Atheist Central -- Ray Comfort’s Blog

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools..." (Romans 1:20-22).
"You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart"
(Matthew 5:27-28).
Cuss words (mild or abbrev.), blasphemy, URL’s, incivility,
or failure to give the name ‘God’ or ‘Jesus’ capitals, will be deleted
.
Cartoons by Richard Gunther.

Monday, July 13, 2009

"Idiot" Home School Textbooks

"Evolution has been proven despite what your idiot homeskool ‘textbooks’ told you. The only questions are about the details." Ryk

Those who are home schooled usually excel at spelling (it would seem that you weren’t home schooled).

I have met many kids who have been educated by their parents (using "idiot" home school textbooks) and I have found that they are consistently respectful, well-adjusted to life, sociable with their peers, and extremely knowledgeable. This is because those that are educating them deeply love them, and they have the ability to care for them as individuals. Studies have shown that children whose parents are directly involved in their education are more apt to excel in academics. In addition to this, extended periods of time together strengthen family relationships, not only between the child and his parents, but also with his siblings.

Granted, by not being educated by the public system, their kids will miss out on learning how to communicate using filthy language. They will also miss out on the use of illegal drugs. According to a survey by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, "Millions of U.S. teens attend ‘drug-infested schools’ where students routinely see drugs used, sold or kept on schools grounds . . . Thirty-one percent of high school students -- more than 4 million -- see drug dealing, illegal drug use or students high or drunk at least once a week on their school grounds."[1]

Home schooled kids will also miss out on sexual promiscuity, contracting sexually transmitted diseases (one in four U.S. females has a sexually transmitted disease[2]), being bullied, and maybe being shot to death (to date, there have been shootings resulting in the deaths of students in 76 different U.S. public schools). According to the National Conference of State Legislatures an incredible one in five kids in public schools have seriously considered suicide: "19.3 percent of high school students have seriously considered killing themselves."

Back in 2007, nearly 6.2 million students in the United States between the ages of 16 and 24 dropped out. According to ABC, "A study this week from Strong American Schools reports that 40 percent of seniors still do not understand the math they were taught in the eight grade. And an earlier study from Common Core found that nearly a quarter cannot identify Adolph Hitler, more than half cannot place the American Civil War in the right century, and a third do not know that the Bill of Rights guarantees free speech."[3]. The American public school system is a failure.

Had home schoolers attended public school they would have also been brainwashed by an unproven theory about human origins, and ended up believing that they are nothing but an animal with no ultimate moral accountability. Evolution doesn’t simply teach that we have a common ancestor in primates. It seriously teaches that we are primates,[4] and if the result of public schooling education is to reject God and His gift of eternal life, the depth of that tragedy will only be measured in the light of eternity.

Sadly, millions of impressionable young people have already been brainwashed into believing that evolution is a proven fact, and that all it lacks is "details." How could any theory be proven when there are no details to provide proof? The missing link (the details) is still missing. All evolution believers have is a blind faith in what they have been taught by other believers in the theory, and "evolution did it" isn't good science. It's a pseudo-science. And that’s a fact.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN1640311120070817
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/science/12std.html
[3] http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=4732319&page=1
[4] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-humans-the-only-prima

318 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 318   Newer›   Newest»
Iago said...

Ray do you agree with your friend Ken Ham that the earth is approx. 6000 years old ?

J said...

Ray, you've been asked many times, and I'm going to ask at least once more:

Could you explain, in detail, what a "missing link" between dinosaurs and modern birds would look like? What characteristics would it possess?

I am not asking you to accept that such a missing link ever existed, or could even possibly exist. However, in order to know that such a missing link does not exist, we must first know what it would look like if it DID exist. Otherwise, how would we know what to even look for in the first place?

J

J said...

One more question Ray.

Are humans mammals?

J

Broken said...

In 1997, a study of 5,402 homeschool students from 1,657 families was released. It was entitled, "Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers Across America." The study demonstrated that homeschoolers, on the average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to 37 percentile points in all subjects. A significant finding when analyzing the data for 8th graders was the evidence that homeschoolers who are homeschooled two or more years score substantially higher than students who have been homeschooled one year or less. The new homeschoolers were scoring on the average in the 59th percentile compared to students homeschooled the last two or more years who scored between 86th and 92nd percentile.

This was confirmed in another study by Dr. Lawrence Rudner of 20,760 homeschooled students which found the homeschoolers who have homeschooled all their school aged years had the highest academic achievement. This was especially apparent in the higher grades. This is a good encouragement to families catch the long-range vision and homeschool through high school.

B. Pierce said...

Had home schoolers attended public school they would have also been brainwashed by an unproven theory about human origins, and ended up believing that they are nothing but an animal with no ultimate moral accountability.

It's unfortunate that the price for learning "moral accountability" is to believe people rode around on saddled dinosaurs 4500 years ago...

To teach children that Genesis is a literal account of creation is to teach them that believing in magic is OK. That snakes and donkeys (Num 22:28) can talk.

I have a problem with that.

shunted said...

I teach mathematics at a community college. I get a number of home school kids in my calculus classes. They tend to be really bad at math. They've been taught by their parents who know very little about mathematics. I wonder how they do in other science subjects.

Yes, they tend to be respectful. Often times shy and almost always lacking in mathematical knowledge. That's been my anecdotal experience.

Dimensio said...

Had home schoolers attended public school they would have also been brainwashed by an unproven theory about human origins,

All scientific theories and concepts are unproven. Noting that a particular scientific concept is "unproven" is inherently redundant, and suggests either that you are unfamiliar with scientific methodology or that you are attempting to present a dishonest implication.




and ended up believing that they are nothing but an animal


That humans are, by biological definition, animals does not logically imply that humans are nothing "more" than animals. You appear to be positing a false dichotomy.




with no ultimate moral accountability.


I am unaware of any scientific theory that posits such a state. Either you have no understanding of scientific concepts, or you are lying. Please explain which is the case.




Evolution doesn’t simply teach that we have a common ancestor in primates. It seriously teaches that we are primates,[4]

Humans were classified as "primates" prior to the authorship of the theory of evolution and, as such, the definition of humans as primates is not a conclusion derived directly from the theory of evolution. You have been informed of this previously; as such, your claim is a demonstrable lie. Please explain why you are willfully lying.




and if the result of public schooling education is to reject God and His gift of eternal life, the depth of that tragedy will only be measured in the light of eternity.


Please explain how this relates to the concept of evolution.




Sadly, millions of impressionable young people have already been brainwashed into believing that evolution is a proven fact, and that all it lacks is "details."


Please explain this statement. To what "details" do you refer?




How could any theory be proven when there are no details to provide proof?


Scientific theories can never be "proven". Your inquiry implies that scientific theories could potentially be "proven", which is fundamentally dishonest.




The missing link (the details) is still missing.


To what "missing link" do you refer?




All evolution believers have is a blind faith in what they have been taught by other believers in the theory,

Your assertion is demonstrably false. Examples of observations consistent with and supportive of the validity of the theory of evolution, such as endogenous retroviral patterns across species and specifically identified transitional fossils have been cited upon numerous occasion in this discussion forum. You are, therefore, willfully lying. Please explain why your position should be considered credible given that you are clearly and willfully using dishonest claims as a means of supporting your position.




and "evolution did it" isn't good science.

I am unaware of any individual who has posited such a statement as "good science".




It's a pseudo-science. And that’s a fact.


Your assertion is demonstrably false, and you have relied upon demonstrable lies as a means of supporting this claim. It cannot be considered credible.

Nature'sOwnBrew said...

Ha Ha oh wow.

Ryk said...

Actually I will admit that I have met some homeschoolers who are quite well educated also. It depends on the curriculum and the quality of the instruction. Sadly these are often lacking and it is all to common for homeschool students. in my experience, to be ignorant on many subjects particularly science.

Now in my comment I was hurling insults at Starbuck because that is how he wishes to be treated. Since he claims to be a Christian and therefor practices the golden rule, when he began making petty threats and insults at me, it became clear that is how he wanted me to "do unto him" so I obliged.

However to my buddy Jeff and any other properly educated home school students out there I sincerely apologize. I am aware that ignorance is not a consequence of home study, but of ability and ideology.

As to the comments on public school, at least in the US, This is one of those occasions where Ray has a point, there are as many problems with the curriculum at many public schools as there are with many home school programs. I fortunately live in a city with an excellent charter school program in which my wife and I are directly involved. Ensuring that our kids are well educated.

Once again to those who are homeschooled or are home schooling, that actually have or provide a decent education I apologize for my comment, they were intended to insult one particular stupid person not an entire group.

Sorry.
Ryk

jonathan said...

You can attempt to keep your children away from everything that is supposedly evil in this world, but you're doing them a great diservice by not letting them learn the true nature of the world.

Nathan said...

All creationist believers have is a blind faith in what they have been taught by other creationists in the theory, and "God did it" isn't good science. It's a pseudo-science. And that’s a fact.

I thought I'd correct what I can only assume was a type in your statement. I'm glad I could be of some help.

JD said...

Think of a world 100% full of christians - would it not be supremely boring?

Broken said...

Several state departments of education or local school districts have also gathered statistics on the academic progress of homeschooled children.

Tennessee
In the spring of 1987, the Tennessee Department of Education found that homeschooled children in 2nd grade, on the average, scored in the 93rd percentile while their public school counterparts, on the average, scored in the 62nd percentile on the Stanford Achievement Test. Homeschool children in third grade scored, on the average, in the 90th percentile in reading on another standardized test, and the public school students scored in the 78 percentile. In math, the third grade homeschooled children scored, on the average, in the 87th percentile, while their public school counterparts scored in the 80th percentile. In eighth grade, the homeschooled students scored, on the average, in the 87th percentile in reading and in 71st percentile in math while their public school counterparts scored in the 75th percentile in reading and the 69th percentile in math.

Alaska and Oregon
Similarly, in 1986, the State Department of Education in Alaska which had surveyed homeschooled children's test results every other year since 1981, found homeschooled children to be scoring approximately 16 percentage points higher, on the average, than the children of the same grades in conventional schools. In Oregon, the State Department of Education compiled test score statistics for 1,658 homeschooled children in 1988 and found that 51 percent of the children scored above the 71st percentile and 73 percent scored above the 51st percentile.

North Carolina
In North Carolina, the Division of Non-Public Education compiled test results of 2,144 homeschool students in grades K-12. Of the 1,061 homeschool students taking the California Achievement Test, they scored, on the average, at the 73rd percentile on the total battery of tests: 80th percentile in reading, 72nd percentile in language, and the 71st percentile in math.
The 755 homeschool students who took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills scored at the 80th percentile in the total battery of tests: 81st percentile in reading, 77th percentile in language, and 77th percentile in math. The remaining students who took the Stanford scored, on the average, in the 73rd percentile in the whole battery.

Arkansas
In Arkansas, for the 1987-88 school term, homeschool children, on the average, scored in 75% on the Metropolitan Achievement Test 6. They out-scored public school children in every subject (Reading, Math, Language, Science, and Social Studies) and at every grade level. For example, at the 10th grade level public school children scored an average of 53rd percentile in social studies, while homeschool children scored at the 73rd percentile. In science, an area in which homeschoolers are often criticized for lack of facilities, the homeschoolers scored, on the average, 85th percentile in fourth grade, 73rd percentile in seventh grade, and 65th percentile in tenth grade. The public school students, on the other hand, scored much lower in science: 66th percentile in fourth grade, 62nd percentile in seventh, and 53rd percentile in tenth.

Nebraska
In Nebraska, out of 259 homeschooled children who returned to public or non-public schools, 134 of them were automatically placed in their grade level according to their age without testing. Of the remaining who were given entrance tests, 33 were above grade level, 43 were at grade level, and 29 were below grade level. Approximately 88 percent of the returning students were at or above grade level after being homeschooled for a period of time. This survey was the result of the responses of 429 accredited schools.

Conclusion
These statistics point to one conclusion: homeschooling works. Even many of the State Departments of Education, which are generally biased toward the public school system, cannot argue with these facts. Not only does homeschooling work, but it works without the myriad of state controls and accreditation standards imposed on the public schools.

The GrimesTimes said...

Thank you for your kind words, Ray. My wife and I are home-educating our children. "Schooling" is what the government does to make the masses all the same. The effects of it can be seen in the comments of this blog.

Unfortunately, my wife and I were both government trained in the public school system and have had a real struggle relearning a lot of things that are simply false. Not only science, but revisionist history is rampant in the public school system. One example is that of the American Civil War and that the Confederacy was purely evil and the Union was purely righteous. I suggest The War Between the States: America's Uncivil War for a fair and accurate account.

Fight the good fight, Ray.

Jacob said...

Awesome post!

I have 4 kids that we home school. They out perform their friends in almost every subject (including science) not because we are great teachers but because we have a great student/teacher ratio and love. They aren’t stuck in an overcrowded class room with an under paid teacher in a school system that doesn’t care about them. They also get the most important subject in Christ crucified...

I have never been able to say why we do what we do as elegantly as this.

As for me and my house we will serve the Lord

Thanks Mr. Comfort!

Anna Sethe said...

Evolution doesn’t simply teach that we have a common ancestor in primates. It seriously teaches that we are primates

Ray, do you sometimes read the comments? It has been pointed out several times and not only by me, that the first one who called humans 'primates' was the one who invented that word and he was a creationist. Google "Carl Linnaeus" if you don't believe me.

Its ALL about JESUS !!! said...

'The Brainwashing'

As usual, I am in total agreement with your post Brother Ray!!!

I see you and Tony are WRETCHED RADIO today and Tuesday. I will try to tune on their website.

Now to the subject at hand. I find so many similarities between this era and the pre-Nazi era in Germany prior to WWII.

Anyone who speaks up and says "evolution is not correct" on ... such and such is automatically labeled as a trouble maker, and a IDIOT. Without addressing the FACTS at hand!

EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion and FREEDOM of SPEECH is still in the Bill of Rights!

My sons were both home schooled for this very reason. 'GARBAGE in' brings about GARBAGE coming out of the children as they grow up.

The kids turn into criminals with a 'animal like' attitude towards others and society.

We could ALL learn a thing or two from Ben Stein and his campaign from last year with "EXPELLED the Movie". Our system is undermining the youth of today!

In His Love,
Terry Burton

NeedGOD (site) on the net is GREAT place to start atheists! :)

Its ALL about JESUS !!! said...

Monday, July 13, 2009

'Faith-filled Words'

Caleb had given everything of himself to God. At the age of 85, he said, "As yet I am as strong this day as I was on the day that Moses sent me; just as my strength was then, so now is my strength for war, both for going out and for coming in.(Joshua 14:11)

Faith grows with experience. Look at his faith-filled words: "Now therefore, give me this mountain of which the Lord spoke in that day; for you heard in that day how the Anakims were there, and that the cities were great and fenced. It may be that the Lord will be with me, and I shall be able to drive them out as the Lord said."(Joshua 14:12)

Fighting the battle to reach the lost may seem like a mountainous task, but it is one that we can conquer through that same faith in God.

There goes another minute. Gone forever. Go share your faith while you still have time.

Rabbitpirate said...

Ray Comfort said...

Evolution doesn’t simply teach that we have a common ancestor in primates. It seriously teaches that we are primates,

Please explain what you understand the definition of a "primate" to be and why humans do not fit that definition.

I won't hold my breath as you have been asked this before.

alie2009 said...

AMEN Ray!!!!!

Steven J. said...

Ray Comfort said:

I have met many kids who have been educated by their parents (using "idiot" home school textbooks) and I have found that they are consistently respectful, well-adjusted to life, sociable with their peers, and extremely knowledgeable.

Ray, you once wrote a blog post that said that the interior of the Earth was full of "fire." On another occasion you declared that evolutionary theory implied that men and women evolved separately from different single-celled ancestors. I'm not sure you're ideally situated to determine whether other people are "extremely knowledgeable" (I'll concede that you can probably judge whether or not they can spell).

This is because those that are educating them deeply love them, and they have the ability to care for them as individuals.

These things are important, but an actual grasp of the subject matter is helpful also. Ryk's point was, specifically, education in science: a lot of very poor creationist materials are marketed to parents who don't have the background to realize how bad they are.

Side note: much of your post implies that it would be better if home schooling were more common -- that the problems with American education are confined, somehow, to school buildings. I would assume that home schooling is now going on among parents who are most committed to raising their children and relatively well-equipped to teach them; expansion of the practice would lead to more and more students being taught by parents who, themselves, can't keep straight which centuries Adolf Hitler and Abraham Lincoln lived in.

Home schooled kids will also miss out on sexual promiscuity, contracting sexually transmitted diseases (one in four U.S. females has a sexually transmitted disease[2]), being bullied, and maybe being shot to death (to date, there have been shootings resulting in the deaths of students in 76 different U.S. public schools). According to the National Conference of State Legislatures an incredible one in five kids in public schools have seriously considered suicide: "19.3 percent of high school students have seriously considered killing themselves."

Have one in five high school students considered suicide because they're in public schools, or was that just where the sample was drawn from? Do you have any evidence that the numbers would be lower if private school or home-schooled students were asked?

Certainly one can contract an STD, or be shot, or take drugs, outside public schools, even in the privacy of one's own home. It does no good to point out the incidence of such things in public schools without comparing them to the incidence of such things in other educational environments. Again, this is the sort of point that should be obvious ... and if it isn't obvious to you, why should anyone trust you to judge the quality of textbooks or curricula?

Steven J. said...

Ray Comfort said:

Had home schoolers attended public school they would have also been brainwashed by an unproven theory about human origins, and ended up believing that they are nothing but an animal with no ultimate moral accountability. Evolution doesn’t simply teach that we have a common ancestor in primates. It seriously teaches that we are primates,[4] and if the result of public schooling education is to reject God and His gift of eternal life, the depth of that tragedy will only be measured in the light of eternity.

That humans are primates, and mammals, and animals, was pointed out by the creationist Carolus Linnaeus in the 18th century (although the point that we are animals goes back to Aristotle, and was uncontested by medieval and Renaissance philosophers and theologians). Humans are not a kingdom apart from the rest of life on this planet.

