Atheist Central -- Ray Comfort's Blog

Friday, November 6, 2009

212 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 212 Newer› Newest»

Q-Dragon1337 said...: is this supposed to be clever?

if it isn't a joke then its a horrible strawman of evolution; November 6, 2009 3:13 PM
OutlawGirl said...: Haha. Another swing and a miss.; November 6, 2009 3:15 PM
MollyKnits said...: Yet another silly cartoon to show that Ray and his cartoonist know so much less about science than any reasonable adult should.; November 6, 2009 3:16 PM
Raoul Rheits said...: Poor old Rosinante's back is now bent to the ground.

Straw blows in the wind.

Self-congratulatory triumph risks a faint gleam in Ray's eye, yet the passing feeling is tempered with a far-off look that belies the desperation of his folly.; November 6, 2009 3:27 PM
Debunkey Monkey said...: Interestingly enough, whales actually evolved from four-legged mammals.; November 6, 2009 3:29 PM
Ryan Anderson said...: Ray/Gunther; Wow, it's like you are actually becoming MORE ignorant about evolution as time goes on.; November 6, 2009 3:31 PM
theShaggy said...: Man Ray, your cartoonist is an idiot. A whale wouldn't survive on land until it had the variation which would help it do so.

Wait... do you tell him what to draw, or does he do it on his own? Most of the times he posts on here he sounds like you, so I assume the former.; November 6, 2009 3:40 PM
Ryan Anderson said...: Ray; just so I can feel better about knowing that you technically can't claim ignorance on this topic, the reason the cartoon is stoooooooooooooooooopid, is that animals* don't "evolve" over their life times (they may learn, and grow, etc... but not evolve). "Evolution" only occurs once in the life of any given animal*. That's when they are conceived.

This is middle school biology. You don't have to believe it, but it's not hard to understand.

*we're Apes by the way.; November 6, 2009 3:41 PM
Honeybee said...: There are three comments here so far by Q-Dragon1337, OutlawGirl and MollyKnits.

Each of you ridiculed the premise of the whale on the beach waiting to grow legs.

That's understandable because it is ridiculous when you think about it. That was exactly what Ray was trying to show. You just pretended not to get it.

.; November 6, 2009 3:41 PM
к∑ⅰ₮ｻ said...: Q-Dragon1337 said...
is this supposed to be clever?

if it isn't a joke then its a horrible strawman of evolution
__

For real now, How do you know it’s not evolution trying something new?

How did water animals get on land?

Tell me all the intermediate steps it takes and the necessary mutations from a prehistoric fish to prehistoric rat. And if the Whale started on land, went to sea, why can’t it evolve back unto land? What would you expect if evolution began to move it that way?

wv: berpha; November 6, 2009 3:44 PM
carl said...: MollyKnits said...
"...know so much less about science..."

Dear Knits,
The theory of evolution IS NOT true science, except for those weekend armchair science fiction buffs who fantasize about how our whole world came to be, without a Creator.

We've discussed this quite a bit but here we go again.

You probably believe the theory of evolution is at the "heart" of science.

Most scientists don't even work with evolutionary theory.

I worked in the aerospace industry for 12 years. The scientists I met and worked with were never involved with the theory of evolution. NEVER. The theory simply wasn't needed nor applicable nor useful in any way whatsoever. Sorry.

I worked as an engineering student for NASA in the biosciences lab for 9 months. None of the scientists I worked with there ever worked with the theory of evolution or even mentioned it. The theory simply wasn't needed nor applicable nor useful in any way whatsoever for our work there. Sorry again.

In all of my engineering coursework, the theory of evolution NEVER came up. When taking the professional engineering board exams, there was NOT ONE QUESTION on the theory of evolution nor anything remotely related. Nor when taking my pediatric board exams. Sorry.

I now work in Pediatrics. I've read zillions of articles written by scientists about pediatrics. The topic of evolution has NEVER come up nor has it ever been appropriate to do so for treating pediatric patients. The theory simply isn't needed nor applicable nor useful in any way. Really sorry this time.

DNA detection technology, used for certain applications in medicine, doesn't require a belief nor a working knowledge of the theory of evolution. NONE. It requires knowledge of biology, such as PCR techniques, plus mechanical and electrical engineering, electronics, etc. but not evolution! Once again, ditto.

Actually, I suppose we can give credit to evolutionary theory for making a significant contribution in one area of general medicine, but that was in regards to the "useless" appendix. And we all know how useful that bit of info turned out to be...

It's an extremely egocentric worldview, no doubt, that your beliefs are at the center of all knowledge, at the center of all new developments in science, at the center of new inventions that revolutionize mankind's life on this planet, in making cars, motorcycles, skateboards, stereo systems, flat screen TVs, Nintendo, cell phones, toasters, microwave ovens, at the center of saving countless lives - especially of children, and preventing suffering through technology directly related to the theory of evolution...but...it simply isn't so.

You probably believe scientists needed to be strict adherents to the theory of evolution simply to invent the paperclip.

All of this is simply scientific evidence that your sinful ego is blinding you.

Psalms 119
Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.

True science gives humanity USEFUL information, not fantasy. Do you work in any field of science? Just curious.; November 6, 2009 4:07 PM
Lurker said...: Evolution does not take place at the level of the individual, in its lifetime.

It takes place at the level of populations, over many generations.

This comic is making an obvious straw-man of evolution, and Ray endorses it.; November 6, 2009 4:25 PM
Michael Head said...: And you're trying to make fun of whom exactly?; November 6, 2009 4:25 PM
Alphgeek said...: Some whales have vestigial leg bones - remnants from when they were land mammals. You did know this right Ray?

All mammals initially came from the land. Three groups - dolphins, whales and sirenians - returned to the sea.

Of course the Bible knows nothing of this. It thinks whales are fish and bats are birds.; November 6, 2009 4:30 PM
C.B. Shearer said...: This cartoon works on at least two levels, the whale can represent evolution, beached and helpless unless something magical happens.; November 6, 2009 4:37 PM
Rando said...: Pre-emptive Obligatory "It's ALL about JESUS" comment:

"Amen brother!

Simply the best reasoning I've seen.

How can the "atheist" hive believe in such a "something from nothing" religion? Even Richard Dawkins believes we were seeded by a higher intelligence of space clams beyond the stars. LOL

_________ is a spook with no "profile" therefore no "credibility"

The US Navy could teleport ships in the 1940s. The Ghost Hunters are real scientists. And I "love" Lee Strobel!!

