Atheist Central -- Ray Comfort’s Blog
WHEN IS YOUR APPOINTMENT?
Previous Posts
Were you once a Christian? Listen to this to see your problem...
Recent Videos
Receive Ray's Blog by Email
Receive Ray's Blog by Reader
Add Ray's Blog to Your Website
Great Links
35 comments:
Anyone surprised that he put this sham up after banning the one in the best position to explain exactly how he is misrepresenting the beliefs of those who profess evolution? Me neither.
Anyone surprised that he put this sham up after banning the one in the best position to explain exactly how he is misrepresenting the beliefs of those who profess evolution? Me neither.
Is acting like a child a pre-requisite for being an anti-evolutionist?
Ray,
What does this have to do with evolution? It's been pointed out to you why your "crockaduck" argument has nothing to do with evolution (in fact, if such a thing was found, it would disprove evolution, just like these would).
Ray, what part of this do you not understand? I'm forced to believe that you either know nothing about evolution or that you're deliberately lying to win converts.
Christians, look, if you don't want to believe in evolution, then that's your business. However, you don't get to claim this as an argument against it.
Ray, housecats belong to species _F. catus_, of the genus _Felis_, of the family Felidae, of the order Carnivora. Cows belong to the species _B. taurus_, of the genus _Bos_, family Bovidae, order Artiodactyla. So you seem to be trying to show a transitional between two different orders, not between two different species.
Now, evolution implies that there was a last common ancestor (concestor) shared by carnivores and artiodactyls, but that concestor would have been a vaguely shrewlike placental mammal running around in the Cretaceous. Cows did not evolve from cats, nor vice-versa. For that matter, whales did not evolve from cows (as creationist debater Duane Gish was fond of pretending that evolutionary theory held), although cetaceans are nested within artiodactyls: both cows and whales evolved from small nonspecialized split-hoofed mammals living in the Paleocene.
Here's the point: you don't seem to know what "species" means. You don't seem to care what sort of transitionals evolutionary theory actually predicts, or what the fossil record actually contains, or what sorts of evidence for common descent exist besides fossils. If you have anything of value to say on evolution, you hide the fact very well. Your posts cause any scientifically literate reader to despise you and your message. I suppose they amuse scientifically illiterate creationists, but what Christian purpose is served by such amusement?
Ray, this demonstrates your gross ignorance of evolution. The existence of a chimera such as your "cowt" would falsify evolution.
Man, and here I thought you'd had the good sense to cut your losses after the crocoduck.
Quick question, Ray; please answer with complete Christian honesty. Do you truly believe that scientists who accept the theory of evolution (otherwise known as just plain "scientists") would predict the existence of such "transitional species" as the crocoduck, the humaphant, and the cowt?
Ray:
Kirtsin goi.
I like this one.
I would use tons of sarcasm but my conscience doesn't feel right.
The most expensive house cat around (Shera cat)is priced at about $30,000+ (little bit of trivia).
Good post.
Ray's ineptitude at both scientific comprehension and basic photoshop for webternetting is incontrovertable proof in the existence of, specifically, the God of his bible, and not that of any other holy book or belief system. Thats your basic argument is it there Mr. Comfort?
Heres a question then professor, why on Earth do you believe that an Evolutionary biologist would think the evidence of the existence of such a creature would actually support evolutionary theory? As has already been made clear, such an oddity would actually work against the theory, since these two creatures lack a common ancestor, but supposing they even did share a common ancestor, how would the existence of a Frankenstein's monster like this demonstrate their link to that ancestor or their development from it?
Better question, what does this mean for your consideration of other fosslis that do represent the transitional forms between, for instance, austrilopithicus africanus and austrilopithicus afarenses? That is exactly the sort of species-to-species transformation you're trying to deride, proof of which exists in plain abundance. What is your explanation then for how the A. Africanus and A. Afarenses existing in seperate but consecutive timeframes if not one becoming the other? The one species just died out completely at the same time the new species just spontaneously generated?
I realize the likelihood of you responding to these questions is fundamentally nil since, if you address me at all it would only be to A deride any and all investigative enterprise from a purely empirical standpoint and B browbeat me with your particular faith (as though you haven't done repeatedly) but that is a pity, because I honestly believe that if you actually bothered to explain your "understanding" of evolution that it would be illuminating for all of us, and not incidentally hilarious for those of us who actually know anything about it.
By the way, Ray, you've opened more people's eyes to the Word of God today!
I mean, really, put yourself in an atheist's shoes, and you can see how they would want to follow Jesus after reading this post.
I'm sure Jesus would behave just like you if he were around.
I have to wonder just what Ray is trying to prove with this type of crackpottery.
What he is proving is that he is absurd, beyond belief.
You evolutionists are so boring! The pictures are funny!! Because even if they are innacurate accordng to you, they show just how silly the theory appears to logical people. I mean come on, every species around today and all the species that have gone extinct were once nothing but weird sea creatures that decided to take a walk on the beach and decided they preferred it there?? I mean, COME ON, that's what you're basically saying. -awaits more denial and hypocrisy-
All this is, is Evidence of the inanity represented here.