Reality is not determined by what beliefs make it more likely that people will accept your ideas about the Bible and salvation. If your version of Christianity cannot survive an encounter with actual biology, that strikes me more as a reason to revise your version of Christianity than to hide one's head in the sand and pretend that biology does not exist.

Sadly, millions of impressionable young people have already been brainwashed into believing that evolution is a proven fact, and that all it lacks is "details." How could any theory be proven when there are no details to provide proof? The missing link (the details) is still missing. All evolution believers have is a blind faith in what they have been taught by other believers in the theory, and "evolution did it" isn't good science. It's a pseudo-science. And that’s a fact.

Ray, evolution has an immense number of details. All those shared endogenous retroviruses that you refuse even to think about are details. All those shared vestigial structures and genes that you refuse to understand are details. Fossils of whales with small heads and hind limbs, of multi-toed horses and browsing condylarths that preceded them, of fish with toes and theropods with feathers, all those skulls that straddle any dividing line you might wish to draw between "fully-formed human" and "fully-formed ape," are details that actually exist.

You, of course, proclaim that evolution is is a "pseudo-science" while refusing to learn anything about it or to think about what evidence for it would look like. Refusing to learn about a subject or to think about it is a very poor basis on which to judge whether students are being taught well about it.

Andy Duchemin said...

Utterly fantastic Raymond! I'm impressed, you've outdone yourself! An argument from authority has never fallen more flat on its face!

The problem with the education system, public, private or home is that the kids aren't taught how to think, they're taught WHAT to think.

I was raised to reject what science teachers told me about evolution as it contradicted my Christian views. I even recall arguing with the science teacher, telling him he was wrong with great Christian tenacity. Looking back, I couldn't have told the teacher why he was wrong. I just didn't know enough about evolution to attack it, as I think is the case with you.

I didn't my research, looking at evolution sceptically and what I found was astounding. A real scientific theory that is virtually water tight. It upset me that though I hadn't been lied to, I had been mislead about evolution by my religion. I had to re-evaluate everything.

You can teach a child how to read, write and use arithmetic but the most important thing a child needs to be taught is critical thinking, something my Christian parents didn't do. Religion is opposed to critical thinking.

Lurker said...

Goodness gracious, are you serious? I know you didn't go to a U.S. public school, Ray, but this kind of picture you're presenting is horribly exaggerated. I mean... look at Gunther's cartoon! You aren't allowed to carry guns, or smoke, in school!

Universities across the country are flooded with people who went to public schools. The great majority who graduate end up going on to be doctors, lawyers, business managers etc... and they all survived the U.S. public school system you are painting as some hell-hole.

If you want to paint public school children as drug-using, gun-wielding, semi-retarded cretins, then you'll have to extend that to the rest of the United States as well.

Or do you?

Ryk said...

JD said:
"Think of a world 100% full of christians - would it not be supremely boring?"

Actually I would not describe genocidal holy war on a planetary scale as boring at all. Nor would a transnational inquisition torturing suspected "heretics" who disagree on particular doctrines.

No JD boring is not the term I would use. Tragic and horrifying sounds more accurate.

Lurker said...

Ray, what is wrong with using "filthy language"? Biblically or otherwise?

Words are words, and it is you who projects meaning onto them. "Filthiness" is a category that certain words are intentionally used to carry, meaning that if (for example) the entire human race forgot the filthy words of today, new ones would pop up to take their place in the semantic vacuum.

But I ask again, what's wrong with using the f-word (filthy word)?

Rex Mundane said...

I love this nonsense, like somehow if the school says something the parents, who otherwise spend alot of time with the children outside of school, are utterly unable to explain anything to them about what it is they believe that may be at odds with what the school says.

"My son came home and was told about evolution, and here I was utterly powerless to refute it, because once you explain something to a child, you cannot, by law, explain a different opinion on it. My hands are completely tied!"

And on the other hand, its like theres this conscious ignorance happening here about why those home-schooling figures might be higher than public school figures. It might have less to do with some sort of implied, non-specific magic thats going on, and maybe more to do with, if one parent can afford to spend a sizeable chunk of every day at home, maybe the family is comfortably well off and has money to afford more and better supplemental teaching aides, in addition to being in that position, perhaps, due to being better educated, generally.

Ah but no, there I am looking at facts again. I'm sure its some special magic that's going on in home-schools that isn't happening in public-schools, and thats why all public school students... apparently smoke while playing with guns in class? Again, Gunther's point is somewhat lost on me, but I do get that the magic is in avoiding public schools, because... teachers are evil? Or no, textbooks are all wrong... or... maybe all the buildings are cursed?

Oh, but there I go overthinking yet again. Per a point you made a few posts previously, theres no need to ever ask why public schooling is stinky evil, its enough to know that it is and, hey presto and why not, lets just say that God is the reason that is the case. I mean, in a tangential, indirect sort of way, he is isn't he? problem solved!

So there we go, all you good people afraid of a big mean ol scary world, just keep your kids indoors and protect them from any ideas that are different from yours. Keep them as poorly educated as you are yourself. Have every successive generation of your family learn progressively less than the one before it. It will have no detrement to your success at all in the long run. I mean how could it possibly? Evolution is a catholic lie, right? There you go!

Jason H said...

Hmmm, I didn’t realize it was a fact that evolution was a pseudo science. That being the case, we should just do away with all this other stuff that gets in the way of reading the bible and worshipping God and just get this theocracy rolling. The only thing we really need are menial jobs that support us enough to buy bibles and other books about the bible and of course build bigger and better churches with awesome audio and visual equipment.

It’s funny how people perceive the idea that if anything else is taught besides strict biblical mythology it’s as if you are thumbing your nose to God and then ultimately rejecting God. I

If the case for the creator was so strong their would be no argument and everyday would be bible study day at James Polk high.

Raoul Rheits said...

"How could any theory be proven when there are no details to provide proof?"


Ray, if you take the time to list the currently accepted evidence that you actually refute, and also detail any evidence that you feel is missing, then do by all means.

So far all you seem to do is set up straw men, quote-mine, misrepresent and blow raspberries at anything at all to to do with evolution.

If you want to seriously refute evolution, can you start with listing all the fossils of transitional lifeforms and debunking them one by one?

That would be a start.

Then onto ERVs.

Your claims about 'crocoducks' and 'horses turning into cows' and whatnot are not remotely viable as refutation and you know it. They are known as 'straw men'. But would you mind your kids reading your dishonest arguments.

Let me ask you Ray, if you have kids, do you teach your kids all the same lies that you post up on here?

Don't you think one day they would ask themselves:

"Why did daddy claim that he 'abhorred religion' yet he deliberately misused Einstein's quotes about religion to promote religion?"

"Why did Daddy claim that there are 'no species to species fossils' yet he blatantly sidestepped every question asked of him to delineate what a 'species to species fossil' would look like?

"Why did daddy teach us that we had to 'bypass our intellect' and accept his quote-mining and blatant twisting of context as a more valid alternative to scientific discipline and study?"

"Why did daddy use lies and propaganda to discourage us from studying evolution'??

"Why did daddy misrepresent Stephen Hawking?"

"Why did daddy misrepresent Einstein"?

"Why did daddy misrepresent Richard Dawkins"?

"Why did daddy lie about the definition of 'atheist' as 'someone who believes everything comes from nothing'?"

"Why did daddy teach us that the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory are one and the same?"

"Why did daddy intentionally quote-mine an article about Tiktaalik implying that scientists say Tiktaalik "...has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution or species-to-species transitional forms" when what the article actually stated was:

" Those fins and a suite of other characteristics set Tiktaalik apart as something special; it has a combination of features that show the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their descendents, the four-legged vertebrates — a clade which includes amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and of course, humans"

"Why did daddy try and ridicule science by making up his own ridiculous crocoduck versions of it and then attacking those instead"?

etc...

Ray, I'm seriously interested - how do you personally decide that lying, propaganda, generalizing and misrepresenting is the moral choice for you to disseminate your ideas and claims?

Dimensio said...

Not only science, but revisionist history is rampant in the public school system.

Are public educational facilities in the United States also presenting the claim that an event frequently termed the "Holocaust" occurred, while offering no balancing "counterpoint" from those who question the occurrence of such an event?

Noble said...

Ray Comfort said:

I have met many kids who have been educated by their parents (using "idiot" home school textbooks) and I have found that they are consistently respectful, well-adjusted to life, sociable with their peers, and extremely knowledgeable.

I'll take your word for it on the respectful and sociable bits, but forgive me if I don't trust your judgment on well-adjusted and knowledgeable; you think self-hatred is well-adjusted and believing in magic is knowledgeable.

That Christian homeschooler in the carton looks like a Stepford child.

Dimensio said...

We could ALL learn a thing or two from Ben Stein and his campaign from last year with "EXPELLED the Movie". Our system is undermining the youth of today!

You are known to be a serial liar. As such, your claims cannot be considered credible. Your recommendation that readers view a movie known to contain demonstrable falsehoods, narrated by an individual who has claimed that science leads to committing acts of murder, are further evidence of your serial dishonesty.

John3:16 said...

JD said...
Think of a world 100% full of christians - would it not be supremely boring?

A world of people giving praise to their Creator, doing their best to live moral lives in obedience to their savior, loving their neighbors as must as they love themselves - maybe that's boring to you. Think of all the sin that causes so much harm to others, greed, porn, lying, hate, wars, violence, gossip, STD's, rape, murder, anarchy, sex-trafficking, slavery, drunkenness, drug use... If the world was 100% against these things, maybe that would be boring for you, but I've been a Christian for 11 years now and my life certainly isn’t boring. Jesus came to give life and give it abundantly. True Christianity is more exciting then anything the world can offer.

Now if we imagine a world of 100% atheism –I wouldn’t say it would be boring but I could easily say it would be miserable. Which atheistic society of human history would you want to live in?

Benjamin Franklin said...

Here is a perfect example of an idiot home school textbook. My son went to a Christian school, following the university system of him attending the campus 3 days a week, and home schooling the other two days.

For his 7th grade Life Science course, they used a textbook published by Bob Jones University Press.

In it, and I quote, was the most idiotic thing to have in a supposed science text book.

"Satan wants people to believe in evolution"

Whatever you have to say about this subject is meaningless, as personal experience clearly evidences the abject idiocy of home schooling curriculum from BJU press and Abeka.

When I saw this, I withdrew my son from that sham of a course, and subsequently withdrew him from that sham of a school.

Young earth creationists are the flat earthers of the 21st century. Wake up and smell the science.

Alanrd67 said...

Homeschooling rocks.

AND there are many wonderful public school teachers who do their best.

But not choosing a Government run school is still a freedom we have access to.

Don't worry those who are anti-anything that isn't overrun by the Government you may get your way one day.

It may be against the "law" for you to discuss anything with a professing Christian...or for all you know this site won't be allowed.

So you can have your free speech with those of like minds.

tick tock..

I do allow my children to see some of the responses that the Atheists comment on as well as the dinner with 40 Atheist video Ray and Mark put out. They will continually hear the retoric on how the "media/science adgenda" continually {seem to point to/indicate/rather strong belief/etc.etc...} about Atheistic Evolution and they are totally about "listening" and not buying into every drop of drivel that spills out of the "Government backed science". (And this is just when we want tomorrow's weather.)

We watched the first 5 minutes of the movie Dinosaur together (for example) so my children can pick up the subtle and not-so subtle desires of the media to put forth the visual images to children to believe whatever they want them to.(You can name 100s of "fun natured" movies that work the same marketing plan.)

Jacob...keep up the great work. God Bless you and your family.


JONATHAN said...
""You can attempt to keep your children away from everything that is supposedly evil in this world, but you're doing them a great diservice by not letting them learn the true nature of the world.""

So, according to jonathan...we should immerse them in evil...not protect them.

Hello jonathan...have you even read the Bible. Doesn't seem to shield them from the true nature of evil...it {exposes} it.

Some gravitate towards it...

Without God...All things are permissable.

Unless you repent, you will also perish.

You must really think people need to experience and step on a land mine...I choose to teach my children what a land mine CAN do---and then show them where the land mines ARE.

But most importantly...how to avoid the land mines.

I want my children safe. You?

Hacksaw Duck said...

Ray, I disagree with you a lot on this blog, but not when it comes to the abject failure of government schools and the superiority of home schooling. Author Charles Murray compared America's public education system to Soviet agriculture in terms of ineptitude. How true. To call our public education a disgrace is too generous.

Starbuck said...

The American public school system is a failure. -Ray Comfort


Ray, Once again you are wrong!!! (sorry, just ribbin you a little.) But you are wrong on the public schools being a failure. The public schools are in fact a fantastical success, depending on your point of view. If you were wanting to change this country from God fearing to God Ignoring? You remove God from the education. And replace it with something else. In this case it was evolution. Since the early 60's when prayer was removed from the schools, the athiests have been working feverishly to abolish God from the schools. Any kid who is found out to believe in God in the schools is harassed, teased, bullied and at times beaten. I saw it everyday back in the 70's when I was in high school.

One young man was bold enough to bring a Bible to school with him. He was severely ridiculed everyday. He would just stand there and take it. Quietly. That has stuck with me since middle school. I used to will him in my mind to fight back. If I was in his shoes, I would have. I fought back with bullies. What was truely sad, there were a few teachers that picked on him as well.

Home schooling is the way to go. But It needs to be done with both parents for the best results.

Athiests disgust me. They get their way and get God out of the schools, and wonder why the kids act like a bunch of Godless Heathens..

Seth said...

Ray,

Thank you for posting this. Most people tend to have a terrible misconception about homeschool and many have never even thought about the contrasts you pointed out.

My wife was homeschooled, while I was not. I grew up very confused about evolution - my school taught it and neither my church nor my parents made any mention against it (to the best of my recollection), so I obviously had a difficult time trying to make these two ideas work together. I came to the ultimate conclusion that, as my homeschooled wife had already been taught, they cannot work together - theistic evolution is just grasping at straws.

So, we plan to homeschool our two little ones when they get older for this reason and all the others you mentioned.

Of course, the first thing we hear when we mention homeschooling is "lack of social skills". That is a generalization and has more to do with parents not getting their children involved in extra-curricular activities. Most of the people in the church where my wife grew up were homeschooled and they display no evidence of lacking social skills.

shunted said...
I teach mathematics at a community college. I get a number of home school kids in my calculus classes. They tend to be really bad at math. They've been taught by their parents who know very little about mathematics. I wonder how they do in other science subjects.

Yes, they tend to be respectful. Often times shy and almost always lacking in mathematical knowledge. That's been my anecdotal experience.


I can see that... My wife is not great at math, however, her middle brother (who was also homeschooled) has a B.S. in Chemistry and is an excellent mathematician. I would quickly suggest to ANY homeschooler to acquire additional math skills outside the home if necessary.

So, if lacking math skills and the possibility of being somewhat shy are the risks I take with my children while keeping them from sex, drugs, physical harm, etc., I think I'll take that risk and teach them what they will likely conclude for themselves - this creation has a creator... just for starters.

Raoul Rheits said...

Ray, you also 'teach' the lie that Hitler was somehow inspired by Darwinian evolution.

Let us examine Hitler's own words:

"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties."

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x

"From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today."

- Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk

"The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator."

- Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

Ray, your dishonesty in debating and presenting an argument is becoming legendary.

Why does this not concern you?

Why does the pursuit of honesty not concern you?

Why would you misuse certain quotes and more importantly *exclude* the above quotes of a madman like Hitler to strengthen your so far pitiful argument against evolution?

This is the same kind of lie that you use when you misuse Einstein's words to promote your religion.

Do you not find that reprehensible?

If not, why not?

Straight answer please Ray.

Alanrd67 said...

someone who pens the name...
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN said:

"Wake up and smell the science."

Yes, some of it (the smell) could wake the...dead.

You chose..you doze.

Suzie said...

Hi everybody,

I have been reading this blog for awhile. There's a lot of fruitless arguing going on, but I guess I'll jump in with my two cents anyway. The more the merrier. :)

Homeschooling isn't the issue here. People have been homeschooling for centuries. Thomas Edison who considered himself an unbeliever was homeschooled by his mom for most of his education. So its definitely not simply a religious or Christian thing.

One of the best homeschooling curricula used to be from the Calvert School in Maryland and was used by government foreign service workers. I have personally known several atheist as well as Christian homeschool families myself.

So its not homeschooling, but as the OP mentioned, the books that are used and of course the world-view of the parents that matter.

People homeschool for many reasons--overcrowding in schools--they want to give their kids more one on one attention, distance from school--kids don't like riding on the school bus, peer pressure--parents want their kids to think for themselves, living overseas and then the biggie--wanting to make sure their kids are taught their own world view (which is one reason Christians homeschool).

Like I said, I've known both religious and non-religious homeschoolers. One person I knew said all she needed to educate her children was the Bible--no kidding. If you really think about this blog's owner, Mr Comfort, then you have to ask yourself, why he too wouldn't advocate using ONLY the Bible to teach children.

After all, he says that you can learn all about how the universe and the world were made by simply reading the Bible.

So I will ask Mr. Comfort this---why SHOULD people study science in school whether it be homeschool or otherwise? Why not just appreciate the world God gave us and not try to learn scientifically how it started and how things work, if those questions can all be found in the Bible?

PH said...

For everyone posting statistics saying that home school works, I have a question:

If those same public school children that the home schooled ones scored better than were instead taught at home by their parents do you think they would do better?

I don't think so.

James B. said...

J said...
Ray, you've been asked many times, and I'm going to ask at least once more:

Could you explain, in detail, what a "missing link" between dinosaurs and modern birds would look like? What characteristics would it possess?

I am not asking you to accept that such a missing link ever existed, or could even possibly exist. However, in order to know that such a missing link does not exist, we must first know what it would look like if it DID exist. Otherwise, how would we know what to even look for in the first place?


Hi J,

Nice try, but do you really expect Ray to describe what a nonexistent "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds would look like?

Your "missing-link" is missing because it doesn't exist, there is no link. Read the report from Oregan state recently published in Journal of Morphology, Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. (D. E. Quick and J. A. Ruben, “Cardio-pulmonary anatomy in theropod dinosaurs: Implications from extant archosaurs,” Journal of Morphology, 2009


By the way, I did try to answer your question to me (from a previous blog), but looks like my post never made it to the board.