Dr. Dino was framed!!!

Praying for you "demented" atheists!

In his Love,

Terry Burton

Watch Hell's Best Kept Secret! On one of my 4,000 blogs."

There, Terry. I gotcha covered for this topic. Feel free to take this one off.; November 6, 2009 4:40 PM
Iago said...: Ray on Nov 3 you said:

I’m going to try and put this so that it can’t be taken out of context. I sincerely apologize for misrepresenting what Darwinian evolution says about the origin of males and females. I have checked out the references you have given me as to what the theory has to say about their genesis, read them again and again, and I still don’t understand what you believe. It doesn’t make sense to me because I can’t reconcile what I see in creation with what you would have me believe about evolution. Still, that doesn’t give me the right to misrepresent your beliefs, even if it was done in ignorance.

endquote

It is now Nov. 6 and you are doing it again. You cannot claim ignorance any longer. You are now doing it with malice aforethought.
You are nothing but a dispicable little man with nothing to sell except panic and fear. I now longer feel any compunction to be polite to the "Real Christians" that post on here.; November 6, 2009 4:40 PM
yequalsx said...: Terry Burton is going to say that he loves this cartoon and that this is another great post from Ray.; November 6, 2009 4:43 PM
mijusdek said...: Another incorrect strawman. Ray you and your artist can't be this stupid.; November 6, 2009 5:10 PM
culberto said...: Yet another attempt from Ray to bury previous blog entries that make him look stupid.

Pathetic.; November 6, 2009 5:15 PM
Me said...: lolwut?

And please, don't dismiss this comment and leave it unposted. That one 'word' is about as much reaction as that, frankly, stupid cartoon warrants.

Get a clue, guys. Do some reading, talk to some people, open your minds to that beyond what your holy book says. It doesn't have any answers.; November 6, 2009 5:18 PM
Rock Sprites said...: I would "lol" if I wasn't typing this at the library right now. xD; November 6, 2009 5:39 PM
Wait What said...: Why not a cartoon comparing a banana to a can of coke... oh wait you went straight to video with that one...; November 6, 2009 5:56 PM
photosynthesis said...: Honeybee,

Just one little question:

Do you seriously think this cartoon represents evolution?

G.E.; November 6, 2009 6:19 PM
MarkP said...: к∑ⅰ₮ｻ-""For real now, How do you know it’s not evolution trying something new?"Others have addressed exactly why this is nonsense. Individuals don't evolve; populations do. Evolution is not a directed process, any variation needs to be present (from mutations) for selection to act on it. Mr. Gunther is either ignorant or intellectually dishonest for this cartoon, and Ray is culpable as well for publishing it.

Tell me all the intermediate steps it takes and the necessary mutations from a prehistoric fish to prehistoric ratWikipedia has a list of transitional fossils for this (and other transitions)- search "list of transitional fossils wikipedia," since Ray won't allow urls.

The basic changes though:
-Fish living in brackish waters occasionally experienced low oxygen levels in the water. Those individuals who were able to take oxygen directly from the air had an advantage and spread in the population. This started as simple gulping and slowly (over millions of years) turned into a very primitive lung.

-A common ancestor for fish and tetrapods existed. What most consider the modern fish (Actinopterygii) evolved this primitive long into a swim bladder. In other fish (Sarcopterygii) had continued advancements in the lung.

-The Sarcopterygii used this early, primitive lung, to survive through periods of low oxygen, similar to what lungfish do today.

-Fish feeding in mucky bottoms (lots of mud) had difficulty moving around. Those individuals who had more sturdy fins were able to eat more, and had more offspring

-Some fish started venturing onto land, perhaps this started to move between shallow pools (as seen in walking fish today) or to feed on abundant insects on the shore

-Further selection favored those individuals who were able to stay out of the water longer (could move further or feed more). This would have led to more sturdy limbs and better functioning lungs.

-After millions of years, some individuals were so well adapted that they could spend nearly their entire adult lives out of the water (like modern amphibians).

-Further selection would have favored individuals who were even less dependent on the water. They would have need to develop a system for protecting their eggs from drying out (hence the amniotes including all land animals other than amphibians, starting with something like modern reptiles).

-Selection would have favored individuals who were able to thermoregulate (keep a constant temperature). Several methods are possible, some of which evolved (e.g. feathers, hair).

-Among those individuals with hair, selection favored the ability to feed young from the body itself, rather than having to collect extra food (mammary glands and milk), this may have started as something similar to crop milk seen in modern pigeons.

-In populations with less defensible nest sites or who were more mobile, selection favored carrying the eggs inside the body prior to hatching (seen in some modern sharks)

-Over millions of years, populations were selected to be able to "feed" hatched eggs before releasing them from the body (some sharks and some fish which hold offspring in the mouth)

-Selection would have favored quicker hatching, eventually to the point that the stage in which the embryo was in the egg shell became negligible to the point that most people don't know humans do start in an "egg."

-These populations were the early mammals. Based on the size of early fossils, some of the first species to split from the Eutherian ("true mammal") would have been classified as a "primitive rat."

Is that detailed enough for you?; November 6, 2009 6:22 PM
photosynthesis said...: carl,

If you truly want to understand biology you have to have a good understanding of evolution. Evolution, whether you like it or not, is true science. No amount of your rants will change that.

That you never talked in engineering about evolution is too obvious, that you never talked about it in nursing is also obvious, that you can ignore it for all that you do, well, is obvious.

That nursing and med schools lack education in basic science such as genetics and genomics has been reported with worry lately given the revolution that is coming. Part of those revolutionary benefits will come from evolutionary understanding.

Now, I could tell you a few things going on in aeronautics, electronics, computer science, and other non-biological fields of study, that have been inspired by evolution, some might have affected your life.

Closer to home, some benefits might be behind vaccinations, or in the future of new medications. Yet, you might not know. You do not have to understand evolutionary theory to enjoy those benefits. Yet, benefited you have.

But I rather leave you enjoying your ignorance.

G.E.; November 6, 2009 6:35 PM
Q-Dragon1337 said...: "к∑ⅰ₮ｻ said...
Q-Dragon1337 said...
is this supposed to be clever?

if it isn't a joke then its a horrible strawman of evolution
__

For real now, How do you know it’s not evolution trying something new?