I am actaully embarassed for Ray on this one.
Sophomoric and rediculous.
Actually though, it is very Kent Hovind-like material.
It's funny how many times people have tried to explain evolution to you, but you keep coming up with this nonsense.
Ray, please remember that you recently deleted my post containing evidence for evolution because it was too long...and that was only scratching the surface of the evidence.
Brother Ray,
Can you FEEL the LOVE coming from our Atheist Brothers on this post?
Ohhh! Wow!!! I can give Yoko Ono a call, and see if we can play that "IMAGINE" song by Johnny. :)
In fact, I will post it today on my blog. For our atheists listening pleasure. I want to show some LOVE for the atheists here!
You crack me up! You really got them spinned up! Look at rev.bigdumbchip "Is acting like a child ..."
Look who is talking with a gargoyle in the pulpit !
Talk about a sick mind. Not even a child would post that pic.
Have a Great Day Ray! Enjoyed the pic of a cat/cow. Take care! :)
Brilliant!, Ray I have been reading the comments and you,as always, have caused quite a stir,and I love it. I hope that my evangelical work is half as effective is your lifes work has been. Ray I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for you teachings and your zeal for the lost. I have been using the Way of The Master techniques with people I meet and friens and family on a daily basis. I also am enrolled in the School of Biblical Evangelism. I also have decided to open air preach. I have some people from my church who have agreed to do a mock funeral and we are planning something in the coming weeks. Continue God's work and God Bless.
@ wishjon
Let me clarify something for you: yes, Ray has caused a stir, but not the way you think. Ray doesn't understand the theory of evolution. Whether you believe in it or not, you should at least understand it before you critique it. Ray doesn't. He's either willfully ignorant or he's lying and breaking God's law intentionally.
For the record, I'm not an atheist, BTW (I'm also not a Christian, so feel free to evangelize me--I just want the truth).
I recommend you look into Hugh Ross' "Reasons to Believe" for a ministry that is honest in its critique of evolution. I believe they are wrong, but at least they are honest (and scientists to boot).
Saint Augustine, writing about people who misuse scripture to argue against scientific principles, said
"The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men."
So the really sad thing here is not that Ray is ignorant of what evolution is supposed to say, but that, if Christianity is true, he's turned more people off to it and made people think it is a religion for the uneducated and ignorant--something I don't happen to believe despite Ray's efforts to the contrary.
I encourage you to google "augustine science" and click on the first link that says "Saint Augustine on Science and Scripture".
(Note: I did not link to anywhere Ray, so there's no reason this post shouldn't be put up.)
Wisjohns,
You said,
"I have some people from my church who have agreed to do a mock funeral and we are planning something in the coming weeks."
What the.....?
Nick said...
"Ray, please remember that you recently deleted my post containing evidence for evolution because it was too long...and that was only scratching the surface of the evidence."
It's funny that it would take a "Bible" size amount of evidence to make a case for evolution.
Ephphatha
ex-atheist said...
"It's funny that it would take a 'Bible' size amount of evidence to make a case for evolution."
The evidence for evolution would fill many more pages than the Bible.
All this is, is Evidence of the inanity represented here.
I am actaully embarassed for Ray on this one.
Sophomoric and rediculous.
Actually though, it is very Kent Hovind-like material.
Must be a good point if we have to start a character assassination, eh, dale?
I'll tell you what's absurd - a cell that somehow morphs into a an organism that reproduces in such an incredibly complicated way of sharing of genetic material with a perfectly suited mate. Would you explain that for the class how that transition works?
Did I tell you that I discovered that to have a moisture atmosphere, you have to have microbes? Too cool!
Just a few more holes in the presumption of evolution. I shall now and forever call it this beings that the new meaning for theory is fact.
Vera
This is typical of you Ray, you put up childish pictures to mock evolution but you never actually show any evidence to support your claims. Also you make claims but are afraid to defend them and answer the questions I've posted for you.
Since you've already admitted you don't have a good education or understanding of evolution, when are you going to stop trying to appear to your minions as an authority on the subject.
You know Ray, pretending to be something you're not is the same as lying!
Followers of Ray pay attention! Have you ever Lied? If you have, its alright, because you're just following in the footsteps of Ray so it must be OK since he's got the skinny on getting into heaven.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
Nick wrote: "The evidence for evolution would fill many more pages than the Bible."
HA!! Only in your dreams! (which is where all such "evidence" originates, anyway.)
At Lance: I don't claim any of Ray's photoshopped images as my idea of what evolution proposes--but I do get a kick out of your overreactions!
Oh, by the way, Steven J: I'm not buying the common ancestor thing, either. Common Creator--now that's more like it!
Just for giggles, what on earth would a common ancestor of cows and whales look like? Ray, I think you can come up with something! (And it's just as based in fact as the entire evolution lie!)