Blessings,

T_ConX said...

What's that? The American School system produces students of poor quality? That explains why only 40% of Americans accept evolution. I'll agree with Ray over how incredibly terrible American School system is, but only because I'm Canadian.

As for the 'unproven theory of evolution' bit... Thanks for continuing to betray how little you know about science by considering a theory unprovable.

Do us all a favor, and commit this to memory:

In science, a Theory is an explanational framework that fits all relevant observations. It can never be proven. However, it can be disproven if sufficient evidence to the contrary is found.

Cary said...

When people ask me why I home school I give them a few reasons and say, "That's reason #599" since there are hundreds of reasons why!

When you compare my 12 year old daughter to her public school peers, that's when you can really see the difference. She knows who Brittney Spears is and has no desire to hear her music. She's quite content with her Christian rap. Yes, we are radical and we love it!

My kids are very social and well mannered. They are even involved in sports! Wow!

Dimensio said...

They get their way and get God out of the schools

Legal challenges to religious instruction in public schools are typically made by Christians, and it is dishonest for you to blame atheists for such events.

LivingAsOneFreed said...

I think it should be pointed out that not all home-schooled children are home-schooled because of their (or their parents') faith.

There are many homeschooled that are just fed up with the public school system as a whole, and where school-choice programs don't exist.

For example - in my 'neck of the woods', the Milwaukee, Wisconsin public school system has a graduation rate of LESS THAN 50%, which is deplorable. Most parents don't have the option to go to a 'voucher school' so instead, they home-school.

By the way, I think those that have any criticism for anyone because of their 'skoolin', should first run a spell-check on their posts.

Most common mistakes involve:

To-too-two
Their-there-they're

Starbuck said...

JD said...
Think of a world 100% full of christians - would it not be supremely boring?


Oh yeah.. Watching millions of people headed for hell is so very entertaining. And how they head there as fast as they can is quite amusing as well.(sarcasm off)

Come on.. Your view of Christianity and Christians is quite skewd.

Starbuck said...

Now in my comment I was hurling insults at Starbuck because that is how he wishes to be treated. Since he claims to be a Christian and therefor practices the golden rule, when he began making petty threats and insults at me, it became clear that is how he wanted me to "do unto him" so I obliged.

Playing the wounded duck huh Ryk?
You love to insult other people, Ray perhaps. And when someone throws it back you cry. (sigh)

Ok. I will apologize. I know how hard it is for athiests to get along in life. I will also be nice. I wouldn't want you to run to Ray and have him scold me.

So, now that you were big enough to apologize, I also apologize. Perhaps not has big as you. Because you did it first.

And I guess God probably wouldn't want me to do what I would want to do. As you and a lot of athiests in this world just love to ridicule God. I guess that is your right. I wish you wouldn't. but there is nothing I can do to stop you. However, look at the bright side. Keep it up and you will be able to blaspheme him to his face. And then you can you use your obvious intellect and out wit him.

Rebecca in TX said...

shunted said...

I teach mathematics at a community college. I get a number of home school kids in my calculus classes. They tend to be really bad at math. They've been taught by their parents who know very little about mathematics. I wonder how they do in other science subjects.

Yes, they tend to be respectful. Often times shy and almost always lacking in mathematical knowledge. That's been my anecdotal experience.

Shunted,
Really? And I suppose all of the public schooled kids are mathematical genius? Not! Research studies have shown the home-educated typically score 15 to 30 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests. Home-educated students typically score above average on the SAT and ACT tests that colleges consider for admissions.

Your classroom does not equal all home educated students. I suggest you do your students a favor and get rid of your prejudices about home education by getting the facts.

Rebecca in TX said...

Ryk said... Once again to those who are homeschooled or are home schooling, that actually have or provide a decent education I apologize for my comment, they were intended to insult one particular stupid person not an entire group.

Sorry.
Ryk

Ryk, I have a lot of respect for someone who is willing to admit they are wrong and apologize. Thank you, I forgive you.

carl said...

Homeschoolers should teach the following textbooks:

In the textbook "Mammal-Like Reptiles and the origin of Mammals", Tom Kemp says:

"Any reconstruction is a HYPOTHESIS...as THEORETICAL AS THIS KIND OF WORK IS, arranging these kinds of fossils is the relatively easy part of paleontology. What you don't see in museum displays are the scores of headless, legless, ribless, smashed, crushed, and half-digested fossils that paleontologists depend on for much of their knowledge of extinct life. Many researchers find themselves sifting through piles of bones of animals that were washed down ancient rivers, mishmashes of many kinds of small creatures - trying to decide which piece goes with which."

"the fossil record does not usually show a gradual transition from one form to another."

"The main groups of the new radiation are more or less fully evolved when they first appear in the fossil record, and they change relatively little in the course of the radiation."

Regarding the total lack of transitional forms, both Darwin and Steven J. Gould had something to say:

Darwin: "But the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links? Geology asuuredly DOES NOTREVEAL ANY SUCH FINELY GRADUATED ORGANIC CHAIN; and this, perhaps, is the mostserious objection which can be urged against THE THEORY. The explanation lies, as I BELIEVE, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

Steven J. Gould, Harvard Biology and Geology Professor said in the article 'This View of Life Aug 91, page 4):

"The oldest truth of paleontology proclaimed thatthe vastmajority of species appear fully formed in the fossil record and do not change substantially during the long period of their later existence. In other words, GEOLOGICALLY ABRUPT APPEARANCE FOLLOWED BY SUBSEQUENT STABILITY."

1 Timothy 6:20 (King James Version)

...keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called...

DBW said...

I was homeschooled from seventh grade until I graduated. I was a Christian back then.
Now I'm one of those filthy atheists you think so little of.

Wait What said...

Too bad for them when Jesus returns he could be a Muslim prophet and return to lead the muslim people of the word, as fortold in their holy book... which is not the inspired word of God written by men, but as they claim came straight from the angel of the lord... tough choices...

DBW said...

Oh, and after I finished home schooling I went to a Christian college. I think that's when I started to lose my faith.

Noble said...

John3:16 said:
Now if we imagine a world of 100% atheism –I wouldn’t say it would be boring but I could easily say it would be miserable. Which atheistic society of human history would you want to live in?

I pick present-day Sweden! (Yes, I know it's not %100 but but I believe the number is something like %80.)

The False Convert said...

Athiests disgust me. They get their way and get God out of the schools, and wonder why the kids act like a bunch of Godless Heathens..

Oh no... Watch out... Starbuck's disgusted with those darn Atheists again. And we all know what happens next. He's gonna get his guns and come gunnin' for us Godless Heathens!!!!

Run for the hills!!!!

Raoul Rheits said...

AlanRD67 implies:

"It may be against the "law" for you (atheists)to discuss anything with a professing Christian...or for all you know this site won't be allowed.

So you can have your free speech with those of like minds."

Well done Alan. Do you also teach your kids that us evil Orwellian atheists are opposed to secularism and free speech?

Whatever. Nice going.

As an atheist I've been labeled everything from anarchic rebellious nihilist to lockstep government-pandering goon. Keep 'em coming.

Your assertions are right up there with Ray's "(atheistic evolution) is a cancer that destroys a nation from the inside"

Its ALL about JESUS !!! said...

@Dimensio, Your commentary has the same vocabulary in all of your responses.

You need to put 'evidence' down in your commentary to PROVE your outrageous ideas of the 'big bang' theory, and 'NOTHING to something' in the macro-evolution theory.

Try DrDINO website for some help, those atheist PROPAGANDA sites are detrimental to your LIFE in the here after.

Hope that helps! GOD BLESS!!!

In His Love,
Terry Burton

*Hell's Best Kept Secret video and audio for FREE play on my blogs.

erikloza said...

Dimensio,
Have you ever told a lie?

Its ALL about JESUS !!! said...

@ Nathan, you said

"All creationist believers have is a blind faith in what they have been taught by other creationists in the theory, and "God did it" isn't good science. It's a pseudo-science. And that’s a fact."

That is NOT a fact, and you do not know what you are talking about my feind. Creation Science is the foundation for SCIENCE! macro evolution has NOTHING to do with it. Try proving your baseless theory of evolution. Where are the 'missing links'? what caused 'big bang' ?

Allow me to educate you on Bible Prophecy and the accuracy of His Holy WORD. One third of the Bible is Bible Phrophecy.

No other book has made the forecasts and completed them in such detail, not even Nostradamus ( who stole most of his from the Bible ) has such a record!

Example: Prophecies have been made over 800 years prior to an event in great detail, and were fulfilled with 100% ACCURACY.

Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah completed 109 distinct prophecies of the SAVIOR from the Old Testament and ancient records.

Try doing your homework before you SLANDER the inerrant Word of GOD!

There will come a day when you will be held accountable for your slander, disrespect, and your sins.

REPENT while you can my friend.
His Wrath abides on you atheist.
All liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire.

The only WAY out for mankind and your 'viperous breed' is thru His Son Jesus Christ. Repent, and put your trust in the Savior!

In His Love,
Terry Burton

MVP said...

Ray (and all).
Go to google
Type in 'wikimedia mammalia'
click on the first link
(you can give url sources but we can't? no fair Ray!!)
look at all the lovely fossils
go back to vertabrates
then back to chordata
then back to animalia
then back to eukaryota

(I assume you know what all these classifications are...you wouldnt possibly make statements of fact about something you are ENTIRELY ignorant of would you?)

look at the evolution of the elephant, the whale, the...everything!
Its a beautiful thing to behold. Too beautiful and complex for your cruel perverse made up God to have created so I can see why you don't believe in it. Enjoy your denial Ray.

*awaits people saying that it is I that am in denial...you are welcome to your view also of course...but we have the physical evidence..what do you have?*

Mike and Lizette said...

"Evolution has been proven despite what your idiot homeskool ‘textbooks’ told you. The only questions are about the details." Ryk


Realy Ryk, so where is this so called proof? The evolutionist has yet to provide it. The true question really is what does this gain you.

MVP said...

I screwed up...i am only human.
You have to put 'mammalia' in the search box on the website...sorry!

*this probably wont be posted anyway as it references a website and only Ray can do that...I hope you prove me incorrect in this regard Ray...i havent posted a url!*

Noble said...

Cary said:

When people ask me why I home school I give them a few reasons and say, "That's reason #599" since there are hundreds of reasons why!

When you compare my 12 year old daughter to her public school peers, that's when you can really see the difference. She knows who Brittney Spears is and has no desire to hear her music. She's quite content with her Christian rap. Yes, we are radical and we love it!

My kids are very social and well mannered. They are even involved in sports! Wow!


So, when you said you were a teacher before, you were referring only to your home-schooling your kids and you don't actually teach in a school? If so, I'm relieved.

Starbuck said...


Oh no... Watch out... Starbuck's disgusted with those darn Atheists again. And we all know what happens next. He's gonna get his guns and come gunnin' for us Godless Heathens!!!!

Run for the hills!!!!


(*sigh*)

I said I was sorry... sheesh.

I have never shot an athiest.
I never ridiculed athiests until I saw what they talk about on their websites. I have read mounds of blogs. They complain about 2 things in life. Christians/God, and government not doing anyting about the percieved injustices in the world.

WEll ok. Complain about government all you want. But the way they talk about God, Jesus and Christians is absolutely disgusting. It has made me sick to my stomach at times.

Why do you athiests talk like that about My Lord anyways? I don't talk about your lack of God like that? How come you don't talk like that about allah? Oh I suppose you could. But athiests usually just concentrate on Jehovah.

Why is that athiests? Why do you blaspheme God every chance you get? If you didn't believe in God, wouldn't you just avoid Christians? Or just ignore them? Why do you go out of the way to be that disgusting? I must say I am completely at my wits end about it. Quite often I now just go into insulting them instead of having dialog with them. Because of what I have read from the athiests.

Alanrd67 said...

Raoul Rheits said...

"Do you also teach your kids that us evil Orwellian atheists are opposed to secularism and free speech?

Whatever. Nice going."

Actually, I believe that you wouldn't be here if you didn't value other views to learn from. That is why many Christians would come here as well.



There are those that would say: "We say what is a scientific fact and we say what is religious."

If you allow both in and {critical thinking} is allowed, then we can both decide for ourselves whether we reject the God of the Bible or we reject Evolution based on the honest straight forward historical, scientific, and archeological information.

We SHOULD use the words: "probably", "might be", "it sure seems to point to", in cases where we don't know.

The 1st and 2nd law of Thermodynamics qualify as perfect. Except in the case where someone who had cancer and now with no treatment doesn't.
While this is rare it is always labeled as a miracle.

We always seem to know if we lie or steal (unless it is a mistake).

Taking a pencil you thought was yours and you live the rest of your life never knowing it was not your pencil.


So, I thank God for the freedoms we enjoy, as I know you are. Let us not take away the freedom to share ideas whether Atheistic or Christian.

Loose one and you can't have a choice for the other.

Whateverman said...

Rayniac wrote How could any theory be proven when there are no details to provide proof

Theories, especially scientific ones, can and will never be proven. you know this, Ray, and yet you intentionally pretend otherwise.

If God does exist, and he created us, and there is a Hell, you've got seats on the 50-yard line. Rejecting your god-given brain in favor of faith in a man-made book is surely a sin...

Whateverman said...

Incidentally, I see nothing wrong/bad with defacto home schooling. It can be "misused" to propagandize to impressionable minds, but that doesn't happen all the time. Up to a point, I agree with Ray in that home-schooled kids do seem to excel in some areas.

However, turning his pro-home-schooling opinion into a rant about Evolution reveals Ray to be one of the propgandizers (as if that was ever in question)

Kerri Love said...

It's a pseudo-science. And that’s a fact.

As much as you would like that to be "a fact" it is still just your opinion... sorry Ray.

Dimensio said...

Nice try, but do you really expect Ray to describe what a nonexistent "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds would look like?

If Mr. Comfort is unable to describe such a hypothetical entity, then he cannot honestly claim to know that a given specimen does not constitute such a "missing link" and it is therefore dishonest for him to dismiss extant presented examples.



Your "missing-link" is missing because it doesn't exist, there is no link

Please substantiate this assertion.




Read the report from Oregan state recently published in Journal of Morphology, Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. (D. E. Quick and J. A. Ruben, “Cardio-pulmonary anatomy in theropod dinosaurs: Implications from extant archosaurs,” Journal of Morphology, 2009


Dr. Ruben's tentative research does not constitute a scientific consensus. You are "cherry picking" data that agrees with your preconceived notions, while simultaneously ignoring that the very data that you have selectively presented ultimately contradicts your fundamental worldview.

Dimensio said...

Homeschoolers should teach the following textbooks:

I am curious; why do you believe that dishonest "quote mining" should be presented to home-schooled students? Is your position so devoid of actual merit that you must resort to engaging in intellectually dishonest practices as a means of supporting it?

Dimensio said...

You need to put 'evidence' down in your commentary to PROVE your outrageous ideas of the 'big bang' theory, and 'NOTHING to something' in the macro-evolution theory.

I have made no statements regarding "proof", nor have I referenced the Big Bang theory in the current discussion. You are lying regarding my statements; this is unsurprising given that you are a demonstrable serial liar.



Try DrDINO website for some help,


I have repeatedly inquired regarding the actual identity of the individual whom you have named "DrDino", yet you have continually neglected to provide any information in that regard. I have come to suspect that, like many of your other claims, the actual existence of this individual is a fabrication.




those atheist PROPAGANDA sites are detrimental to your LIFE in the here after.


I view no "atheist propaganda" websites. You are, again, lying. As you are established as a serial liar, your claims cannot be considered reliable. You have lied repeatedly about me, about Charles Darwin, about Professor Richard Dawkins and about numerous contributors to this forum. Nothing that you claim should be considered credible.

MVP said...

Ray...it is VERY intresting to me that you STILL have not removed the Stephen Hawkins quote from your header. If you really wish to be sincere and honest with people I cannot fathom why you have not removed it as i have never seen a more blatant quote mine which i can only imagine must be an appeal to authority. It is ridiculous for 2 reasons:

1) the quote mine factor - that sentence is taken from a chapter in his 'Brief History of Time' book (page 127 if you wanna look it up) that deals with his reasons for rendering God useless in the creation of the universe. I am not saying he is right or wrong in this matter but it is monumentally dishonest and disingenuous to use it for your own purposes...have you even read it???

2) The use of Hawins as an authority makes you even more ludicrous when IN THE SAME EXACT PAGE he says that

"Science seems to have uncovered a set of laws that, within the limits set by the uncertainty principle, tell us how the universe will develop with time, if we know its state at any one time. These laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it."

So Hawkins himself does not believe in a personal God at all, believes in cosmological evolution (and probably biological evolution...i will look into it but it matters not for my point) and in fact only posits the God hypothesis to make his point - to later say that his theory may render it pointless...that if "the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"

Do you see the dishonesty and blatant idiocy of quoting this sentence Ray..did you read it. Ig you didnt then that is just plain ignorance and carelssness. If you did then you are being flat out dishonest.

Please remove it.

B. Pierce said...

The God of the Bible is clearly not omniscient. He gets angry, He changes his mind, He "tests" people, eagerly waiting for the results...

The amazing mess of nonsense that is Genesis chapter three show us that Satan "broke" the perfect system in the garden of Eden, and that's why there's now murder and horrible things in the world. It isn't God's fault, He's just an innocent bystander. He didn't want it this way. And it's not like He could have foreseen this turn of event...

God looks for Adam and Eve, realizes they've eaten of the tree of knowledge and now know the difference between good and evil, starts to panic, curses the snake, and quickly boots them off the property to prevent them from also eating of the tree of life, which would make them eternal like Him. (Why did He make those two unprotected magical trees in the first place? Oh, that's right, He completely failed to foresee what would happen.)

God is like an incompetent custodian who's just improvising as He goes along!

If we are "made in His image" does that mean He cannot predict what we will do? That every time someone fails to accept-Jesus-as-your-Lord-and-Savior it's a genuine surprise for Him? Or does He already know the name of everyone whom He will send to Hell?