How did water animals get on land?

Tell me all the intermediate steps it takes and the necessary mutations from a prehistoric fish to prehistoric rat. And if the Whale started on land, went to sea, why can’t it evolve back unto land? What would you expect if evolution began to move it that way?"

its a straw man because such a drastic change such as a whale trying to successfully live on land would never happen in nature

the evolution of fish to amphibians and the evolution of land mammals to aquatic mammals was very gradual

the two examples above can be easily researched for more detail; November 6, 2009 6:42 PM
MollyKnits said...: @Honeybee

Yes, the cartoon is silly because it doesn't resemble any aspect of evolution. Not one. Too bad you get your science education from folks like Ray. The irony of your post, I am sure, escapes you.

@Carl

Your Ad Hominem attacks about what I may or may not know to be true are baseless. Isn't there something in your "good book" about judging others?; November 6, 2009 6:47 PM
Dimensio said...: I believe that the artist of the referenced cartoon lacks a fundamental understanding of evolution. No biologist would suggest that a beached whale is attempting to grow legs.; November 6, 2009 6:55 PM
Dimensio said...: That was exactly what Ray was trying to show.

For what reason was Mr. Comfort attempting to demonstrate his fundamental lack of understanding of the subject of evolution through a wholly inaccurate attempt to depict it?; November 6, 2009 6:55 PM
Dimensio said...: For real now, How do you know it’s not evolution trying something new?

Evolution is a process that occurs in biological populations over subsequent generations. It does not possess consciousness or cognitive ability. It cannot "try". A singular organism cannot evolve. Your suggestion that a beached whale could be construed as "evolution trying something new" demonstrates that you lack a fundamental understanding of the subject of evolution; if this is the case, then your statements with respect to the theory of evolution are not credible.; November 6, 2009 6:57 PM
Dimensio said...: The theory of evolution IS NOT true science

Please substantiate this assertion.; November 6, 2009 6:57 PM
Dimensio said...: This cartoon works on at least two levels, the whale can represent evolution, beached and helpless unless something magical happens.

Please explain how a fundamental misrepresentation of the theory of evolution "works".; November 6, 2009 6:58 PM
Michael said...: Ray, if you truly believe the message of this cartoon, then I suggest you're more suited to sitting on a park bench regailing a stranger pearls of wisdom bestowed from your mother about a box of chocolates that regailing your flock with lessons from the Bible.

Seriously, Ray.

You've just gone full retard.; November 6, 2009 6:58 PM
B. Pierce said...: Search youtube for:

RDF TV - Show me the intermediate fossils! - Nebraska Vignettes #1 - Richard Dawkins

It's from a series of videos by the Richard Dawkins Foundation and explains the evolution of the whale.; November 6, 2009 7:07 PM
к∑ⅰ₮ｻ said...: Q-Dragon1337 said...
its a straw man because such a drastic change such as a whale trying to successfully live on land would never happen in nature
---
But you do believe that the whale was once a land animal of some kind and began to return to the water, right? It seems to me, many, if not thousands of “drastic changes” were need to make whales what they are today. Why couldn’t the whale evolve back to land? And again, what would be a sign of that happening?; November 6, 2009 7:20 PM
What is Truth? said...: Hmmmm.....let us be clear that evolution has nothing (nothing) to say about the existence or nonexistence of God. Asking Ray if he is fearful of the “wrath of Zeus” or using fraises like “sky daddy” says nothing about God (At least not the Christian God, maybe you are just confused). It does demonstrate a certain level of ignorance about theology and what Christians really think.(sort of like Dawkins)
Posts like that come across as juvenile and spiteful, and often completely distracting. There are some very smart people that post here (Steven J, Carl) who manage to be thought provoking and It would be nice to see more of that. That may require discernment and an open mind.; November 6, 2009 7:23 PM
к∑ⅰ₮ｻ said...: MarkP said...
Is that detailed enough for you?
----
How do I know any of that is true? Can I observe any of that happening just like you said, or do I need to put my faith in the same sources that told you that information?; November 6, 2009 7:26 PM
Froggie said...: Well, we now know for certain how Ray thinks evolution works.

That is all.; November 6, 2009 7:27 PM
captain howdy said...: Hi Mollyknits--

carl said to you:

Dear Knits,
The theory of evolution IS NOT true science, except for those weekend armchair science fiction buffs who fantasize about how our whole world came to be, without a Creator.

Here's a list of some of the "armchair scientists" that support evolution. Carl made a similar claim to me that he just did to you. When I laid this list on him, he fell silent. Here's what I sent to him:

@carl--

Here's what professional scientists themselves say:

A Message to the Texas State Board of Education March 24, 2009

The undersigned scientific and educational societies call on the Texas State Board of
Education to support accurate science education for all students by adopting the science
standards (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills or TEKS) as recommended to you by
the scientists and educators on your writing committees.
Evolution is the foundation of modern biology, and is also crucial in fields as diverse as
agriculture, computer science, engineering, geology, and medicine. We oppose any
efforts to undermine the teaching of biological evolution and related topics in the earth
and space sciences, whether by misrepresenting those subjects, or by inaccurately and
misleadingly describing them as controversial and in need of special scrutiny:

American Anthropological Association
American Association of Physical Anthropologists
American Association of Physicists in Medicine
American Association of Physics Teachers
American Astronomical Society
American Geological Institute
American Institute for Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Physiological Society
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
American Society for Cell Biology
American Society for Investigative Pathology
American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
American Society of Human Genetics
American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
American Society of Naturalists
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Society of Plant Taxonomists
Association for Women Geoscientists
Association of American Geographers
Association of Anatomy, Cell Biology, and Neurobiology Chairs
Association of College & University Biology Educators
Association of Earth Science Editors
Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study
Biotechnology Institute
Botanical Society of America
Clay Minerals Society
Council on Undergraduate Research
Ecological Society of America
Federation for American Societies for Experimental Biology
Federation of American Scientists
Human Biology Association
Institute of Human Origins
National Association of Biology Teachers
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Earth Science Teachers Association
National Science Teachers Association
Natural Science Collection Alliance
Paleontological Society
Scientists and Engineers for America
Society for American Archaeology
Society for Developmental Biology
Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
Society for Sedimentary Geology
Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles
Society for the Study of Evolution
Society of Economic Geologists
Society of Systematic Biologists
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
Southwestern Association of Naturalists
The Biophysical Society
The Helminthological Society of Washington
The Herpetologists' League

Gimmie a break.

