utterly irrelevant to the theory of evolution. The evidence for common descent (which you are really arguing against) comes by the truckloads every day and you haven't disproved a whit of it by your disappointment of not seeing an insect on your sandwich. When debating with someone, try to make sure you are using the appropriate counter-arguments to their claims, and more importantly, know first what their claims are. If I told you that Manny Ramirez broke the world record for stolen bases and your reply was, "But he had the most strikeouts of his career this year! He's a terrible player!" That would be nice I'm sure, but completely irrelevant. This kind of reasoning is, in effect, what you have displayed here.
If anyone reading this would like a concise, layman's explanation of abiogenesis with narration and pretty pictures, I recommend The Origin of Life Made Easy - a 6 minute video well worth your time.