And while being omnipotent, He is powerless to do a better job to convince us that fairy tales about talking snakes? And then 4000 years later, a Man who walks on water, creates wine, fish and bread on demand?

What a thorough disappointment.

Daniel said...

Noble said...
John3:16 said:
Now if we imagine a world of 100% atheism –I wouldn’t say it would be boring but I could easily say it would be miserable. Which atheistic society of human history would you want to live in?

I pick present-day Sweden! (Yes, I know it's not %100 but but I believe the number is something like %80.)


Nah, you wouldn't. John3:16 is right.
Blessings from Sweden!

jonathan said...

@Dimensio

I belive Terry Burtons Dr.Dino is the fraud Kent Hovind, convicted on 58 counts of tax fraud and currently serving 10 years in federal prison.

GermanMike said...

Another random "Waiter, there is a fly in my soup" joke.

A man sits in a restaurant and calls the waiter.
"Waiter, there is a fly in my soup."
- "shhh, not so loud, or the other guests will also want one"

Lurker said...

Terry Burton said...

"My sons were both home schooled..."

By you? That is truly horrifying.

"The kids [who accept evolution] turn into criminals with a 'animal like' attitude towards others and society."

What percentage of criminals are atheist, do you think?

Kerri Love said...

I still think that any Christian child that isn't taught evolution is ill equipped to argue against it. You're setting them up to look ignorant and that can only harm your faith not strengthen it.

Also if you don't teach your children what other people believe you are only risking them becoming curious and looking into it themselves. Don't be afraid to answer any question, you can tell them with love and faith and no else can do that like you can.

Teach them about the sad realities in life, and about all the things that go against your faith. You want to be the one who teaches them these things, you don't want them to go looking for someone else who will.

That's just my two cents for ya :)

Char'Els said...

One reason that American public schools produce many graduates who are ignorant of science, math, history, and literature, and who lack critical reasoning skills, is that too many local school boards have been taken over by Christian fundamentalists and have been assaulted by fundies from without, trying to promote their idiot, anti-science and anti reasoning agenda. These school boards end up giving in and adopting wishy-washy, compromise standards that avoid anything that has the taint of "controversy," the only "controversies" being the false ones stirred up by the know-nothing fundies.) With so much of their time also being taken up with defending real science in the classroom, it become difficult for them to devote their efforts to improve scholastic standards.

This is not to say that there aren't other reasons why Americans tend to be so ignorant. We have an entertainment-based culture ruled by least common denominator standards. We debase and ridicule learning and academic achievment instead of celebrating it. ( Compare the status according high school athletes as opposed to that of academic achievers. When was the last time you saw a high school have pep rallies to encourage high math scores, or put up pictures of outstanding science students in the trophy case?) But fundies trying to degrade academic standards even further are only part of the problem, not part of a solution.

Rock Sprites said...

As someone who graduated from high school only a year ago, I can agree with everything that you have just said in this post. So many people I knew, let alone the ones I didn't know, would come into school drunk or high. I wouldn't say it was a majority, but it was too many for comfort. I got into drugs and alcohol in high school as well, I was suicidal and had to seek counseling, etc. And the few people I know who were home schooled are, it would appear, far better off than most people I know.

In my junior year, a girl who had been home schooled her entire life decided to start coming to our high school. I vividly remember how disgusted she was by our language and behavior. And this girl was brilliant. She just couldn't believe how immature people are.

I think I'm going to home school my own children. I'd rather raise a person who will fight against the current, rather than go with the flow.

Lurker said...

Starbuck said...

"Why is that athiests? Why do you blaspheme God every chance you get?"

Naturally, for God, an atheist simply existing is a form of blasphemy.

This is because we do not believe he exists and as such do not show him reverence, which is a form of blasphemy. If that is what you mean by "blaspheming God every chance [we] get" then you're just going to have to accept the fact that almost 70% of the world does not believe your God exists.

Now, I also hope you realize that atheists don't go around spouting arguments against God 24-7. Sure we do when we get on a religious-themed website (but so are the people who run it). The rest of the time we are enjoying ourselves, watching TV, working, and doing all the same things you do, except we don't think about God when we do it.

I don't know what your mental perception of atheists is, but it's clearly wrong.

Jacob said...

My favorite part of reading this blog is to see people crying about quote mining and twisting meanings and then see the exact same people quote mine the Bible and twist it to meet their needs. Its really funny. Surley athiests dont understand what they are doing and how bad and silly that looks...

Char'Els said...

mike etc. said: "Realy Ryk, so where is this so called proof? The evolutionist has yet to provide it."



How about the biogeographic distribution of species? It's not a hard concept to grasp. Go look it up, and then come back tell us what it means and why science considers it overwhelmingly convincing evidence for the evolution of species by means of natural selection. (You don't have to accept it if you don't want to, just show that you understand the idea.) Then you can refute it with your own evidence and reasoning and tell us why thousands and thousands of scientists - who spend their lives devoted to expertise in biological sciences - are completely mistaken about one of the fundamental concepts of biology, and that you know better than they do.

If you can't, then I'll have to assume that either you don't know what you're talking about and can't be bothered to learn, or that you're being intentionally dishonest. Either back up your claims, or back off.

carl said...

To: Evolutionists (e.g. Weekend armchair science "buffs")

Do you have a formal university-level education in the sciences? Don't get excited about pop-science articles in the Times.
You are believing a two-bit lie. So don't let that "science knowledge" puff you up.

Romans 1
They exchanged the truth of God for a (two-bit) lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator

Dimensio said...

"I am curious; why do you believe that dishonest "quote mining"..."

I read my sources cover-to-cover. If I have taken anything out of context, please let me know the specifics from those sources. When did you read them?

I'm calling it a day. Have a good evening.

Nathan said...

Terry Burton commented on my hilarious rewriting of Rays words :) I feel so honored! Your stuff is just so awesome, keep it coming.

Dimensio said...

Dimensio,
Have you ever told a lie?


Yes. What is the relevance of your inquiry?

Dimensio said...

That is NOT a fact, and you do not know what you are talking about my feind. Creation Science is the foundation for SCIENCE! macro evolution has NOTHING to do with it.

As you are known to be a serial liar, your claim cannot be considered reliable.




Try proving your baseless theory of evolution.


You have been informed previously that scientific concepts are never proven. You are engaging in willful dishonesty; this is consistent with your status as a serial liar.




Where are the 'missing links'?


References to transitional fossils have been provided previously. You are again engaging in willful dishonesty.




what caused 'big bang' ?


The Big Bang event is not a part of the theory of evolution. You have been informed of this previously, thus this inquiry is consistent with your reputation as a serial liar.




Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah completed 109 distinct prophecies of the SAVIOR from the Old Testament and ancient records.


As you are known to be a serial liar, your claim cannot be considered reliable.

Dimensio said...

If you allow both in and {critical thinking} is allowed, then we can both decide for ourselves whether we reject the God of the Bible or we reject Evolution based on the honest straight forward historical, scientific, and archeological information.




You are positing a false dichotomy and unsubstantiated claims.The 1st and 2nd law of Thermodynamics qualify as perfect.

No scientific concept can be considered "perfect". All scientific concepts are subject to revision pending contradictory observations.

captain howdy said...

Ray the televangelist sez--

How could any theory be proven when there are no details to provide proof? The missing link (the details) is still missing. All evolution believers have is a blind faith in what they have been taught by other believers in the theory, and "evolution did it" isn't good science. It's a pseudo-science. And that’s a fact.

***

What's astonishing to me is that a televangelist like Ray Comfort has the temerity to lecture us on science when he's shown repeatedly that he doesn't even understand something as basic as gravity. He repeats endlessly that there is no evidence to support evolution even though he has been challenged dozens of times to try to explain away evidence from ERVs and has failed to do so each and every time.

If you're actually willing to place greater credence in what a televangelist has to say about science over what actual scientists say about science, then you're stupid, period.

I've said it before and it bears repeating: Going to some televangelist for advice about science is like going to Tammy Faye Bakker for beauty tips.

shunted said...

Rebecca in TX wrote:

Really? And I suppose all of the public schooled kids are mathematical genius? Not! Research studies have shown the home-educated typically score 15 to 30 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests. Home-educated students typically score above average on the SAT and ACT tests that colleges consider for admissions.

The SAT, ACT, and other standardized tests don't cover calculus.

Your classroom does not equal all home educated students. I suggest you do your students a favor and get rid of your prejudices about home education by getting the facts.

I did say that my experience was anecdotal.

It appears that you did not properly comprehend what I wrote. You appear to have a chip on your shoulder. I have 15 nieces and nephews all of whom have been home schooled. One is a mathematics major at the University of North Carolina. I have some experience in the area of home schooling. I don't believe I need more education on the issue.

shunted said...

Starbuck wrote:

Playing the wounded duck huh Ryk?
You love to insult other people, Ray perhaps. And when someone throws it back you cry. (sigh)

Ok. I will apologize. I know how hard it is for athiests to get along in life. I will also be nice. I wouldn't want you to run to Ray and have him scold me.

So, now that you were big enough to apologize, I also apologize. Perhaps not has big as you. Because you did it first.

And I guess God probably wouldn't want me to do what I would want to do.


Ray, do you occassionally let uncivil comments from Christians to be posted to show atheists the true heart of Christians?

NOTE: A while back Ray responded to a question about why uncivil comments from atheists get through. He said, in essence, that it was to show what the atheist heart is really like. I'm curious about consistency on Ray's views.

Trophy of Grace said...

B. Pierce said...
And while being omnipotent, He is powerless to do a better job to convince us that fairy tales about talking snakes? And then 4000 years later, a Man who walks on water, creates wine, fish and bread on demand?

What a thorough disappointment.


The only disappointment is the fool who will eternally parish in their sins because they don’t want to know God and daily harden their heart.

Arguendo said...

Ray, I was actually enjoying your article until you got down to the evolution bit. So I'm going to ignore that last part. We know; you don’t accept evolution.

I think people should be allowed to home school their children. I think there should be third-party testing however so that we know these kids are actually getting an education and not being neglected. Preferably we would have testing for the parent also before they begin home schooling, so they are prepared for what they are committing to.

My wife insisted on home-schooling our daughter because of some issues at her school, but unfortunately it was a miserable failure. My wife was not skilled enough to teach her, and I worked long hours. Not all people can teach and with home schooling we should have some measure of whether the child is actually receiving the education they need to function in society.

Raoul Rheits said...

MVP -

Please note that Ray has refused at disturbingly regular intervals to remove a number of misrepresentative quotes that he has distorted to his own ends.

Ray seems to consider the misuse of the works of people such as Hawking and Einstein to be somehow 'honorable' if it's promoting Ray's books and claims against science.

I don't know if I find that more or less disturbing than the fact that his 'fans' don't step up to the plate and call him on it...

Chris B said...

Starbuck: "Why is that athiests? Why do you blaspheme God every chance you get?...Quite often I now just go into insulting [atheists] instead of having dialog with them."


Starbuck, you ask us why we blaspheme God. But you yourself, despite claiming to follow Jesus, completely disregard His moral teachings. Instead of turning the other cheek, or doing unto others as you would have done to you, you respond to those who offend you with insults and threats of violence.

Atheists, as so many Christians have been kind enough to point out to me over the years, do not acknowledge any objective morality. Yet you allegedly do. One would think you would hold yourself to a higher standard.

Instead, with your anger and bitterness, you disregard the morals of the faith you claim to have, and even appear to have a kind of contempt for it.

Atheists make their own moral decisions, and it stands to reason that the results would sometimes be positive, sometimes negative. I have known very kind and decent atheists, and very rude and cruel ones; I daresay any other atheist would say the same. That's the sort of variation one expects in any large population without any outside control.

But you claim to believe in, worship, and obey Jesus. And yet you ignore both His words and His example when it is convenient for you to do so.

This contradiction, coupled with the cruel words you direct at others, strikes me as a far more offensive blasphemy than any childish drivel atheists might spout.

Imagine every cruel, insulting or threatening word you direct at atheists being spoken about, and directed at, Jesus Christ himself.

To my mind, when you spit out insults, or taunts, or make threats, or speak out in anger and hatred, this is exactly what you do.

If you want to be a Christian, follow Christ. But if you ignore Christ's teachings, don't be surprised when others come away from their encounter with you with a damaged opinion of Christianity.

Iago said...

Starbuck, unfortunately you started ranting off about how you would go out and shoot at atheists or heathen given the chance to do so. After all the murders that have been committed recently against people that are percieved as against Christian principles, you expect to suddenly be seen as the soul of reason and meekness and that 'you were only kidding'.

So anyway to address your point or points. You wish to have religion or a relatinship with God. Great more power to you. If that brings you happiness and contentment wonderful. However when folks such as yourslef go and try and push those principles into public life and want to establish a government more in accordance with the Bible, that is where I need to draw the line. That is a clear violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution. It is turning the government of this land into a theocracy.
I hope that you can see that that is a Bad Idea.

Arguendo said...

Ray, why don't you allow web-links in your blog? I would love to see some of the sources for the material people are quoting on this blog. Wouldn't you? A lot of folks are throwing around statistics and without a source they are pointless.

Mike said...

For those of you who expect Ray to actually reply to your comments, don't waste your time. He can't actually back up the bald assertions he makes.

Ray Comfort said...

"Jonathan said... Ray,Perhaps others have pointed this out before, but the quote in the front of your blog by Stephen Hawking is taken completely out of context. Hawkings is saying IF the univerese is created this way then we need an intelligent designer, then he spends the next two pages explaning why the univerese was NOT created this way. Go look it up in his book.

Since you are an honest individual who doesnt misrepresent the views of others I am sure you will make the appopriate changes immediately.

Thanks."

Jonathan...sorry to take a while to get back to you on this. You are right. I have asked my web designer to remove it. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Best wishes.

Amy2 said...

Benjamin Franklin,
Why did you put your child in a Christian school to begin with? You got exactly what they said they would provide. A Christian worldview of Science, History, etc.

Why do you think we post against evolution? Other than that lack of evidence, it contradicts God's word. Who is the father of lies? Satan. Duh.

Shunted,
When you teach and love a subject, NO ONE seems to be as good as it as you (general term). I went to public school, I stink at math. My son is homeschooled, he's way ahead of grade level (which I'm only stating to show that it is in fact, only your experience).

Speaking of grade levels and test scores, those are sometimes what homeschoolers feel they have to use to "defend" themselves. We are building character and raising our kids in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord." I could give a flip about what the government says my kid should know by a specific age/grade. They can't even meet their OWN standards.

More worshiping at the alter of education.

J said...

James B. said in response to me, "Nice try, but do you really expect Ray to describe what a nonexistent "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds would look like?"

In truth, no I did not. I did have a small lingering, possibly foolish hope of some detailed response, however.

"Your "missing-link" is missing because it doesn't exist, there is no link."

But my point is this: how do you know? If we fail to even agree on what a missing link would be, then we will never been able to have a sensible discussion on whether such a thing exists.

For example, I do not believe that angels exist. However, were you to ask me what an angel should look like, I would give you a definition that would most probably resemble your own. If it didn't, we could then explore each others definitions, and determine which was the most accurate and why. Then we could continue the discussion and evaluate the evidence for or against the existence of such beings. If I failed to even agree with you on what an angel should look like, then there's no possible way we can begin to agree or for that matter, even disagree on the existence of angels.

In fact, I say with confidence that you can not know whether you actually agree with Ray on this issue. Neither of you, to my knowledge, have ever even bothered to state any details on what a "missing link" would look like. So how are you so confident that you and Ray are even discussing the same object? Let me put it this way: when or if you and Ray were discussing this issue in private, how would you describe the missing link to each other? What common ground would you establish with other creationists, regarding the non-existent missing links?

Mind you, I'm not, at this point, even asking Ray to agree with my definition of a transitional fossil. I just want to know his definition (or yours, if you're willing).

As for the article in the Journal of Morphology: a quick google search only turned up one article on AIG. I scanned through it, but without having read the original article or having any background information on that particular journal, I don't feel I'm educated enough at this point to make a comment. I'll do some more research when time permits.

Respectfully,
J

Steven J. said...

Its ALL about JESUS!!! replied to Nathan:

Allow me to educate you on Bible Prophecy and the accuracy of His Holy WORD. One third of the Bible is Bible Phrophecy.

No other book has made the forecasts and completed them in such detail, not even Nostradamus ( who stole most of his from the Bible ) has such a record!


Terry, do you ever know anything about the subjects you pontificate on? Nostradamus' quatrains owe very little to the Bible, and they are so vague and ambiguous that most of them can be (and many of them have been) matched to dozens of events in history. Nostradamus, in fact, demonstrates a classic trait of successful prophecy: say something that can be reinterpreted after the fact to fit whatever happened.

Example: Prophecies have been made over 800 years prior to an event in great detail, and were fulfilled with 100% ACCURACY.

Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah completed 109 distinct prophecies of the SAVIOR from the Old Testament and ancient records.


Well, so the New Testament says, but then, at least half the whole point of this argument is that some of us are skeptical of what the New Testament says. The gospels of Matthew and Luke say Jesus was born of a virgin, but was he? The gospel of John says that soldiers cast lots for Jesus' robe as he hung on the cross, implicitly fulfilling Psalm 22 ... but did this really happen, or did the author fill in details of the crucifixion by borrowing them from the Psalm rather than basing them on eyewitnesses?

The other half (more or less) of the dispute is whether all these "prophecies of Jesus" were in fact prophecies of Jesus. Isaiah's virgin birth prophecy, for example, was given as a sign to King Ahaz that the invading forces of northern Israel and Syria would soon depart without conquering Judah. It would hardly have been relevant to Isaiah's purpose if the birth of the child in question were to be seven and a half centuries later! Likewise, "out of Egypt I have called my son" does not seem, in its original context, to be a Messianic prophecy, even if there were independent evidence that Jesus ever set foot in Egypt.