You see, Molly? These people don't care what the truth is re: evolution. They have a religion to sell you, and if that means they have to dumb you down first, they have no problem with that at all. Carl knew about this list when he replied to you, but if you want to be a creationist, it helps to have a complete disregard for the truth.

Dealing with evolution deniers is just like dealing with holocaust deniers.; November 6, 2009 7:31 PM
Bob said...: Dimensio said...
The theory of evolution IS NOT true science.
--------------------------------
I agree. It is a worldview based on one's interpretation of evidence.; November 6, 2009 7:37 PM
DBW said...: Yes, that would be pretty stupid if someone believed that. Anyone who thinks that's how evolution works knows nothing about it.; November 6, 2009 7:41 PM
That Guy said...: From a previous post:

Evolution does not take place at the level of the individual, in its lifetime.

It takes place at the level of populations, over many generations.

This comic is making an obvious straw-man of evolution, and Ray endorses it.

This deserved a second go. And lets not loose sight of what is really going on. Ray is trying to bury the rebuttal that was just posted.; November 6, 2009 7:41 PM
Dimensio said...: The basic changes though:

I am curious; are any representative species exhibiting the specific characteristics that you have described as various stages currently extant?; November 6, 2009 7:46 PM
Dimensio said...: It seems to me, many, if not thousands of “drastic changes” were need to make whales what they are today.

Then you are incorrect. Viable alterations in offspring organisms resulting from mutations are never "drastic" within a single generation.

Why couldn’t the whale evolve back to land?

I do not believe that such an event is impossible.

And again, what would be a sign of that happening?

Instances of whale pods inhabiting shallow water near shores would likely be an observation that would precede such an occurrence, though the actual result of such an event would likely not be determinable in advance, as outcomes of evolution are the result of contemporaneous environmental conditions, and are not established in advance.; November 6, 2009 7:50 PM
Q-Dragon1337 said...: "к∑ⅰ₮ｻ said...
Q-Dragon1337 said...
its a straw man because such a drastic change such as a whale trying to successfully live on land would never happen in nature
---
But you do believe that the whale was once a land animal of some kind and began to return to the water, right? It seems to me, many, if not thousands of “drastic changes” were need to make whales what they are today. Why couldn’t the whale evolve back to land? And again, what would be a sign of that happening?"

the evolution of the whale was many gradual changes to make drastic change over time, this is one of the key ideas in evolution

and though i would say very unlikely, whales could evolve back onto land

they might start by swimming in shallower water; November 6, 2009 7:51 PM
к∑ⅰ₮ｻ said...: Alphgeek said...
Some whales have vestigial leg bones - remnants from when they were land mammals. You did know this right Ray?

All mammals initially came from the land. Three groups - dolphins, whales and sirenians - returned to the sea.

Of course the Bible knows nothing of this. It thinks whales are fish and bats are birds.
___
Did you know that the Bible was translated from Hebrew and Greek to English? Meaning that it wasn’t originally written in English. The Old Testament was in Hebrew and the New Testament was in Greek. Did you know that the King James Version (KJV) is not the only English translation? Are you KJV only? (You’d be the first atheist I’ve met that was.) There are other translations that do their best to capture the original meaning of a word used. Are you aware that it’s difficult to make perfect translations of certain words because different cultures might have a word with a broader meaning than us? That kind of understanding will help you a lot in the future.

We even change the meaning of words in our own culture each generation. I can see it now, in 30 years Alphgeek Jr. will be very confused every time he sees the word “married” in the Bible because he won’t know if the couple are a man and a women or two men or two women or what’s going on. He’ll need you to teach him how to learn and understand the “context” of what he’s reading, especially Scripture. A historical and grammatical hermeneutics (that means method of interpretation) would be a great help to you and I hope you’ll do some research on it. Take care.; November 6, 2009 7:52 PM
Dimensio said...: @Bob:
Dimensio said...
The theory of evolution IS NOT true science.

I have made no such statement. For what reason have you incorrectly attributed such a statement to me?

It is a worldview based on one's interpretation of evidence.

Please explain and justify this assertion. Demonstrate that evolution, which addresses only the emergence of biological diversity, can be a "worldview".; November 6, 2009 7:52 PM
granpawasamonkey said...: Evolution is a process that occurs in the imaginations of fools over subsequent generations. It does not possess any credibility. It cannot be proven. Populations do not evolve. Your suggestion that a beached whale could be construed as "evolution trying something new" demonstrates that evolutionists lack a fundamental understanding of reality; if this is the case, then any statements with respect to the fairytale of evolution are not credible.; November 6, 2009 7:57 PM
Nathan said...: For someone so convinced evolution is a lie, Ray sure does spend a lot of time obsessing over it. I wonder who he's really trying to convince that it is a lie, the atheists as he claims or himself?; November 6, 2009 7:57 PM
Ryan Anderson said...: к∑ⅰ₮ｻ said in response to MarkP... "How do I know any of that is true?"

Because in the "Origins of The Species", which of course was written by Darwin, but guided by the Holy Spirit, it says the it's true. That's how we know it's true. You wouldn't understand though because you don't believe...

...oh wait, no, that's your position. Sorry.; November 6, 2009 8:00 PM
erikloza said...: After reading many of these posts, the phrase, "can't see the forest for the trees" comes to mind.; November 6, 2009 8:08 PM
ITs All About Jesus!!! said...: Great Joke Ray!

Have a Great Weekend Bro!

God Bless!!!

In His Love,
Terry Burton

*Readers! check out LivingWaters website for a Free copy of Origin of Species Special Edition in PDF format for Download! :); November 6, 2009 8:18 PM
Iago said...: к∑ⅰ₮ｻ said...
MarkP said...
Is that detailed enough for you?
----
How do I know any of that is true? Can I observe any of that happening just like you said, or do I need to put my faith in the same sources that told you that information?
eendquote

Please let me know if you can see any of the following:

the air you breathe
the microbes that make you sick
the gravity that holds you to the surface of the earth
the electricity that makes your computer run

Do you know that these are real in spite of not being able to see them ?; November 6, 2009 8:36 PM
Ray Comfort said...: "That Guy said... And lets not loose sight of what is really going on. Ray is trying to bury the rebuttal that was just posted."