Joshua S. Black notes that he's "not buying the common ancestor thing, either," and asks what a common ancestor of whales and cows would look like. Go to Google Images (since Ray apparently does not like links in here) and google for "Diacodexis;" it would look something like that. Then look for "Pakicetus," "Ambulocetus," and "Dorudon," for some more intermediates between terrestrial artiodactyl quadrupeds and marine cetaceans.
"Common Designer" as an explanation for "common design" runs runs into the problem of "analogy," or what Darwin called (IIRC) "dissimilar structures for similar functions." We can see this in everything from the dissimilar ways forelimbs are modified to make wings in pterosaurs, birds, and bats, to the subtle differences in cytochrome-c (an enzyme that performs the same function in humans that it does in pine trees or bacteria) in different species. Evolution explains the former in terms of independent "invention" of wings by lineages whose last common ancestor did not have wings (conversely, the similar design of hummingbird, penguin, and ostrich wings is explained by inheritance from a feathered, winged, flying common ancestor). It explains the latter through fixation of neutral mutations during the millions of years of branching evolution.
Note that the evidence for evolution originates in the study of nature, not in dreams. The consistent nested hierarchy of life (a pattern seen in things that are related by branching descent from a common ancestor, and not otherwise) was first pointed out (but not explained) by the creationist Karl von Linne; the problem of homology was formally named and pointed out by the non-evolutionist Richard Owen. Faunal succession in the fossil record was noted before evolution was offered to explain it (and originally explained as a succession of creation events and global catastrophes). The argument from biogeography may be original with Darwin, for all I know. Modern science, with its discovery of shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses in humans and other primates, and in whales and (other) artiodactyls, has offered whole new suites of evidence for common descent with modification.
Rachelsquelch finds evolutionists boring and Ray's photoshop work funny. This, apparently, is her criterion for judging the worth of scientific ideas: what bores her is false, what amuses her is true (although this doesn't explain why she's a creationist: is the biblical view of a flat-disk Earth surmounted by a giant collander really funny? is the idea that one can breed spotted cattle by having them mate in front of spotted rods really so entertaining?).
Please note that only land animals are descended from funny-looking sea life that decided to stay on land; a great many funny-looking sea organisms decided to stay in the sea (and, for that matter, over and over land animals have returned to the sea: consider whales, manatees, sea snakes, and assorted extinct marine reptiles). Note also that plants, fungi, and assorted protist and bacterial kingdoms exist, both on land and sea.
Nick Said,"The evidence for evolution would fill many more pages than the Bible."
In response JOSHUA S BLACK said ,"HA!! Only in your dreams! (which is where all such "evidence" originates, anyway.)"
So Joshua, are you trying to tell us that the the over 4 million biological scientist in America are all part of a great evolutionary conspiracy or are to dumb to figure out that the evidence is fake. Also, if your claim is correct, that would mean that the less than .0000005 of all these scientist are smart enough to have figured this out. Wow, scientist in America must have the mental agility of a soap dish!
Well Joshua, I've seen the evidence and cannot account for an exact page count, but if you truly are not aware of the amount of evidence there is for evolution, you've provided more evidence for how poor our science education is in America, especially in the Bible Belt!
Remember Joshua, you don't have to be an Atheist to accept evolution.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
joshua,
At Lance: I don't claim any of Ray's photoshopped images as my idea of what evolution proposes--but I do get a kick out of your overreactions!
Good for you. Remind me to give you a cookie.
Ray,
When you where a child did you ever dream this is what you would be doing when you grew up?...sitting in front of a computer, pasting cow heads onto cats for a living?
Are you living the dream, Ray?
Ignorant or deceitful, Ray. Which one is it?
From the Atomic Chimp: "So Joshua, are you trying to tell us that the the over 4 million biological scientist in America are all part of a great evolutionary conspiracy or are to dumb to figure out that the evidence is fake. Also, if your claim is correct, that would mean that the less than .0000005 of all these scientist are smart enough to have figured this out. Wow, scientist in America must have the mental agility of a soap dish!"
You said it--not I!
Joshua S Black:
What he said was that "Wow, scientist in America must have the mental agility of a soap dish!" was his understanding of your position. This is rather plain when one reads what he wrote without your added emphasis on what you, apparently, want people to think is his position rather than his understanding of yours. The nature of your "You said it -- not I" claim is quite deceptive.
Pvblivs,
Wow! Joshua sure knocked the wind out of your sails with that snappy, and ignorant, comeback.
That is a tactic that is only used by a person who is fristrated, defeated, or both.
JB is absolutely deluded.
He actually argues that you have to offer evidence for reality (which you have done) but he needs no evidence for the supernatural events he claims.
If a sane and rational person stops to think about that, he must come to the conclusion that the person is, well, deluded to the max.
Sorry Ray, this is too much, I feel more and more like I have a duty, the duty of combating scientific illiteracy. It is not possible to be impassive about such blatant misrepresentations of what evolution is about. I still cannot believe you can live with yourself. Those who applaud these postings? What happens guys? Do you sincerely think this is what we think? Who told you that? Do some research in places other than those that will give you the same cheap distorted versions of evolution ... So sad!
Post a Comment