Many biblical prophecies are open to almost as many interpretations as Nostradamus: a century ago, it was said that a comparison of Barnes' Notes on Revelation to Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was sufficient proof of the divine inspiration of scripture. Today, though, few prophecy buffs think that Revelation refers to, e.g. the Turkish conquest of Constantinople and the Balkans; they find, instead, astonishing references to current newspaper reports, bar code readers, and attack helicopters.

BathTub said...

So Ray is Darwin an Atheist or a Theist today? It's so hard to keep up with your changing views on Darwin.

We all know public schools are perfect.

We just have to look at the excellent science skills of Ray Comfort for that.

Evolving Gravity...

Falling violates Gravity...

100% of scientists thought the earth was flat...

Humans aren't apes!.. (but I won't tell you why)...

But feel free to keep telling us what you know about science Ray, it's highly entertaining.

Carl is having a hard time sharing what the Law of Gravity is with us.

Killian is having a hard time coming up with all those peer reviewed papers showing the earth's age has changed radically over the last few years.

What is it with the Christians here that they are so quick to pretend to understand science then run off scared when you actually ask them to show they know what they are talking about.

Kind of like how you Ray are so terrified of ERVs.

When will you be accepting the debate with Richard Dawkins? Or Matt D, or AronRa? or any of the others that have been proposed here? Or still pretending that people won't debate you?

Steven J. said...

Its ALL about JESUS!!! replied to Nathan:

That is NOT a fact, and you do not know what you are talking about my feind. Creation Science is the foundation for SCIENCE! macro evolution has NOTHING to do with it. Try proving your baseless theory of evolution. Where are the 'missing links'? what caused 'big bang' ?

First, Terry, Creation Science starts with the assumption (made explicit in many creation science statements of faith) that no possible evidence can show that the Bible (as interpreted by "creation scientists") is wrong about anything. Actual science is founded on the idea that evidence can show your ideas are wrong -- even if you found those ideas in the Bible.

Throughout history, sensible Christians have reacted to this by insisting that various parts of the Bible are figurative rather than literal: thus, e.g. Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler went against the biblical literalists of their day to insist that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system. Thus Augustine of Hippo rebuked the biblical literalists of his day who interpreted the Bible to teach that the Earth was flat.

Second, evolutionary theory is backed by several different lines of evidence. For example, the same sort of shared genetic quirks (alleles of various DNA sequences) that show that, e.g. modern descendants of Sally Hemings are related to Thomas Jefferson, or that Polynesians are related to the peoples of southeast Asia, show also that humans are related to other primates. From the nested hierarchy of neutral variants in genes for various proteins, to shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses, the genetic evidence for common descent is compelling.

The evidence from comparative anatomy of living and fossil species is equally compelling. Transitional fossils are merely a small part of it, although it's an impressive part. Anyone who bothered to look at the evidence objectively would be impressed by, e.g. fossil whales with hind limbs (still bearing the distinctive ankles of artiodactyls like hippos), or fossil non-bird theropods with downy or feathery coats.

Third, the Big Bang is a different theory from biological evolution; there are even creationists who accept the Big Bang. There are also cosmologists who don't think that the Big Bang was "caused;" since time began with the Big Bang, there was no "before the Big Bang" in which a cause could have operated.

Steven J. said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Steven J. said...

James B. replied to J:

Could you explain, in detail, what a "missing link" between dinosaurs and modern birds would look like? What characteristics would it possess?

I am not asking you to accept that such a missing link ever existed, or could even possibly exist. However, in order to know that such a missing link does not exist, we must first know what it would look like if it DID exist. Otherwise, how would we know what to even look for in the first place?


Hi J,

Nice try, but do you really expect Ray to describe what a nonexistent "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds would look like?


Well, no, because he has this track record for evading inconvenient questions, but logically, he ought to be able to say what such an intermediate form should look like if he's so sure that none exists.

Your "missing-link" is missing because it doesn't exist, there is no link. Read the report from Oregan state recently published in Journal of Morphology, Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. (D. E. Quick and J. A. Ruben, “Cardio-pulmonary anatomy in theropod dinosaurs: Implications from extant archosaurs,” Journal of Morphology, 2009

Note that this argument depends critically on, in fact, being able to describe what an archosaur ancestor of birds should look like: it should have air sacs and an immobile upper hind limb. I think Quick and Ruben are perhaps in error about the latter point.

Their argument is that modern birds' thigh bones are nearly immobile, and that the functioning of their lungs depends on this, whereas the thigh bones of theropods appear to be quite mobile. This is, of course, true even of feathered theropods like Caudipteryx (an oviraptorid); there is no obvious reason not to assume it is true even of the "first bird," Archaeopteryx.

Many theropods have the sort of hollow bones that house air sacs in modern birds; indeed, the coelurosauria, the group of theropods from which birds are supposed to have evolved, is noted for them. It seems to me that one particular group of early birds -- the one from which modern birds evolved -- lost mobility in its femurs and eventually its lungs adapted to this feature, rather than this feature being diagnostic of birds and primitive in them.

get_education said...

Ray,

I have not read your current post. As I said, I am cleaning up my mind of the dishonesty behind some posts by one of yur readers a couple of days ago.

However, I read somewhere else about your answer about Hawkins misquote in your web banner.

I had to come and congratulate you. Well done Ray.

You might not care what I think, and that is fine. I still had to tell you.

G.E.

Rufus said...

@ Ray Comfort:

That wasn't the first time someone has brought your misuse of the Hawking quote to your attention. A number of others have mentioned it before, even posting the entire passage from Hawking's book. Why are you now removing it?

It reminds me of this from one of your recent posts: "Please don’t get your information from atheist websites."

That made me laugh for two reasons. One is that I was thinking about things like those genealogies many years before I ever saw a website or sat at a computer. The other was you using quotes like Hawking's or Darwin's or Donald Prothero's or whoever's. I would bet just about anything that you haven't actually read any of their works, or any of the others you quote mine. You got the quote mines from some creationist website, or, maybe, from some creationist book. As always, thanks for the laughs.

get_education said...

Carl,

It is sad that I took so much time to explain you about those quotes by Darwin and by Stephen J Gould, only to find out later that you did not pay the slightest attention. Misquoting them now constitutes a lie. Is this really the image you want people to have of Christians?

G.E.

get_education said...

Carl,

As of the other quotes, look at them carefully. Do they say what you think they say? Do they imply what you think they imply?

G.E.

Dimensio said...

My favorite part of reading this blog is to see people crying about quote mining and twisting meanings and then see the exact same people quote mine the Bible and twist it to meet their needs.

Please identify a specific posting wherein I have "quote mined" the Bible.

get_education said...

Ups, Carl, I forgot,

Yes, those books might be a good read for students. Darwin's should be shown in context, as should Stephen's. Those paleontology quotes, sure thing. Students have to know how science works, and that not everything is nice and cute. But that many things require you to work with incomplete things. They should learn also that sometimes you can get tons of information from such incomplete things, and that many times you are left empty handed. It is all about thinking, learning, and not overconcluding. All about the hard work. Wow, I got exited. So much fun.

Take your example. I did not tell you why those quotes are not about what you think. I have found that students learn better if left to figure it out themselves, whenever possible.

Take care,
G.E.

JRC said...

Mr. Comfort,

I've noticed that you just love calling evolution a pseudoscience. Yet I don't think you've explained why you think so. You seem to think that Young Earth Creationism is real science, and I'd like to know why. You think that dinosaurs and man lived together, but there's nothing scientific supporting this.

I'd like to know: What makes your think that the Young Earth Creationist viewpoint is not pseudoscience, yet the evolutionist one is?

get_education said...

Amy2,

Why do you think we post against evolution? Other than that lack of evidence, it contradicts God's word. Who is the father of lies? Satan. Duh.

From the kind of things that you guys post about evolution, and how clearly it is that you have no idea, I would have to assume that the father of all lies is your God himself. None other.

Take for instance that tired lie about there not being any evidence. Just read those posts by Steven J in this very thread. Your lack of understanding about what those things mean is no excuse. If I were you, I would go on, study about that, then come back and share my findings. But you have to do so with the aim of understanding what it is explained. Not with the aim of finding phrases to take out of context. Careful there. Do think, Do question the evidence, but do not misrepresent.

Deal? If not, then stop saying what you do not know. A simple "I do not believe it because it contradicts this book [the Bible], which I have mistaken for God."

That would be an honest statement. And I would have nothing against it. remaining ignorant by choice is one of your very basic freedoms. However, you are not free to lie as per your own beliefs. remember that.

G.E.

captain howdy said...

Amy2 said--

Why do you think we post against evolution?

***

Because it offends your religious beliefs.


Other than that lack of evidence, it contradicts God's word. Who is the father of lies? Satan. Duh.

***

ERVs prove common ancestry. Duh.


You cultists crack me up. There's no evidence for evolution, according to you. (Otherwise, rebut the evidence for common ancestry provided by ERVs). But where's your skepticism when the claim is made that the entire universe was poofed into existence by an invisible rabbi from 2000 years ago or the first woman literally came out of a rib or that snakes can talk or that you're going to fly like a kite in the rapture, or...or...or...?

brandt dary said...

This was a great post! I wish I waz home skooled...

shunted said...

Amy2 wrote:

I could give a flip about what the government says my kid should know by a specific age/grade.

It's hard to imagine how someone teaching their kid does not care what experts in child development think is normal progress for a kid. I'm not an expert in child development and so I don't possess the arrogance to think that my opinion on what a child should know by age x is better than the experts' opinion. There are people who spend their professional lives studying such issues and it is quite foolish to think you know better without similar training and experience.

Lurker said...

Ray, would Jesus care if His name was not capitalized? Or would he turn the other cheek?

Would you?



Word Verification: boning (seriously)

Beth said...

J said... “However, in order to know that such a missing link does not exist, we must first know what it would look like if it DID exist. Otherwise, how would we know what to even look for in the first place?”

Let’s use this premise to ask you to describe God – we know that you say He doesn’t exist, you must first know what He would look like or be like if He DID exist. Otherwise, how would you know Who to even look for in the first place?

MNChad said...

"What is it with the Christians here that they are so quick to pretend to understand science then run off scared when you actually ask them to show they know what they are talking about."

I'm a Christian and I'll tell you right now that I don't know ALL of science as some of you would like to claim that you do.

Although, one question as always plagued me in regards to Evolution. What evolved 1st, the blood or the heart? If blood was 1st then how did it move around the system without a heart? If the heart came 1st, why was it needed if there wasn't any blood? How about blood vessels, when and why did they form? I mean if there's no blood you don't need blood vessels and if there isn't blood vessels why would you need a heart. Also, when did the respiratory system come along? Before or after the "system" realized it needed "something" to oxyegenate the blood? Please, enlighten me with scientific explanations because I can't figure it out scientifically speaking.

Suzie said...

Amy2 said-

Benjamin Franklin,
Why did you put your child in a Christian school to begin with? You got exactly what they said they would provide. A Christian worldview of Science, History, etc.

Why do you think we post against evolution? Other than that lack of evidence, it contradicts God's word. Who is the father of lies? Satan. Duh.

Hi Amy,

I don't know if you realize it, but when you say "duh" like that it sounds really condescending. Is that really the type of attitude you wish to convey to others? I hope not. Maybe its just a bad habit you've gotten into. Anyway, just thought you should know how you are coming across to other people who read your posts.

DBW said...

Beth said:
"Let’s use this premise to ask you to describe God – we know that you say He doesn’t exist, you must first know what He would look like or be like if He DID exist. Otherwise, how would you know Who to even look for in the first place?"

This is exactly why God cannot be proven or disproven. We can't even say what "god" might be, exactly. Experiencing "God" is completely subjective. Personally I don’t usually say “God doesn’t exist,” but rather, “I do not believe God exists,” or “God very likely does not exist,” just to be clear about my view on the subject.
However, we can have reasonable expectations for what a transitional fossil would be like and where we should find one, and then look to see if such a thing exists.

The False Convert said...

(*sigh*)

I said I was sorry... sheesh.


And I don't believe you. Every word you write proves that you aren't truly sorry.

I have never shot an athiest.

That's as may be... But what about an Atheist? Have you shot one of them? And just because you haven't pulled the trigger yet, doesn't mean you're on the edge and leaning in that direction.

I'm sure Scott Roeder didn't kill any abortion providers before Dr. Tiller, but that didn't mean he wasn't capable and very willing.

I never ridiculed athiests until I saw what they talk about on their websites. I have read mounds of blogs. They complain about 2 things in life. Christians/God, and government not doing anyting about the percieved injustices in the world.

Does that make it okay for you to ridicule them? Or make sweeping generalizations? What do you think these perceived injustices are? I know that your spelling does a great injustice to the English language.

WEll ok. Complain about government all you want. But the way they talk about God, Jesus and Christians is absolutely disgusting. It has made me sick to my stomach at times.

Well... In my opinion. It is disgusting. Mountains of blood. Rivers of blood... Does Christ never get tired of bleeding?

Why do you athiests talk like that about My Lord anyways? I don't talk about your lack of God like that? How come you don't talk like that about allah? Oh I suppose you could. But athiests usually just concentrate on Jehovah.

And why can't you learn how to spell? I think your "Lord" is a silly fairy tale and the only reason I don't mention Allah here is that you are an atheist when it comes to Allah. Will it make you feel better if I say that Allah is a silly work of fiction as well?


Why is that athiests? Why do you blaspheme God every chance you get? If you didn't believe in God, wouldn't you just avoid Christians? Or just ignore them?

Well... Of course there's the fact that blasphemy is a victimless crime. Actually. There is a weekly atheist contest that gives a fresh, fat baby to the atheist that blasphemes the most...

If you Christians kept your silliness to yourselves and stopped trying to force it on the rest of the world, it would be no problem to ignore you. But you are out on the streets, killing people you disagree with and all that. So it's kind of hard to ignore you.


Why do you go out of the way to be that disgusting? I must say I am completely at my wits end about it.

I would be willing to bet that it isn't very far to your wits end...

Quite often I now just go into insulting them instead of having dialog with them. Because of what I have read from the athiests.

How are you ever going to get into Heaven if you can't admit that you're violent and combative nature is getting the better of you. You can blame it on Atheists, but don't you see that your make believe god will see right through that? Tell the truth bucky... You like being combative. And the only thing keeping you from mowing down a block of citizens is your "fear of the Lord." As you were....

Ryk said...

@Starbuck
Apology accepted

@Rebecca
Thank You.

Rock Sprites said...

shunted said: "It's hard to imagine how someone teaching their kid does not care what experts in child development think is normal progress for a kid. I'm not an expert in child development and so I don't possess the arrogance to think that my opinion on what a child should know by age x is better than the experts' opinion. There are people who spend their professional lives studying such issues and it is quite foolish to think you know better without similar training and experience."

Well, it still appears to me that home schooled kids learn far more than those in public schools, regardless of what "experts" say. Public schools only dragged me down. Math was too fast, and I never retained it. English was too slow, I was far ahead of my class, as well as in history. I can learn so much more on my own.

Saved in Grace said...

Hi Ray I just found your blog and I have to say a big AMEN for your faith and works. These athiest are wrong and I know casue until I was Saved I was one!! They take pride in the works of science but they do not know there immortal SOUL is going to burn unless they turn from satan. I see you are from new Zealand, do you ever come to Melbourne becasue we need a strong voice of God like you have here. When I was an athiest I fornicated and drank and got stoned all the time, those days are mostly past now thanks to Lord Jesus in my life but I am Saved so He forgives my sins anyway. I was in the state school system and if I was home schooled I would not have done those things but me parents do not believe and didn't know enough to teach me.

One thing I like about your blog is the good CHRISTIAN voices here I especilly like "its all about JESUS!!!!" his Way of the Master minutes are brillant he is a powerful voice for the Lord. I see his blogs I will need to read them too, does he work with you Ray? One day I will make my own blog to take the Word to the people like you do Ray.

Praise the Lord. Michael.

ewtennis92 said...

Wow, I couldn't agree with you more Ray. I am a junior at a public school in North Carolina and I have to say, with the exception of a couple classes that are well-taught, our schools are very inefficient at what they do teach and most of what is taught is done from a liberal perspective. In my World History class this year I had to either question or debate with my teacher about what he was teaching at least a couple times a week. I can tell you for sure that the history he was teaching was nothing like what really happened because it was taught from the presuppositions that God didn't create man and God wasn't a part in history. Anybody who has children in public schools should definitely find their kids some conservative and Biblical books and resources online(answersingenesis and humanevents are good) so that their minds won't become completely perverted by the teachings in public schools. Otherwise, you can plan on your child being just as liberal as his/her Godless teachers. People complain about how our youth acts, but they have absolutly no idea what we sit through 7 hours a day, 180 days a year and won't do anything about it! In my opinion, the only way we are going to see people realize how wrong they are about God and life in general is if our public schools have a major change or a massive, inexpensive private school comes along. From my own experiences I can say that public school has made my life much harder, but also made me stronger and devoted to the cause of Christ. Unfortunately, public schools "break" most teens, instead of making them stronger.

Steven J. said...

Beth replied to J:

“However, in order to know that such a missing link does not exist, we must first know what it would look like if it DID exist. Otherwise, how would we know what to even look for in the first place?”

Let’s use this premise to ask you to describe God – we know that you say He doesn’t exist, you must first know what He would look like or be like if He DID exist. Otherwise, how would you know Who to even look for in the first place?


Well, there are disparate ideas among people calling themselves Christians, about what God is like. I think one could not show that no God of any kind was compatible with the evidence we have. A sensible unbeliever must content himself with showing that particular concepts of God do not correspond to reality.

If we assume that God is capable of creating a world (Heaven) where His children are free from temptation, pain, sickness, and sin, where they have free will yet never choose to sin, then He could have created this world as such a world. If God furthermore desires all people to love Him and live in Heaven, then He would have created this world as such a world. Since this world seems to have fairly high levels of temptation, pain, war, famine, pestilence, and eye-munching parasitic worms, it would follow that a God such as described in this paragraph does not exist.