I wouldn't have posted it if I was trying to bury it. :); November 6, 2009 8:42 PM
Bob said...: captain howdy said...
Hi Mollyknits--

carl said to you:

Dear Knits,
The theory of evolution IS NOT true science, except for those weekend armchair science fiction buffs who fantasize about how our whole world came to be, without a Creator.

Here's a list of some of the "armchair scientists" that support evolution. Carl made a similar claim to me that he just did to you. When I laid this list on him, he fell silent. Here's what I sent to him.
---------------------------------
captain howdy, you neglected to put this in your list of armchair scientists.
Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr Robert W. Carter, Zoology (Marine Biology and Genetics)
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist

to be cont.; November 6, 2009 8:46 PM
Bob said...: Cont.
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr George F. Howe, Botany
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry Dr; November 6, 2009 8:48 PM
Bob said...: Cont....
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology; November 6, 2009 8:49 PM
Bob said...: Scientists of the past believed in a Creator
Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.

Early
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However, see also
Culture Wars:

Part 1: Bacon vs Ham
Part 2: Ham vs Bacon
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo ‘twist’ and The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
John Wilkins (1614–1672)
Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy
Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany
The Age of Newton
Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas68(1):57–80, 1997)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*); November 6, 2009 8:51 PM
Bob said...: Just Before Darwin
The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson
Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
Just After Darwin
Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archaeologist
James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archaeologist
John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve; November 6, 2009 8:52 PM
Bob said...: The Modern Period
Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist
George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
Dr Frank Marsh, Biology
Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archaeologist
William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
Dr Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer; November 6, 2009 8:53 PM
Ryan Anderson said...: Ray said "I wouldn't have posted it if I was trying to bury it"

if its on the internet, Ray, you can't bury it. just saying.; November 6, 2009 9:03 PM
Ryan Anderson said...: к∑ⅰ₮ｻ said... "Are you aware that it’s difficult to make perfect translations of certain words because different cultures might have a word with a broader meaning than us?"

If a culture had a word for "bat" that had a broader meaning that included birds, it's because that culture THOUGHT that bats were birds.

If that culture then wrote a book that claimed to be infallible and divinely inspired, but then many hundreds of years later, it's discovered that bats are not birds....

... who's wrong?; November 6, 2009 9:09 PM
MarkP said...: к∑ⅰ₮ｻ- How do I know any of that is true? Can I observe any of that happening just like you said, or do I need to put my faith in the same sources that told you that information?

Did you look up the records of fossils I pointed you to? On top of that, the genetic architecture matches with this nested hierarchy. Island biogeography (one of Darwin's chapters Ray had initially cut) shows this style of relatedness. Experiments in the lab have shown changes which are clearly the early steps in speciation (Lenski's long term E. coli experiment) and we have seen a speciation event occur in America (the Hawthorn fly spun off a lineage now identified as the Apple Maggot worm after the introduction of apples to North America).

When you ask "or do I need to put my faith in the same sources," the only clear answer is- yes. This is the same as trusting a plumber to fix your sink or a mechanic to fix your car. If you look at the evidence, it is possible to understand the evidence yourself as well.; November 6, 2009 9:11 PM
Rufus said...: Carl (Let me guess; named after the Bill Murray character in Caddy shack) wrote "It's an extremely egocentric worldview. . ."

Egocentric.

You believe that you were created special. That the entire universe was created just for you. You believe that this creator cares about every little thing about you, that this creator listens to you, talks to you, loves you. Even that this creator died just for you.

Egocentric.

The only good reason for hanging around here anymore is the laughs.; November 6, 2009 9:12 PM
Bob said...: Dimensio said...
The theory of evolution IS NOT true science

Please substantiate this assertion.
---------------------------------
Dimensio, I forgot to add the rest, sorry!; November 6, 2009 9:26 PM
Steven J. said...: Honeybee said:

There are three comments here so far by Q-Dragon1337, OutlawGirl and MollyKnits.

Each of you ridiculed the premise of the whale on the beach waiting to grow legs.

That's understandable because it is ridiculous when you think about it. That was exactly what Ray was trying to show. You just pretended not to get it.

What Ray (or Richard Gunther) succeeded in showing was that he does not understand the basics of the theory he is trying to mock.

Evolution is not about individuals changing, but about populations changing: some traits becoming more common and others less common among a breeding group of organisms over time.

Evolution is not about trying to do anything. Each new individual has a few random changes from its parents. On rare occasions, one of these individuals will have a random change that makes it a bit more able to survive in its environment. Assuming this change can be inherited, it will pass this change on to some of its offspring, and the new trait will be more common in the next generation than it was in the original mutant's generation. Nothing chooses what mutations it gets, nor does it get a choice in what, if anything, its mutations might be useful for.

Evolution does not assume that absolutely any sort of change is possible for absolutely any sort of organism. Whales have modified their forelimbs into flippers, and lost their hind limbs almost entirely (though an occasional whale is born with the stump of a hind leg); they don't have anything that could readily be modified to serve as a useful walking or crawling limb, especially for something the size of a typical baleen whale. They'd have to change quite a bit (probably shrinking greatly in size, among other things) before they were ready to evolve towards an amphibious and then a terrestrial existence.; November 6, 2009 9:31 PM
Happy Humanist said...: Dear Mr. Comfort and Mr. Gunther,

No one ever claimed whales came onto land and grew legs. In fact the oppostie is true. An ancestor to whales was a four legged land animal which adapted itself to living in the ocean. That is why whales breath with lungs and can even drown if they do not get enough air. Like other mammels, whales are warm blooded, produce milk for their young and have some hair. Their closest land relatives today are hippos which are both aquatic and terrestrial.; November 6, 2009 9:40 PM
MarkP said...: Dimensio asked:"I am curious; are any representative species exhibiting the specific characteristics that you have described as various stages currently extant?