Young-earth creationists assert that God is, among other traits, like this: He created the entire world less than ten thousand years ago, and created human beings specially and separately from all other species, and His handiwork is manifest (not hidden) in nature. If this were so, we would expect radiometric dating to clearly show that nothing is more than ten thousand years old (note: the point, right here, is not whether radiometric dating is reliable; the point is that God could make it obviously reliable and yielding dates consistent with a literal reading of Genesis). One would not expect humans to share pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses with other primates (again, the point is not whether these serve some function; it is that, being all-powerful and all-knowing, God could have served that function without making something that looked like evidence of common ancestry).

If we are arguing specifically over whether the Bible is an inerrant revelation of and source of information on God, then we would expect that the Bible contained no passages that would lead, e.g. Martin Luther or John Calvin to conclude that the Bible said the sun orbited the Earth, or led Lactantius Firmianus to conclude that the Earth is flat.

BathTub said...

See MNChad remember Ray just posted a blog a couple of days ago about how we don't need to explain anything complicated, it's fine to just say 'it's irrelevant' and hand wave it away.

But guess what, unlike Ray and the rest of the people too scared to answer the questions waiting for them I will give you an overview.

What came first? Super easy. "blood" or some basic equivalent (hence the "quotes"). Because the simplest systems are open systems. Which means yes, the blood does just squelch around everywhere not in any veins or anything. This is common in invertebrates, so some insects, spiders, shellfish. Then you get simple worms that have a simple closed system with no pump.

You actually have one of these, a closed circulatory system with no pump, your lymphatic system.

Then there are slightly more complex systems in some worms that add a contracting muscle to push the blood around.

Then there are fish with a simple 1 chambered heart to push the blood to the gills then to the body.

then Amphibians with a system where the blood is pushed from the heart to the lungs, back to the heart then to the body, but there is nothing to stop the blood mixing, so you have the aerated blood and the non oxygenated blood mixing together.

Then you get to the mammals (that's us, unless today Ray thinks we aren't mammals either) with a wall in our hearts keeping the oxygenated blood and the non oxygenated blood apart.

Of course this is really really simplified. But the point is these 'stumpers' that creationists like to throw out like some ace in the hole have almost always actually be thought of before by people who actually study the topic.

My point before is that people like carl and Killian are quite happy to make absolute statements about something and then run away when asked to actually back up their comments. Like Ray and ERVs.

MVP said...

Ray i posted a lengthy explanatin over your knee jerk offense at being abelled a primate - why have you not posted it...and bravo for getting rid if the Hawkins quote.

Steven J. said...

MNChad said:

I'm a Christian and I'll tell you right now that I don't know ALL of science as some of you would like to claim that you do.

Although, one question as always plagued me in regards to Evolution. What evolved 1st, the blood or the heart? If blood was 1st then how did it move around the system without a heart? If the heart came 1st, why was it needed if there wasn't any blood? How about blood vessels, when and why did they form? I mean if there's no blood you don't need blood vessels and if there isn't blood vessels why would you need a heart. Also, when did the respiratory system come along? Before or after the "system" realized it needed "something" to oxyegenate the blood? Please, enlighten me with scientific explanations because I can't figure it out scientifically speaking.


It seems to me (perhaps you could clarify this for me) that creationists imagine evolution implying that something like a wolf or goat once roamed the Earth without blood, or lungs, etc. You need to go much, much further back, to small wormlike organisms living in the water. At first, they would have needed neither respiratory organs nor any sort of circulatory system: oxygen could have been absorbed directly through the skin from the surrounding water, and food passed directly to the body from a simple, tiny gut (I'm assuming you'll spot me a gut for this conversation; go back far enough to colonial balls of cells, and that isn't needed either).

Gills evolve as local expansions of body surface, increasing the area available to absorb oxygen (the specific sort of gills we see in vertebrates appear to be adaptions of a filter-feeding system in very primitive chordates). Lungs appeared much later, in organisms that already had gills, as outpouchings of the esophagus that increased the surface available for absorbing oxygen from air gulped at the water's surface. They didn't need to be very good lungs at first, because the fish could obtain nearly all their oxygen through their gills, with just a little bonus oxygen from air gulping.

Now, I try not to pretend I know ALL of science. But circulating fluid in an organism, carrying oxygen and nutrients from one part of the body to another, could have originated before blood vessels or a heart: just fluid sloshing around inside the tiny worm-body, pushed about by the swimming motions of the organism. Blood vessels are produced by genes that are modified copies of the genes that build the gut and excretory system: tubes are tubes, I suppose. Given that primitive chordates like amphioxus have blood vessels but not a well-defined heart, I would suppose that in chordates blood vessels came after blood but before hearts, with modifications of blood vessels supplementing and then replacing body motions to push the blood around the body as the circulatory system evolved.

Steven J. said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Cary said...

Noble,

Actually, I used to be a public school teacher, but now teach my kids at home. But, I still teach/tutor on the side.

So, don't be too relieved! Be very afraid. I'm very scary when I teach algorithms.

Oh, but wait, be VERY afraid when I teach the quadratic equation. That one can cause nightmares.

sofa king johnson said...

Amy2 said:

"Why do you think we post against evolution? Other than that lack of evidence, it contradicts God's word. Who is the father of lies? Satan. Duh."

Who's the father of Satan? Hmmm?

wv: aperev

:{O

Beth said...

@ DBW...

What if He DOES exist and He's not sure you exist? :-)

If you aren't positive He doesn't exist, then it would be smart to seek Him out - and allow Him to find you.

Is 55:6, 7 "Seek the LORD while He may be found, Call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the LORD, And He will have mercy on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon."

Deut 4:29 "But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find [Him] if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul."

1 Chron 28:9 "… If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever."

2 Chron 15:2 "… If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you."

Ezra 8:22 "… The hand of our God is upon all those for good who seek Him, but His power and His wrath are against all those who forsake Him."

Ps 119:2 "Blessed are those who keep His testimonies, Who seek Him with the whole heart!"

Is 11:10 “… For the Gentiles shall seek Him, And His resting place shall be glorious."

Heb 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

Raoul Rheits said...

Amy2 -

"More worshiping at the alter (sic) of education."

Amy, don't you find it ironic that you choose to project your worshipful nature onto others?

I notice this a lot from religious fanatics:

"Atheists worship science!"

"Atheists kiss the feet of Darwin!"

"Atheists worship education!"

"Atheism is a religion!"



There is an old saying that comes to mind, and that is:

'The thief is always afraid of being robbed'.

Raoul Rheits said...

Ray - "I have asked my web designer to remove it. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Best wishes."

Well done Ray, that's a step towards honesty.

Now that you have admitted your 'mistake', I hope that you'll continue in this way and of course remove that same mistake from the opening chapter of “You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, but You Can’t Make Him Think” in any future reprints?

I hope too that you'll revisit your dishonest quote mine of Einstein's and do the right thing again.

You see, as you are no doubt aware (I have written to you at length about this on your blog here) when Einstein wrote that 'science without religion is lame' he made it very clear what he meant by 'religion'*. That you continue to twist his words in support of your religion doesn't look good on your message, specially when you claim to 'abhor religion'.


*"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world."


So Einstein identifies your God as a fantasy Ray, a myth, and yet you respond by misusing his words about religion** to promote your God.

I have asked you at least eight times to address this but you sidestepped it with a dismissive one-liner.

Ray, let me ask you, would you be willing to remove all of your 'mistakes' from your publications? From what I've read this in itself could be a lifetime challenge.

Is it a wonder that people find you to be inherently dishonest?


**"As regards religion, on the other hand, one is generally agreed that it deals with goals and evaluations and, in general, with the emotional foundation of human thinking and acting, as far as these are not predetermined by the inalterable hereditary disposition of the human species. Religion is concerned with man's attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationship. These ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence evaluation and action along the lines of the accepted ideals.

It is this mythical, or rather this symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science"

Raoul Rheits said...

J asked:

"I am not asking you to accept that such a missing link ever existed, or could even possibly exist. However, in order to know that such a missing link does not exist, we must first know what it would look like if it DID exist. Otherwise, how would we know what to even look for in the first place?"

J, you are asking Ray to indulge in the evil fantasy of paleontology, which is similar in many ways to that other alchemical wizardry of Satan: Forensics.

Why would you think that Ray would dabble in such stuff? Isn't it good enough that he refutes it via faith rather than knowledge?

Raoul Rheits said...

Forgot to note my source of Einstein quotes about religion:

* Albert Einstein - Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.



** Albert Einstein - A response to a greeting sent by the Liberal Ministers' Club of New York City. Published in The Christian Register, June, 1948. Published in Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, Inc., New York, 1954.

BathTub said...

Oh and MNChad not a single person here has said they know all science.

Many of us choose not to be willfuly ignorant and actually look things up. Quite often in response to some of the ridiculous things people have said here. You know like gravity evolves, or evolution violates thermodynamics.

It's particularly interesting to watch the Christians lie and repeat false statements that you know have been corrected here repeatedly. Like Amy saying fossils date rocks with date fossils just the other day.

I mean what does Ray think he's achieving by pretending we aren't mammals?

Ray Comfort said...

Michael,

I took the liberty of editing you comment:

Hi Ray I just found your blog and I have to say a big AMEN for your faith and works. These athiest are wrong and I know casue until I was saved I was one!! They take pride in the works of science but they do not know there immortal SOUL is going to burn unless they turn from satan. I see you are from new Zealand, do you ever come to Melbourne becasue we need a strong voice of God like you have here. When I was an athiest I fornicated and drank and got stoned all the time, those days are mostly past now thanks to Lord Jesus in my life but I am Saved so He forgives my sins anyway. I was in the state school system and if I was home schooled I would not have done those things but me parents do not believe and didn't know enough to teach me.

Michael.

Ray Comfort said...

"Raoul Rheits said...I hope too that you'll revisit your dishonest quote mine of Einstein's and do the right thing again.

You see, as you are no doubt aware (I have written to you at length about this on your blog here) when Einstein wrote that 'science without religion is lame' he made it very clear what he meant by 'religion'*. That you continue to twist his words in support of your religion doesn't look good on your message, specially when you claim to 'abhor religion'.

*"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world."

So Einstein identifies your God as a fantasy Ray, a myth, and yet you respond by misusing his words about religion** to promote your God.

I have asked you at least eight times to address this but you sidestepped it with a dismissive one-liner."

Raoul...I have never said that Einstein believed in the "Christian" God. The point of the quote is that he wasn't an atheist--not even slightly. So it stays in the header. You will just have to deal with it: Einstein was not an atheist.

I will contact my publisher about the removal of the Hawkings quote from future publishings of "You Can Lead an Atheists to Evidence But You can't Make Him Think."

shunted said...

Raoul Rheits wrote:

J, you are asking Ray to indulge in the evil fantasy of paleontology, which is similar in many ways to that other alchemical wizardry of Satan: Forensics.

Why would you think that Ray would dabble in such stuff? Isn't it good enough that he refutes it via faith rather than knowledge?


I know this wasn't directed at me but do you honestly believe that forensics is the work of Satan? Can you clarify this statement of yours. Is forensic computer analysis satanic? Is forensic accounting satanic? Is forensic crime scene analysis satanic?

Can you provide evidence that forensics are satanic? Why is paleontology satanic? What is the objective evidence for this?

Question for the Christians on this site, do any of you agree with what Raoul said?

shunted said...

Raoul,

OK. I see that you don't really think this. That should have been obvious to me. Sorry.

Rambleale said...

Micheal,

"When I was an athiest I fornicated and drank and got stoned all the time, those days are mostly past..."

Sounds familiar those days are passed for me to (well I like the odd drink in moderation and since it's with the wife it's not exactly fornication).
The thing is I'm still as much an atheist as I was, I didn't need to find Jesus Christ.
I just grew up.

Carl (no, the other one) said...

MNChad said...

What evolved 1st, the blood or the heart? [..] How about blood vessels, when and why did they form? [...] Also, when did the respiratory system come along? Before or after the "system" realized it needed "something" to oxyegenate the blood?

The best way to gain understanding is to do some basic research. For example, you have claimed it is not possible to have "blood" without a heart. Not true; insects.

You've made claims that lungs are essential for oxygenation but a little research will show there are numerous solutions to the oxygenation of an organisms cells which doesn't require lungs. These creatures are walking, swimming and flying around right now.

Go on, it'll be fun.

MNChad said...

BathTub said...
Oh and MNChad not a single person here has said they know all science.

Many of us choose not to be willfuly ignorant and actually look things up. Quite often in response to some of the ridiculous things people have said here. You know like gravity evolves, or evolution violates thermodynamics.

It's particularly interesting to watch the Christians lie and repeat false statements that you know have been corrected here repeatedly. Like Amy saying fossils date rocks with date fossils just the other day.

I mean what does Ray think he's achieving by pretending we aren't mammals?

July 14, 2009 12:20 AM

I'm Sorry Bathtub,

Did you want to provide an answer to my question in regards to science and the formation of the heart, vessels, respiratory system or is your only mission in life to attack Ray?

Rambleale said...

Back on topic.

If you wish to compare the performance of public vs home schooled students you need to compare equivalent cohorts.

When looking at entire populations lower (not meant in a judgmental way) social ecomnic groups tend to under perform compared to the mean, I would suggest (I say suggest as I am not overly familiar with US homeschooling so please correct if I'm wrong) that these students would be less represented in the homeschooled group.

If you wish to make a valid comparission you need to compare homeschooled students performance with public schooled students from the same socioeconomic background (and as similiar in as many ways as possible with the exception of being homeschooled).

Mike and Lizette said...

Char'Els said...
How about the biogeographic distribution of species? It's not a hard concept to grasp. Go look it up, and then come back tell us what it means and why science considers it overwhelmingly convincing evidence for the evolution of species by means of natural selection. (You don't have to accept it if you don't want to, just show that you understand the idea.) Then you can refute it with your own evidence and reasoning and tell us why thousands and thousands of scientists - who spend their lives devoted to expertise in biological sciences - are completely mistaken about one of the fundamental concepts of biology, and that you know better than they do.

If you can't, then I'll have to assume that either you don't know what you're talking about and can't be bothered to learn, or that you're being intentionally dishonest. Either back up your claims, or back off.



This doesn't prove evolution. As for backing off, why when the self proclaimed evolutionist claims a lie as the truth.

The False Convert said...

Otherwise, you can plan on your child being just as liberal as his/her Godless teachers.

This is funny. You equate liberal with Godless... Your Jesus was the liberal poster child. Bordering on socialism even. Do you feel he was Godless?

James B. said...

Steven J. said

Many theropods have the sort of hollow bones that house air sacs in modern birds; indeed, the coelurosauria, the group of theropods from which birds are supposed to have evolved, is noted for them.


As you note in your response "from which birds are supposed to be evolved" is my point. By saying they are supposed to be evolved from birds is a theory, not proven fact.

Blessings

Raoul Rheits said...

Ray responds:

"Raoul...I have never said that Einstein believed in the "Christian" God. The point of the quote is that he wasn't an atheist--not even slightly. So it stays in the header. You will just have to deal with it: Einstein was not an atheist."

Ray, as you know, the point was wasn't whether or not I care that Einstein was an atheist (he wasn't), it is that you are mis-using his quote to promote religion (something you claim to 'abhor' yet you promote religion by misusing an Einstein quote, and yet you deny this?)

I care more about honesty than any petty needs to twist deceased people's words in order to promote my personal beliefs. I wish you did too.

You are characteristically refusing to address the issue and the context and message of of Einstein's quote in order that you can 'slip one by'.

Your readers are not all idiots, Ray.

Unfortunately for you, you already told us what you meant to imply by using the Einstein quote 'Science without Religion is lame':

I quote you, from your blog:

"My Christian friends also love science. Without it they would be blind, as Einstein said. But look what Einstein said about those who leave God out of the equation. They are lame."

- Ray Comfort.


So which is it, Ray.. do you stand by your words that you 'abhor religion'? Or do you wish to continue to falsely convey the lie that Einstein was endorsing a theistic God when he references 'religion' in the work that you quote-mined??

Let us examine more context from Einstein's same works that you quote-mined:

"The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints"

# Religion and Science, New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930

Ray, your continued dishonesty on this matter is quite honestly nauseating.

So again, do you really 'abhor religion' as you claim?

If so, why are you misusing Einstein's works to promote your definition of religion?

No answer yet from you on that. after 9 or 10 attempts. Why is this?

James B. said...

J said

But my point is this: how do you know? If we fail to even agree on what a missing link would be, then we will never been able to have a sensible discussion on whether such a thing exists.

For example, I do not believe that angels exist. However, were you to ask me what an angel should look like, I would give you a definition that would most probably resemble your own. If it didn't, we could then explore each others definitions, and determine which was the most accurate and why. Then we could continue the discussion and evaluate the evidence for or against the existence of such beings. If I failed to even agree with you on what an angel should look like, then there's no possible way we can begin to agree or for that matter, even disagree on the existence of angels.

In fact, I say with confidence that you can not know whether you actually agree with Ray on this issue. Neither of you, to my knowledge, have ever even bothered to state any details on what a "missing link" would look like. So how are you so confident that you and Ray are even discussing the same object? Let me put it this way: when or if you and Ray were discussing this issue in private, how would you describe the missing link to each other? What common ground would you establish with other creationists, regarding the non-existent missing links?


J - You're correct that I cannot speak for Ray. But you are asking me try to give a description to
something I don't believe exists, so as you put it we could have common ground for a discussion.
I am responding with facts not "what if". Another reader said I was cherry picking my facts because the report in the Journal of Morphology was not general scientific opionion at this time. Does truth require a concensus for it to be true? It is a new report, but the details show how what was assumed can be proven wrong.

So let me propose that you first describe what a "missing-link" would look like, to prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds, since you are so convinced that this theory is true.


Mind you, I'm not, at this point, even asking Ray to agree with my definition of a transitional fossil. I just want to know his definition (or yours, if you're willing).

As for the article in the Journal of Morphology: a quick google search only turned up one article on AIG. I scanned through it, but without having read the original article or having any background information on that particular journal, I don't feel I'm educated enough at this point to make a comment. I'll do some more research when time permits.

Respectfully,
J


Just google the Journal of Morphology, the article is in the May issue I believe.

Blessings

Raoul Rheits said...

"Raoul...I have never said that Einstein believed in the "Christian" God. The point of the quote is that he wasn't an atheist--not even slightly."

In simple terms Ray - wrong.

The point of the quote rests with Einstein's context, which you have distorted entirely to your own ends.

Will you address this?

felix said...

Ray, kudos to you for changing the header. I see you've chosen to post a quote from the Catholic Louis Pasteur (some biographers say that Pasteur was practically a deist or an agnostic). Here's a quote from Pasteur that I found: "In each of us there are two men, the scientist and the man of faith or doubt. The two domains are distinct, and woe unto him who seeks to make the one encroach upon the other in the current imperfect state of our knowledge." (from an untitled 1995 Harvard University article by Arthur Goldhammer)
I think that quote shows a great wisdom. What we think is true can be wrong, and the way to find out is through scientific inquiry.

Beth said...

DBW said... “Personally I don’t usually say “God doesn’t exist,” but rather, “I do not believe God exists,” or “God very likely does not exist,” just to be clear about my view on the subject.”

Great! Start from there. Pick up a Bible – humble yourself – cry out to the Creator of the universe to reveal Himself to you. Seek Him and He will find you.

Beth said...

Steven J. said...”If we assume that God is capable of creating a world (Heaven) where His children are free from temptation, pain, sickness, and sin, where they have free will yet never choose to sin, then He could have created this world as such a world.”

He does make that possible for His children – His children – not the devil’s children – in heaven. We did choose Him – the devil’s children will choose his (satan’s) world. Why would unbelievers want to be in heaven? With God?

Steven J. said...“If we are arguing specifically over whether the Bible is an inerrant revelation of and source of information on God, then we would expect that the Bible contained no passages that would lead, e.g. Martin Luther or John Calvin to conclude that the Bible said the sun orbited the Earth, or led Lactantius Firmianus to conclude that the Earth is flat.”

Has anyone ever misinterpreted your words? Has anyone ever misquoted what you said? Think about it. People are fallible. They get things they read and things people say wrong – period.

shunted said...

Rock Sprites said:

Well, it still appears to me that home schooled kids learn far more than those in public schools, regardless of what "experts" say......I can learn so much more on my own.

and also said:

Math was too fast, and I never retained it.

Why did you put the word experts in quotes. Do you deny that there are people who professionally study learning, child development, etc.? Do you not consider such people experts?

It appears that you speak from a position of ignorance. Why this disdain for expertise? Do you have a similar disdain for expertise when it comes to car repair, medical care, etc.?

For someone who couldn't retain mathematical knowledge because the public school system's math courses went too fast you appear to have an unjustified regard for your opinions on ares that you have no expertise in.

Amy2 said...

Bathtub,

Atheists defining truth is the same as how they define a lie.

Calling something a lie doesn't make it so.

And THAT is a true statement.

Rock Sprites said...

*This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world."*

Sorry, but with my God, it's the other way around: I didn't create Him in my image; He created me in His image.

Anthony Carl Feola said...

Mi cids r homeskooled, I went to publec skool. Kan u tell?

What you say is right on Ray! This post, especially the first couple comments made me laugh out loud!! Thanks! I needed that!

Anthony Carl Feola said...

Ray,

Did you go to public school too?

"math they were taught in the eight grade."

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Again, thanks for this post. We homeschool our children, and this was very helpful.

-anthony

Homer the Heretic said...

Ray Comfort said:

I have never said that Einstein believed in the "Christian" God. The point of the quote is that he wasn't an atheist--not even slightly. So it stays in the header. You will just have to deal with it: Einstein was not an atheist.

Albert Einstein described himself as an agnostic. Although he didn’t want to identify himself as an atheist, he also did not want to identify himself as one who believed in the God of the Bible. He stated that he believed in the God of Spinoza. In other words he was pantheistic. While pantheism is not necessarily atheistic, it is also not theistic in that the God described is not a supreme being, but simply nature. In Spinoza’s and Einstein’s view,God and nature are synonymous or are God, rather than God actually being some type of being. Therefore as Einstein explained it, while this type of God (nature)may inspire awe, it does not command worship. Pantheism can be found in some religions such as Hinduism, paganism and has recently been embraced by many Unitarian Universalists as well as others. So while you are correct that Einstein was not strictly speaking an atheist, he certainly would not support your views. In fact the reason that Einstein made more or less ambiguous or contradictory statements about his beliefs was so neither atheists NOR theists could use him or his name to support their positions. But alas, they both do anyway.

get_education said...

All,

1. Primates are called "primates" because we belong to the group (prime as in "first", you know, human self importance).

2. Ape is a common usage word that often refers to members of the Superfamily Hominoidea. A superfamily also named after ourselves.

3. The whole classification here goes on to ourselves close to the chimps and then the gorilla.

4. There is a little mistake in the classification, due to our self-erceived importance, whereby chimps are classified as a different genus than humans, but chimps are very probably also "Homo."

Do you doubt that we are primates?

Do we have all the characteristics that the other apes share? If yes, then we are apes. Having a few characteristics the other apes do not have makes us a separate species to them, just as their particulars makes them whichever species they are as opposed to any other species.

So, show me. If we cannot be classified among the animals, and into the mammals, and into the primates, and into ... how is it that we clearly share the characteristics that classify other animals with them? Does that not mean anything?

Why would God create us so animal-like, with all of their "inconveniences," if he wanted us not to be animals?

G.E.

James B. said...

Dimensio,

You ask for us to substantiate an assertion where we said:

"Nice try, but do you really expect Ray to describe what a nonexistent "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds would look like?

Your "missing-link" is missing because it doesn't exist, there is no link.



You say "Please substantiate this assertion.".

Various scientists claim that dinosaurs evolved into birds. However the link "biological evidence of a dinosaur turning into a bird" is missing. Hence - missing-link. I'm sorry my friend but we will respectfully disagree with each other, you believe there is ample proof, but for every proposed intermediary fossil there are explanations as to why a specific dinosaur is not the evolutionary ancestor of birds. Scientists are looking for prove to prove their theory. None exists. You link between dinosaurs and birds is missing, simply because it does not exist.


You said:
"Dr. Ruben's tentative research does not constitute a scientific consensus. You are "cherry picking" data that agrees with your preconceived notions, while simultaneously ignoring that the very data that you have selectively presented ultimately contradicts your fundamental worldview."

So are you saying that it doesn't matter if the report is true, you cannot accept it because it does not yet hold a scientific consensus? Can you refute the findings of the report as false or inacurrate?

My friend, you accuse me of "cherry picking" my data. I only need to point out the flaws in the proposed theories that come from within the scientific community inself. Using data from scientists that counters claims of dino-to-bird evolution does not conflict with my worldview. I am using their own scientific evidence to show how the theory itself is fallible.

I pray you will one day change your woldview to know that God is our creater and more importantly that you know Him.

Blessings,

Steven J. said...

Beth replied to me:

”If we assume that God is capable of creating a world (Heaven) where His children are free from temptation, pain, sickness, and sin, where they have free will yet never choose to sin, then He could have created this world as such a world.”

He does make that possible for His children – His children – not the devil’s children – in heaven. We did choose Him – the devil’s children will choose his (satan’s) world. Why would unbelievers want to be in heaven? With God?


Unbelievers would want to be in heaven if they believed. According to your own beliefs, originally all humans were believers, but some abandoned this belief. God could have contrived this world -- as He allegedly will contrive the next one -- so that such unbelief is impossible. This defeats, I think, the objection that free will requires the possibility of disbelief in God (or rather, the objection that God wants us to have free will and that free will requires the possibility of rejecting God).

"If we are arguing specifically over whether the Bible is an inerrant revelation of and source of information on God, then we would expect that the Bible contained no passages that would lead, e.g. Martin Luther or John Calvin to conclude that the Bible said the sun orbited the Earth, or led Lactantius Firmianus to conclude that the Earth is flat.”

Has anyone ever misinterpreted your words? Has anyone ever misquoted what you said? Think about it. People are fallible. They get things they read and things people say wrong – period.


On the one hand, I have never claimed omniscience and omnipotence; one might expect more of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator than from a random poster to blogs. On the other hand, not everyone misinterprets what I say, but everyone, prior to the 17th century, interpreted the Bible as teaching that the Earth stands, unturning and immobile, at the center of the cosmos with the sun orbiting it. Apparently, every reader of the Bible who was not aware of pagan Greeks' discovery that the Earth was a sphere held it to depict a flat Earth. If the Bible doesn't say such things, it is far, far too easy to misconstrue.

Arguendo said...

Beth said, "cry out to the Creator of the universe to reveal Himself to you. Seek Him and He will find you."

Why would an all-knowing creator need to find me? Wouldn't he already know where I was? I have on several occasions tried to talk to God. Apparently I'm not doing it right, but I have tried and will continue to do so, no doubt. I have not closed my mind to the possibility of God but frankly I would be incredibly surprised if he revealed himself.

I was actually reading through gensis last night and I was amazed again at the double-speak and strange wording. Why was God calling out to Adam asking where are you?

What I was more shocked about is that my Christian wife put her hand in front of my reading light and asked me, "why are you reading the Bible"? Of course she said I would not understand it because I'm looking at it from the wrong perspective. The only perspective I can see reading it from and having make sense is if I ignored 80% of the Bible.

I got tired and ready for bed at the “Begats” but it did get me wondering; where did all these women come from that the boys married? It seems that when Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden that there were already other people hanging around.

Noble said...

Cary said:

Noble,

Actually, I used to be a public school teacher, but now teach my kids at home. But, I still teach/tutor on the side.

So, don't be too relieved! Be very afraid. I'm very scary when I teach algorithms.

Oh, but wait, be VERY afraid when I teach the quadratic equation. That one can cause nightmares.


You sound like a real maverick there, also, Cary. What scares me is that when there is a conflict between reality and the Bible, you'll deny reality and teach the Bible. I don't think the Bible has much to say on algorithms or the quadratic equation, so that doesn't scare me. What worries me is that you lack critical thinking skills so you won't be able to teach them to your children.

sofa king johnson said...

Amy2 said...
Bathtub,

Atheists defining truth is the same as how they define a lie.

Calling something a lie doesn't make it so.