There are several species with those characters, though they are further derived than the ancestral, or (often) not homologous but rather the result of convergence (nature "solving" the same problem the same way). I did mention a few, but here are the examples I can think of off the top of my head:

-The swim bladder of modern fish is homologous (comes from the same development as) lungs

-Lungfish do have a "primitive" lung

-Walking fish are able to move on land, similarly to early tetrapods (but not homologous)

-Amphibians are similar to what the early tetrapods would have been

-I mentioned crop milk in pigeons as similar (but not homologous) to early mammal milk

-The platypus still lays eggs, as early mammals would have

I'm sure there are other examples, but these should help people understand what the evolutionary pathway that the evidence has pointed to.; November 6, 2009 9:42 PM
Amy2 said...: I don't usually comment on the drawings, but that whale doesn't look transitional to me....; November 6, 2009 9:44 PM
Bob said...: Someone said...
Evolution does not take place at the level of the individual, in its lifetime.
It takes place at the level of populations, over many generations.
---------------------------------

Definition of Evolution as Change Over Time

Douglas Futuyama wrote:
The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states the following in relation to this definition of evolution:

“ ...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved. The PBS Evolution series and the Scientific American article are full of examples of this fallacy.; November 6, 2009 9:56 PM
OutlawGirl said...: grandpawasamonkey,

You've got it backwards. Ray's example demonstrates that Ray has a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution does not work like this.; November 6, 2009 10:36 PM
Raoul Rheits said...: Note how not one of Ray's fans point out this complete nonrepresentational elepha-er-whale in the middle of the room.

Honest dialogue died a death somewhere on this blog, and they don't care a jot. Did they ever?; November 7, 2009 12:05 AM
Michael said...: Ray - this is your blog.

What do you think of Terry. (It's all about Jesus).

HONESTLY.

I don't expect a reply, but I thought I would put it out there.; November 7, 2009 12:33 AM
Rabbitpirate said...: Does misrepresenting our beliefs ever get old for you? And I thought you weren't going to do that any more. Ah well, that just goes to show how much your apologies are worth.; November 7, 2009 12:52 AM
culberto said...: @carl

"You probably believe the theory of evolution is at the "heart" of science."

Strawman. No-one is saying that.

"In all of my engineering coursework, the theory of evolution NEVER came up."

What? Really? Amazing.

"The topic of evolution has NEVER come up nor has it ever been appropriate to do so for treating pediatric patients"

That's just crazy talk.

"It's an extremely egocentric worldview, no doubt, that your beliefs are at the center of all knowledge, "

What? Are you so blind that you don't realise that you are talking about yourself?

FYI, I have little more belief in evolution than I do in Christianity.; November 7, 2009 1:00 AM
Rabbitpirate said...: Honeybee said...
There are three comments here so far by Q-Dragon1337, OutlawGirl and MollyKnits.

Each of you ridiculed the premise of the whale on the beach waiting to grow legs.

That's understandable because it is ridiculous when you think about it. That was exactly what Ray was trying to show. You just pretended not to get it.

Oh no, we all get it. It is just that, once again, Ray and Gunther are completely wrong.

Evolution does not happen in individuals as this cartoon implies and it certainly doesn't happen because the whale wants it to happen.

Evolution is all about populations over many generations. It is also about selective pressure and small changes.

Seriously Honeybee this is not hard. This cartoon is a misrepresentation of evolution and therefore of our beliefs about it. And here I was thinking Ray apologised for doing that and wasn't going to do it any more.; November 7, 2009 1:28 AM
Alphgeek said...: к∑ⅰ₮ｻ said:

"Did you know that the Bible was translated from Hebrew and Greek to English? Meaning that it wasn’t originally written in English. The Old Testament was in Hebrew and the New Testament was in Greek. Did you know that the King James Version (KJV) is not the only English translation? Are you KJV only? (You’d be the first atheist I’ve met that was.) There are other translations that do their best to capture the original meaning of a word used. Are you aware that it’s difficult to make perfect translations of certain words because different cultures might have a word with a broader meaning than us? That kind of understanding will help you a lot in the future.

We even change the meaning of words in our own culture each generation. I can see it now, in 30 years Alphgeek Jr. will be very confused every time he sees the word “married” in the Bible because he won’t know if the couple are a man and a women or two men or two women or what’s going on. He’ll need you to teach him how to learn and understand the “context” of what he’s reading, especially Scripture. A historical and grammatical hermeneutics (that means method of interpretation) would be a great help to you and I hope you’ll do some research on it. Take care."

On the rare occasion that I must refer to the Bible I tend to refer to the KJV. Mostly because many fundamentalists seem to regard it as somehow more 'canonical' than other editions. I tend to cross-reference other versions when needed to gain better understanding of the points of particular verses but I usually quote the KJV.

But thank you for the lesson. I was already aware that the Bible was not originally written in English.

A question (or five) for you. How are we to regard the bible as inerrant when you acknowledge (and as I would agree) that differences occur between versions due to both translation errors and errors of context? Which of these versions of the Bible is the inerrant one?

Must we only trust the version that presumably does not teach that bats are birds? Which version is that?

Are we all required to acquire Hebrew and Greek so that we can read the Bible as God intended?

And do you have any commentary on the matter I raised in my original post? The issue of whales having clear vestigial legs?

How are we to make sense of the cartoonist's drawing when it seems to bear no relationship with reality?; November 7, 2009 2:27 AM
Raoul Rheits said...: WOOHOO AMEN!

That cartoon perfectly demonstrates the absurdity of the liberal athieolutionist position.

They want whales to 'evolve'.

They like to 'save' whales, which is dumb because whales are trying to evolve by beaching themselves, but the atheiolutionist is conflicted because it wants to save the whale and also leave it alone to evolve.

Envirolutionist liberals are confused, they should let all things die and go go extinct because life means nothing to them, and after all its just 'evolution' doing its work...they will believe ANYTHING but the Bible.; November 7, 2009 3:17 AM
Froggie said...: к∑ⅰ₮ｻ,

"Did you know that the Bible was translated from Hebrew and Greek to English? Meaning that it wasn’t originally written in English. The Old Testament was in Hebrew and the New Testament was in Greek. Did you know that the King James Version (KJV) is not the only English translation? Are you KJV only? (You’d be the first atheist I’ve met that was.) There are other translations that do their best to capture the original meaning of a word used. Are you aware that it’s difficult to make perfect translations of certain words because different cultures might have a word with a broader meaning than us?"

Yes, that is obvious. That is why the bible is so hopelessly ambiguous, I'm sure you will admit.

An actual divinely inspired word could have easily transcended this problem.

Thanks Keith.; November 7, 2009 3:41 AM
Milo said...: @ Grandpawasamonkey

Your suggestion that a beached whale could be construed as "evolution trying something new" demonstrates that evolutionists lack a fundamental understanding of reality; if this is the case, then any statements with respect to the fairytale of evolution are not credible.

Ray's suggestion that a beached whale could be construed as "evolution trying something new" does not reflect the views and opinions of "evolutionists".

It demonstrates Ray's lack of a fundamental understanding of reality and a willful misrepresentation of the theory of evolution.

As this is the case, any statements by Ray with respect to evolution are not credible.

And you sir, are no Dimensio.; November 7, 2009 5:17 AM
к∑ⅰ₮ｻ said...: Ryan Anderson said...
к∑ⅰ₮ｻ said in response to MarkP... "How do I know any of that is true?"

Because in the "Origins of The Species", which of course was written by Darwin, but guided by the Holy Spirit, it says the it's true. That's how we know it's true. You wouldn't understand though because you don't believe...

...oh wait, no, that's your position. Sorry.
---
I do not beleive that Darwin was guided by the Holy Spirit. That is not my position.; November 7, 2009 5:48 AM
Andy Duchemin said...: I refuse to accept that someone who can use a computer can be so ignorant. Therefor I suspect Ray understands exactly how evolution works and even accepts it as reality and is just playing us for fools.

Ray, I put it to you that you're not stupid, you accept evolution and you're just yanking us.

The joke's on us Ray!; November 7, 2009 5:54 AM
MollyKnits said...: @Captain:

You said: "Dealing with evolution deniers is just like dealing with holocaust deniers."

I agree. I find it interesting that based on a short post, carl was able to know so much about me and how I think. But, Ray has a created a culture of name calling and attacking the personal beliefs of strangers here, so it is to be expected.; November 7, 2009 6:06 AM
cavalier said...: That is a humorous cartoon in that it reflects on the inability of the authors to recognize their own failings in relation to the subject of evolution.

Of course you are simply playing up for the masses who have no better understanding than yourself concerning the process of evolution.Without them you would be unemployed.

It is somehow fitting that the twilight of ignorance within the ranks of religion should fall on its own sword as the world watches shaking its head in wonder at the display of hubris and self destruction by its adherents.

You do provide us with a rich source of laughter though Ray.The more you type the easier it is to have examples of fallacies and irrational discourse by which to educate others.; November 7, 2009 6:22 AM
Secret Stash said...: Dealing with evolution deniers is just like dealing with holocaust deniers.

No matter how many times they get utterly "pwned" there's a support group waiting to tell them how great they did and how they won another battle and such.; November 7, 2009 6:28 AM
Wolfgang said...: @carl

Your reply to MollyKnits is evidence (not scientific evidence) that the Bible and your beliefs are blinding you to understanding other people.

In your overly "sympathetic" comment, you chastise her for believing the theory of evolution is at the center of all sciences and most if not all new inventions. Paragraph after paragraph you apologize for shattering the views of a strawman. Has MollyKnits or anyone else said anything like "scientists needed to be strict adherents to the theory of evolution simply to invent the paperclip?"

You describe evolution as if it were a deity to evolutionists. It is as if you believe a non-believer must use something to fill the "void" of not believing in God just because you need to believe in an omnipotent entity.

You seem to believe that the theory of evolution is at the heart of atheism. For some this may be true, but the theory of evolution has nothing to do with me being an atheist. However, your True Christian beliefs seem to be at the heart of your rejection of "macro-evolution."

To put it another way, the theory of evolution may or may not be true, but evolution so threatens your beliefs that you must dismiss any evidence for evolution because you cannot allow for the possibility it is true.; November 7, 2009 7:04 AM
Mudley said...: Ray said...

I sincerely apologize for misrepresenting what Darwinian evolution says about the origin of males and females.

When do we get a sincere apology for misrepresenting what evolution says about speciation, which Ray has admitted occurs.

Ray, when you said "allright, there is such a thing as speciation", were you lying then? Or are you lying when you now deny the demonstrated scientific fact of speciation?

Do you realize that speciation IS evolution??; November 7, 2009 8:48 AM
Brandon Carl said...: You see, this is where Ray apologizes in one post so he can spit in your face in another with a strawman.

...Class act, Ray...; November 7, 2009 9:00 AM
Honeybee said...: MollyKnits said: "Too bad you get your science education from folks like Ray. The irony of your post, I am sure, escapes you."

Hi Molly,

Your assumption about where I "get my science education" is incorrect.

And as for "irony," that was the purpose of my post -- to show it. I must have failed. 8^)

.; November 7, 2009 9:12 AM
Honeybee said...: Photosynthesis asked: "Do you seriously think this cartoon represents evolution?"

Hi G.E.

Oh dear, did I say something to make you think that I believed this cartoon represents evolution?

If so, I apologize. That was not my intention. My intention was to say just the opposite.

I meant to say that it showed how utterly ridiculous the THEORY of evolution really is...

.

.; November 7, 2009 9:18 AM
Andy said...: It doesn't need legs! because thats not a whale its a snake!; November 7, 2009 9:46 AM
Andy said...: It doesn't need legs silly, Its a snake!; November 7, 2009 9:47 AM
CharlieDarwin said...: The cartoon is funny because it shows how ridiculous Darwinist Evolutionist sound. How many times have we seen a Darwinist scream their heads off telling use they found some transitional fossil, only to find they either lied, had no idea or were a complete fraud.

Darwin himself admitted there had to be millions of transitional fossils and they are bound to start showing up. , otherwise if they didn't he would question his own theory.

That's why Darwinists have to find transitionals everywhere they look.

What makes it even funnier is one of their great finds was a so called whale which they identified from a skull fragment, part of a jaw and a tooth. Of course there so-called whale was found mixed in with fossils of land mammals...go figure.; November 7, 2009 10:56 AM
CharlieDarwin said...: This discussion reminds of that age old question. Why did some creatures not change for hundreds of millions of years. They were in the same environments that produced this massive evolutionary change, yet somehow evolution passed them by....why?

Wouldn't the evolutionary process affect some amount of change over 400 million years, even in a pretty happy creature.; November 7, 2009 11:24 AM
CharlieDarwin said...: Let me just say, because I've gotten alot of heated feedback. There seems to be a lot of questioning of peoples deeply held religious beliefs. Some hard hitting comments that rock the bedrock of peoples moral centers and it can be difficult for them when that happens.