And THAT is a true statement.

```````````````````````````

Bwahahahahahaha......oh, my, heh.


:{O

Noble said...

Beth said:


Steven J. said...“If we are arguing specifically over whether the Bible is an inerrant revelation of and source of information on God, then we would expect that the Bible contained no passages that would lead, e.g. Martin Luther or John Calvin to conclude that the Bible said the sun orbited the Earth, or led Lactantius Firmianus to conclude that the Earth is flat.”

Has anyone ever misinterpreted your words? Has anyone ever misquoted what you said? Think about it. People are fallible. They get things they read and things people say wrong – period.


I don't buy it. A perfect God should be able to write a perfect document that can't be misinterpreted.

Raoul Rheits said...

Ray, another point - you call people who do not believe in your God to be 'fools'.

Yet what do you say about Einstein?

I'll remind you:

"...although Albert Einstein’s view of God is different than mine (he didn't believe in a personal God), it is pleasing to me that he humbly acknowledged the One who gave him life. He was no fool."

- Ray Comfort

What did you say there Ray?

Einstein humbly acknowledged the 'One' who gave him life?

That would be your God, according to you, Ray? So you are saying Einstein humbly acknowledged the Biblical God as his maker.

That's a flat and total lie, Ray.


Let us remember what Einstein wrote in his letter (1954) to philosopher Eric Gutkind:

"the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Einstein also stated in a letter to Hans Muehsam (30 March 1954): "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."

So Ray, you claim that you abhor religion, and you call 'non-believers' fools.

But you say that Einstein was 'no fool' (in matters of religion) even though he claimed himself to be a 'deeply religious non-believer'.

If I was to say that to you Ray, I know full well you would call me a fool.

If you were at least consistent then surely you would instead call Einstein an 'abhorrent fool'?

But no, because you are attempting to co-opt Einstein as a 'theist' who somehow backs up your Biblical assertions regardless of the fact that he had 'religious' feeling of awe and wonder at the universe, leading him to adopt a Spinozan concept of 'God' (ie if there is a 'God' then it is the perceived harmony of nature itself).

Again, why do you dishonor the deceased with such carelessness and distortion? I realize that doing so fits your agenda, but that does not make it a righteous, respectful, honorable or ethical act.

Raoul Rheits said...

Rock Sprites argues:

"Sorry, but with my God, it's the other way around: I didn't create Him in my image; He created me in His image."

Take it up with Einstein, that's where the quote came from. And then take it up with Ray who is promoting religion via Einstein's (an infidel)words.

Ray claims to abhor religion, yet he uses Einstein's words to promote it:

"Science without religion is lame"

Raoul Rheits said...

Amy2:

"Calling something a lie doesn't make it so.

And THAT is a true statement."

Amy, what do you say to an atheist who says that same thing? How does he define that truth?

Because this atheist agrees with the truth of your statement, I have often used it myself;

"Saying something is the truth/a lie does not make it so."

It's hardly an original one admittedly.

But, please do educate me Amy, how do I arrive at defining the truth of that statement? You're the expert in how 'atheists define the truth'.

So how did I define the truth of that statement as I've used it many times and consider it to be true?

I'm all ears...

BathTub said...

MNChad I did, for some reason Ray decided to approve them out of order. As you should be able to see by now if you haven't already.

James B if you are too scared to make up a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds, just feel free to pick anyone of the following dinosaurs.
# Avimimus*
# Sinosauropteryx
# Protarchaeopteryx
# Caudipteryx
# Rahonavis*
# Shuvuuia
# Sinornithosaurus
# Beipiaosaurus
# Microraptor
# Nomingia*
# Cryptovolans
# Scansoriopteryx
# Epidendrosaurus
# Psittacosaurus?
# Yixianosaurus
# Dilong
# Pedopenna
# Jinfengopteryx
# Sinocalliopteryx
# Velociraptor
# Epidexipteryx
# Anchiornis
# Tianyulong
Thanks Wikipedia.

Why this list? Because they are all feathered dinosaurs. Dinosaurs not birds.

Templar Ben said...

I home school my children but I am very much an atheist. I chose that because my children are brilliant and there is not a school in my area that will sufficiently challenge them. I am sure that my kids will wreck the curves because they will score high and be in the "home school" category instead of the "school" category. This was addressed earlier when it was explained that you are not able to compare dissimilar groups in that way.

As far as evolution vs creationism, evolution has the evidence. Creationism has a bronze age myth. It truly is that simple.

Beth said...

Steven J. said... “According to your own beliefs, originally all humans were believers, but some abandoned this belief.”

I don’t know where you arrived at the impression that all humans were believers. That is not true. And if they abandoned their ‘belief,’ they weren’t believers ever. Besides, Steven, it is not ‘belief’ that saves – the devil and his demons believe (James 2:19), and they aren’t going anywhere near eternal life. A lot of people believe, but they will not be going to Heaven.

Steven J. said... “On the one hand, I have never claimed omniscience and omnipotence; one might expect more of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator than from a random poster to blogs. On the other hand, not everyone misinterprets what I say, but everyone, prior to the 17th century, interpreted the Bible as teaching that the Earth stands, unturning and immobile, at the center of the cosmos with the sun orbiting it.”

I’m glad you’re willing to admit you can’t claim omniscience or omnipotence. And now that you’ve established that, you can’t expect to know anything that the Creator that does hold those powers would or would not do, say, or anything else. You are like an ant telling a human being what to do – and the ant expects you to obey him and know what you are doing – actually more like a cockroach. Your comment that ‘everyone’ prior to the 17th century interpreted the Bible in any such way is not a wise statement. You have NO idea what ‘everyone’ believed about anything. That is a very wide statement – I would retract it if I were you. Besides, it doesn’t matter a tiny bit what anyone believed about what the Bible said in the 17th century or this century. It matters what YOU want to put your faith in. When you die and face Judgment, no one will be asking you what someone else believed or put their faith in – only what you believed and put your faith in.

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me (John 14:6).

lukebandit said...

ray,
i am 46 years old. i graduated high school in 1980. my 12th grade biology teacher, Mr. Mc. got to the part in the book where he had to talk about evolution. he is a Godly man, who has a very large Bible sitting on his desk. when the time came to teach about evolution, he had tears in his eyes and reached over and picked up the big Bible and said, "Lord, please forgive me". and then he told us that he had to teach us this, but he held up the Bible and said the answers are in here. later on on mid terms i had some of the biggest cheat sheets ever made. he walked back in the back and caught me and got them and my test and wadded them up and walked back to the front and threw it all away. i felt incredibly stupid and i instantly regretted doing it. my face was boiling red with embarrassment. i vowed never to do it again. well, years later i was married and had 3 wonderful sons, all extremely athletic and playing school sports all year round. i went into the coliseum to watch my sons play basketball and i walked up to the table to pay to see the game and there was Mr. Mc. taking up money. i hadn't seen him in about 15 years and when we looked at each other, all that embarrassment and pain and humility came rushing back. i felt so horrible. believe me, you reap what you sow. but he was so kind to me and when i was getting sick, he would let me in for free, me and my boys were living on 164 dollars a month, with no child support when their dad left. God bless my wonderful boys and Mr. Mc.
God blessed my sons Daniel, who now worked hard and recieved his master's in history and wants to get his Ed. Spec. and teaches.
David, won a full-ride to UAB and played football and now has his bachelors in info/management and has a very good job. Michael, in and out of college and working at a very popular seafood restaurant, is now a manager in training for a buffalo wings restaurant.
all of my boys went to public school.

Beth said...

Arguendo said... “Why would an all-knowing creator need to find me? Wouldn't he already know where I was? I have on several occasions tried to talk to God.”

He knows where you are, as well as knowing where Adam was when He called out to Him in the Garden. We search for Him and we find that He was there all the time. He is actually searching us out – drawing us to Him. I don’t even pretend to know the mystery of God and His Ways. Sometimes we have to wait for an answered prayer – maybe because we will appreciate it more when it comes. I do know that His Word holds the key to searching for Him so that He can find us. . .

Who may ascend into the hill of the LORD? . . . He who has clean hands and a pure heart . . .” (Ps 24:3, 4).

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him (John 6:44).

“… If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever (1 Chron 28:9).

Arguendo said... “Apparently I'm not doing it right, but I have tried and will continue to do so, no doubt. I have not closed my mind to the possibility of God but frankly I would be incredibly surprised if he revealed himself.”

Evidently, your Christian wife has been praying for you. Don’t give up – continue to seek Him – humble yourself and truly have faith that He will reveal Himself to you – don’t be double-minded. Start with the Gospel of John.

Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded (James 4:8).

But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him (Heb 11:6).

Beth said...

Noble said... “I don't buy it. A perfect God should be able to write a perfect document that can't be misinterpreted.”

He created a perfect creation and you deny a Creator. The blind cannot see – they are in rebellion. It is so sad to see someone that is such an insignificant spot in an enormous universe question how an Almighty, All-Powerful Creator would work things. It’s almost pitiful – no – it is pitiful.

Jesus came to earth and was sacrificed by (religious) men who seen with their own eyes His miracles. He fed thousands with a few fish, made the lame walk and the blind see. They crucified Him. And they knew Scripture! So I will just say, you don’t HAVE to buy it. Close your mind and your heart and your eyes. They will open on Judgment Day. Your last four words will be, “Jesus Christ is Lord” while you bow your knee – then enter eternity with the rest that were closed to Truth.

Eternal life is free anyway. See Rom 6:23 and Rom 5:15.

Dimensio said...

As for backing off, why when the self proclaimed evolutionist claims a lie as the truth.

Until you demonstrate that evolution is a "lie", it is dishonest for you to reference it as such.

Dimensio said...

By saying they are supposed to be evolved from birds is a theory, not proven fact.

I do not believe that you understand scientific terminology. A "theory" is a set of statements that constitute an explanation for a given data set. That birds are descended from a now extinct clade (I should note that Steven J did not claim that the extinct clade "evolved from birds"; it would appear as though you have fundamentally misunderstood his statement) is a conclusion, not a "theory". Additionally, no scientific concept is ever "proven", thus no scientific claim can ever be a "proven fact". This has been stated repeatedly in numerous discussions on this forum; as such, I do not understand why you and others continue to employ the term when discussing scientific concepts. It is as though you and others who employ such terms are choosing to willfully ignore fundamental scientific methodology, yet you also seem to believe that you are qualified to discuss a subject on which you choose to remain ignorant.

Dimensio said...

So let me propose that you first describe what a "missing-link" would look like, to prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds, since you are so convinced that this theory is true.

Any given "missing link" between two clades established as closely related should exhibit physical characteristics diagnostic and unique to both clades. As an example, a "missing link", or transitional, between theropod dinosaurs and avians should exhibit some physical traits considered unique amongst theropod dinosaurs while also exhibiting some other physical traits unique to avians.

Dimensio said...

However the link "biological evidence of a dinosaur turning into a bird" is missing.

Your statement is demonstrably false, as is evident by the discovery of Archaeopteryx.



I'm sorry my friend but we will respectfully disagree with each other, you believe there is ample proof, but for every proposed intermediary fossil there are explanations as to why a specific dinosaur is not the evolutionary ancestor of birds.


Your willful denial of reality does not constitute a "disagreement"; either you have conducted no research, or you are lying.



Scientists are looking for prove to prove their theory.


As I have noted, repeatedly, no scientific theory -- or any scientific claim -- can be "proven". As I have made this statement previously, your assertion constitutes an act of willful dishonesty.




So are you saying that it doesn't matter if the report is true, you cannot accept it because it does not yet hold a scientific consensus? Can you refute the findings of the report as false or inacurrate?


I am merely noting that the research that you have cited -- by scientists who do not reject the occurrence of common descent, but who merely question one commonly accepted aspect of a particular lineage -- has not achieved significant acceptance and does not constitute evidence that avian descent from theropod dinosaurs has been scientifically rejected.




My friend, you accuse me of "cherry picking" my data.


Are you saying, then, that you agree with Dr. Ruben that all extant biodiversity descended from common ancestry via the process of evolution?




I pray you will one day change your woldview to know that God is our creater and more importantly that you know Him.


Your statement is predicated upon an undemonstrated assertion.

Kerri Love said...

Beth said He does make that possible for His children – His children – not the devil’s children – in heaven.

I think the question was why does God bother with earth when he could just have us all live in heaven. Why did he bother making life on earth when he could have made life in heaven?

DBW said...

Beth said: ”What if He DOES exist and He's not sure you exist? :-)

If you aren't positive He doesn't exist, then it would be smart to seek Him out - and allow Him to find you.”

What if I don’t exist? Your question doesn’t make much sense if we are talking about the Christian God.
I’m about as sure he doesn’t exist as I can be. I don’t usually talk in absolutes, you see.

Beth also said: ”Great! Start from there. Pick up a Bible – humble yourself – cry out to the Creator of the universe to reveal Himself to you. Seek Him and He will find you.”

I have read the Bible. It’s no more convincing than any other mythology. I’ve also been to church many times and I’ve done a good bit of searching. And it seems to me that God, especially the god of the Bible, very likely is not real.

verandoug said...

I can testify that my two sons excelled at math in college above others who were public schooled. Those of us who paved the way did so at a price. But we learned so much and it paid off.

Vera

Steven J. said...

Raoul Rheits replied to Rock Sprites:

Ray claims to abhor religion, yet he uses Einstein's words to promote it:

"Science without religion is lame"


I'm not sure that one can safely accuse Ray of contradicting himself on this point without further elaboration.

I have had to point out in the past, and probably will in the future, that the same word can have different meanings depending on context. Thus, e.g. I have chided Ray both over citing cosmologists who say the universe may have come from "nothing" or that "nothing" was before the Big Bang; he is exploiting ambiguity in the word "nothing."

There are likewise ambiguities in the word "religion." Einstein uses the word to indicate a sense of awe and wonder at the intricacy and order of the universe. Ray, when he says he abhors "religion," presumably refers to liturgical rituals and clerical vestments and pointless activities that are supposed to make God look upon you with favor. Presumably, other senses of "religion," such as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies," which he holds in higher esteem. I'm not quite sure how Ray feels about the importance of a sense of awe and wonder towards the universe.

Steven J. said...

James B. replied to Dimensio:

Various scientists claim that dinosaurs evolved into birds. However the link "biological evidence of a dinosaur turning into a bird" is missing. Hence - missing-link. I'm sorry my friend but we will respectfully disagree with each other, you believe there is ample proof, but for every proposed intermediary fossil there are explanations as to why a specific dinosaur is not the evolutionary ancestor of birds. Scientists are looking for prove to prove their theory. None exists. You link between dinosaurs and birds is missing, simply because it does not exist.

Do you concede that feathered dinosaurs -- not flightless birds, but non-avian theropods with feathers -- actually existed? Of course, if Caudipteryx (whose skeleton, without feathers, is a that of a perfectly typical oviraptorid theropod) or Microraptor (skeletally, a typical small coelurosaur) was a flightless bird, then there does not seem to be any clear distinction between "birds" and "dinosaurs." Even Archaeopteryx, if you look only at the skeleton, is a theropod dinosaur, little different from small theropods like Compsognathus (which, granted, may have had feathers itself for all we know).

Note that no one particularly expects any fossil species of feathered dinosaur to be a direct ancestor of modern birds. Successful lineages sprout side branches (cf. the three different mockingbird species on different islands of the Galapagos), and any given fossil is more likely to be from a side branch than from a direct ancestor. But a side branch, of course, can closely resemble the ancestor that it shares with modern birds, either overall or in some important respects.

So are you saying that it doesn't matter if the report is true, you cannot accept it because it does not yet hold a scientific consensus? Can you refute the findings of the report as false or inacurrate?

I don't think Dimensio is disputing the report; he is disputing a conclusion drawn from the report. Dr. Ruben assumes that if a near-immobile femur is essential to the breathing of modern birds, it was essential to the breathing of primitive birds and bird-archosaur intermediates (dinosaurs are archosaurs, but there are archosaurs (crocodilians and many extinct groups) that are not dinosaurs, and presumably Dr. Ruben holds that one of these other archosaur groups is ancetral to birds). Note that many features, from shared gizzard structure in crocodilians and birds to the fact that crocodilians are more similar to birds genetically than they are to lizards, snakes, or turtles, indicate that birds are derived archosaurs of some sort.

Dr. Ruben's findings refute theropod ancestry of birds only if dependence of the avian respiratory system on an immobile thigh is primitive. If, rather, Jurassic birds could move their femurs and still breathe through their flow-through, air-sac intensive lungs, but Cretaceous birds lost this ability after they evolved immobile thighs (the immobile thigh provided them with some breathing advantage, and gradually they became dependent on this advantage, and could no longer live without it, as their ancestors could), then Dr. Ruben's findings are perfectly consistent with a theropod ancestry of birds.

All those feathered non-bird dinosaurs still exist. Common design can't explain that (if common design were the answer, one would expect feathered bats and feathered pterosaurs; the former clearly do not exist and the latter seem not to have), whereas common ancestry can ... if birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Rene said...

Re: homeschooling

You really are incorrigible! You're not above lying if it serves your purposes, are you? As for the questionable benefits of homeschooling--by which you mean Christian indoctrination--,such parents wouldn't be up the task in the first place.

As for homeschooled children being more knowledgeable, better adjusted & socially adept, try the other one. While it is true that children whose parents are involved in their lives do better academically--& in general--than their peers, this, as you well know, has nothing to do with homeschooling, as you falsely imply.

As for your fear-mongering nonsense, what would you propose instead? That society shut down?

Regarding your baleful ignorance of the irrefutable facts of evolution, your silly notions have been repudiated by science & by most thoughtful believers, leaving you and your fellow-ignoramuses in a kind of self-willed moral & intellectual limbo.

Plainly, like your self-absorbed & unread cousins, you like the sound of your own voice & revel in it, unable as you are to see further than the tip of your nose.

As Christopher Hitchens wryly notes, we are but half a gene removed from chimps, our nearest primate cousins, as some of us keep reminding us.

Doesn't the ridicule & scorn you attract ever make you stop & think?

Raoul Rheits said...

Ray comfort:

"So it stays in the header. "

Ray, I never mentioned the quote in the header.

You once again show your careless lack of attention to detail and context that characterizes so much of what you write.

You also show that you don't care less that you are figuratively spitting on Einstein's grave.

captain howdy said...

MNChad said--

Although, one question as always plagued me in regards to Evolution. What evolved 1st, the blood or the heart? If blood was 1st then how did it move around the system without a heart? If the heart came 1st, why was it needed if there wasn't any blood?

***

So BathTub answers him--

What came first? Super easy. "blood" or some basic equivalent (hence the "quotes"). Because the simplest systems are open systems. Which means yes, the blood does just squelch around everywhere not in any veins or anything. This is common in invertebrates, so some insects, spiders, shellfish. Then you get simple worms that have a simple closed system with no pump.

You actually have one of these, a closed circulatory system with no pump, your lymphatic system.


***

So, has our creationist friend had his questions and doubts about evolution put to rest by BathTub's answer? Of course not--

I'm Sorry Bathtub,

Did you want to provide an answer to my question in regards to science and the formation of the heart, vessels, respiratory system or is your only mission in life to attack Ray?


What was wrong with BathTub's answer, MNChad? Besides the fact that he didn't answer a science question with a bunch of Bible quotes, I mean?

BathTub and others answered your question just fine. What you need to do now is to abandon this line of questioning and find some other "insurmountable problem" evolution supposedly can't explain, because the question you posed is easily answerable.

When you creationists say things like "...one question as always plagued me in regards to Evolution" what you really mean to say is: "Let's see you answer THIS question, Darwinist!" It's not an honest attempt to learn about evolution. It's a dishonest attempt to find "stumper" questions to prove that biology is wrong and your religion is right.

The same people that so loudly insist that professional biologists don't know what they're talking about have no problem getting their science information from televangelists. The same people who so loudly insist there are no transitional fossils have no problem believing the first woman came out of a rib.

Don't get me wrong, MNChad. It's a free country--believe what you like. If you want to believe that Banana Man Ray Comfort understands biology better than the head of the Human Genome Project does, knock yourself out. But you don't get to insert your ignorant beliefs into the public school curricula. You don't get to distribute creationist pamphlets as if they were real science textbooks.

You have rights, but turning the public schools into sunday schools is not one of them.

Phil said...

Sadly, millions of impressionable young people have already been brainwashed into believing that evolution is a proven fact, and that all it lacks is "details."

It has taken me a while but I have finally come the realisation that you are never going to change, Ray. You bring up the same points time and time again despite being offered reasonable explanations.

Were you home-schooled by any chance?

James B. said...

BathTub said

James B if you are too scared to make up a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds, just feel free to pick anyone of the following dinosaurs.


BathTub - If you by chance read many of the details of those dinosaurs you will see they refer to protofeathers. Since you like Wikipedia, perhaps you also use Wiktionary which would tell you that protofeathers are "the hypothetical precursors of bird feathers, believed to have been grown by certain dinosaurs."

Must be true if on Wiki right?

If by chance you would look at the Wiki article for Tianyulong you will also note the use of word "possibility".

"and raises the possibility that the earliest dinosaurs and their ancestors were covered with homologous dermal filamentous structures that can be considered primitive feathers ("proto-feathers").

"Such dermal structures have previously been reported only in derived theropods and ornithischians, and their discovery in Tianyulong extends the existence of such structures further down in the phylogenetic tree. However, the homology between the ornithischian filaments and the theropods' proto-feathers is not obvious."

If you bothered to look at the article in the May issue of the Journal of Morphologoy that I refereneced you will see that it refutes that theropods are the ancestors of birds. So you can remove all the theropods from your Wiki list.

You can also remove all ornithischians from your Wiki list as per Wiki (which would include the Tianyulong you listed last as this is classified as a ornithischian). Since you like to quote from Wiki, Wiki says it is not an ancestor of birds.

"The name ornithischia is derived from the Greek ornitheos (ορνιθειος) meaning 'of a bird' and ischion (ισχιον) meaning 'hip joint'. They are known as the 'bird-hipped' dinosaurs because of their bird-like hip structure, even though birds actually descended from the 'lizard-hipped' dinosaurs (the saurischians)."

A saurischian is a theropod, which again in the article from the Journal of Morphology refutes that theropods are the anscestors of birds. Unless you can prove this new research is wrong, the suggestions of theropods or ornithischians being the ancestors of birds is simply hypothetical and not proven.

You are free of course to disagree, as I am free to disagree with you.

Blessings,

Amy2 said...

I took a survey of the 15 moms in our Christian homeschool co-op last night. 13 have B.A.'s (including one in Biology and one in Chemistry), and 3 have advanced degrees. (this doesn't include the spouses). Amazing how many educated Christians we have who believe in myths.

shunted said...

Beth wrote:

He created a perfect creation and you deny a Creator.

According to Christian theology the world - the universe - is fallen therefore not perfect. No one alive now has seen the alleged perfect creation. What we see is the fallen creation. Also, you didn't answer the question posed to you.

shunted said...

Beth wrote:

...you can’t expect to know anything that the Creator that does hold those powers would or would not do, say, or anything else.

Beth, do you realize that when you say that God is just, or that God created a perfect creation, or that God wants us to have faith in Him that you are claiming to know something about God? This contradicts what you wrote here. I don't think your position is well thought out.

Dimensio said...

All those feathered non-bird dinosaurs still exist. Common design can't explain that (if common design were the answer, one would expect feathered bats and feathered pterosaurs; the former clearly do not exist and the latter seem not to have), whereas common ancestry can ... if birds evolved from dinosaurs.

It should be noted that until mechanisms and processes of "common design" are defined, there can be no observation that contradicts "common design", as a lack of stated mechanism prevents any meaningful predictions from being derived from the concept. It is for this reason that "common design" constitutes a fundamentally meaningless explanation; there exists no means by which it may be evaluated, thus no conclusions may be drawn regarding its consistency with observations.

Steven J. said...

James B. replied to Bath Tub:

If you by chance read many of the details of those dinosaurs you will see they refer to protofeathers. Since you like Wikipedia, perhaps you also use Wiktionary which would tell you that protofeathers are "the hypothetical precursors of bird feathers, believed to have been grown by certain dinosaurs."

The feathers on Caudipteryx and Microraptor are pennaceous, not downy or protofeathery. Rahonavis has attachment points on its forelimb bones which suggest large feathers rather than down or protofeathers.

If you bothered to look at the article in the May issue of the Journal of Morphologoy that I refereneced you will see that it refutes that theropods are the ancestors of birds. So you can remove all the theropods from your Wiki list.

I have pointed out a couple of times now that the article does no such thing. Dr. Ruben, true, seems to assume that if modern birds -- a subset of all birds that have ever lived, that does not include, e.g. such birds as Archaeopteryx or Ichthyornis -- depend on their immobile femurs for proper functioning of their lungs, all birds that have ever lived have done so.

But there is no such necessity: the immobile femur could in principle have evolved after birds already existed, and then the respiratory system been modified by mutation and natural selection to rely on it, losing the ability to function without it. The fact that hollow bones and openings in bones associated with a bird-style respiratory system are found in non-avian theropods contradicts Dr. Ruben's inference that these theropods had a crocodilian-style lung.

You can also remove all ornithischians from your Wiki list as per Wiki (which would include the Tianyulong you listed last as this is classified as a ornithischian). Since you like to quote from Wiki, Wiki says it is not an ancestor of birds.

The vast majority of feathered theropods are not ancestors of birds. For that matter, undisputed Cretaceous birds like Ichthyornis are thought not to be ancestors of modern birds. Whether any ornithischians had downy feathers inherited from the earliest dinosaur to have such protofeathers depends on how early such protofeathers evolved: if they evolved as early as the early Triassic, they could have shown up in both ornithischians and saurischians.

A saurischian is a theropod, which again in the article from the Journal of Morphology refutes that theropods are the anscestors of birds. Unless you can prove this new research is wrong, the suggestions of theropods or ornithischians being the ancestors of birds is simply hypothetical and not proven.

You have that backwards: theropods were saurischians, but not all saurischians were theropods; the sauropods like Diplodocus and Brachiosaurus were also saurischians.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 318   Newer› Newest»