So I also would like to apologize to those who have accepted Richard Dawkins as their Lord and Savior; that I in no way meant to question your deeply held religious convictions.; November 7, 2009 11:41 AM
Buckyball said...: Alphgeek wrote:

"Of course the Bible knows nothing of this. It thinks whales are fish and bats are birds."

Where in the Bible does it talk about bats?; November 7, 2009 12:49 PM
Eiskrystal said...: -Please let me know if you can see any of the following:

the air you breathe
the microbes that make you sick
the gravity that holds you to the surface of the earth
the electricity that makes your computer run-

Sense honey bun. Sense. You have 5 senses. You might want to plug into the other ones once in a while, not just sight.

I am most amused that an aerospace engineer expected to be messing with animal populations over time and seemed most disappointed when they weren't.

I am sure Ray that you have been told quite enough times that animals don't "want" to evolve. It is merely mutations that arise within populations that lead to different body structures. It is also not necessary to have "massive" changes in DNA in order to change the body plans in a meaningful way. But then of course your years spent studying evolution should have told you that.; November 7, 2009 4:08 PM
ITs All About Jesus!!! said...: @ Rando, you crack me up!

Did you hear about the multiple law suits on Face Book my friend?

Watch your step, you might get hit with one yourself! :)

I did agree with this part:

"How can the "atheist" hive believe in such a "something from nothing" religion? Even Richard Dawkins believes we were seeded by a higher intelligence of space clams beyond the stars. LOL "

FYI, Richard Dawkins says "we were seeded by an advanced alien civilization" ...

I need to report this to your beloved king! LOL

In His Love,
Terry Burton

BTW ... Only have close to 900 blogs now. Sorry to burst your bubble shipmate! ;); November 7, 2009 4:28 PM
ITs All About Jesus!!! said...: my dear Dimensio,

You can't be serious with this statement you made:

'The theory of evolution IS NOT true science' you said:
"Please substantiate this assertion"

You must kidding us! Right? Any dictionary will show you that a "theory" is a assertion, a hypotheisis that is Not proven!

Therefore it Not a sciene my friend. Are you taking drugs?

Drop my updated profile webpage for your PDF copy of "Origin of the Species, 150th Anniversary Edition"

God Bless! Praying for your immortal souls. Repent while you can atheists. Don't die in your sins and go to hell.

Right Rando ? Get a life with Jesus Christ! Put your trust in the Lord, not your religion.

In His Love,
Terry Burton

*Free mp3 downloads on my profile webpage!
Courtesy of 1031SermonJams website.; November 7, 2009 4:37 PM
ltlgeorge said...: When we covet, it's a sin that sets us up for more sin. And no physical act is necessary to break this commandment. It's as though God said don't even think about it.
I don't know about anybody else, but I sure don't have that much self control. Ain't grace amazing!?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, Truth, it is what it is.; November 7, 2009 5:41 PM
MarkP said...: Ray, why has it been 24 hours since you approved any comments? It makes it really hard to read through the comments when several people make the same point ignorant of the fact that others are waiting in your inbox.

Perhaps you could switch your comment system to something more like other blogs- comments are posted immediately, and you check and remove those which violate your rules. Any individual who repeatedly violates, gets banned.; November 7, 2009 5:43 PM
ITs All About Jesus!!! said...: Rando, IRT: FreeHovind website

You need to check the facts on the Hovind's case, before you give an opinion. Most of your 'hive boys' are under the impression that he committed fraud. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Penalty protestor website has the complete case with court decisions on this case for download in PDF format.

As a retired counselor who worked in the government, and retired from 23 yrs of military service, I can tell you it is a "gross miscarriage of justice".

I know several employers in the state of Florida that do not deduct federal taxes, and leave it up to the employees to pay it.

While we have convicted pedophiles & rapists roaming the streets, our court system locks up a Man of GOD who taught the 'faith' that was founded in this country with "In GOD We Trust".

Our currency still proclaims it, and people like yourself, and the 'hive boys' are trying your best to 'brain wash' the youth with your propaganda, and lies.

Our tax dollars should not be spent on promoting your senseless religion. You blatantly ignore the evidence for the Creator, and lead the youth of this world on the path to destruction.

Pray about it, and you will see what I am talking about my friend.
Listen to your conscious!

In His Love,
Terry Burton

*NeedGOD website is a great way to learn about the Truth, and where you will spend eternity.; November 7, 2009 8:44 PM
Mr. said...: There's one very simple thing wrong with the cartoon.

"Mum"

It's "Mom".

You live in the United States.

It's "mom" not "mum".

That may fly in kiwi-land, but not here in the States, babe.; November 7, 2009 8:55 PM
T_ConX said...: Ironically, that IS evolution in action!

Well, the other, darker, half of evolution.

See, what will happen is simple. The Whale, who thought swimming onto the beach would be a good idea, will die.

Smarter Whales; ones less likely to swim onto a beach, will live on, and reproduce to create more smart Whales.

...But really, all this does is further prove that Ray just doesn't understand how evolution works. Animals don't suddenly gain extra limbs in one generation. It's a slow gradual change over many generations...; November 8, 2009 12:14 AM
verandoug said...: This may not demonstrate perfectly what you believe as evolutionists, but even if that whale produced offspring that were trying to come out of the water, it would be detrimental to the infant. Infants struggle right from the start of life. To add an additional struggle of a new means of respirating is nonsense. The infant would die or be picked off by predators very easily. Not to mention the number of mutational attempts that the whales would have to make before producing an offspring prepared to come out of the water. Most mutations 1:10,000 are deleterious. Not to mention that the fossil record shows animals being produced at the just right timing for the conditions of the earth and then being taken out and replaced when those conditions change again. It shows a sort of logic.

Vera; November 8, 2009 4:08 AM
ITs All About Jesus!!! said...: Rando,

One last thought for you!

Mocking my posts does not change the severity of your life style.

Your homosexual activities are still a 'great sin' in the sight of our GOD and you will be held accountable on Judgement Day.

GOD did not design us to interact that way, and you know it. My hope and prayer is that you will seek professional help along with counseling. Don't be affraid to reach out, otherwise you will eventually perish in the flames of hell.

God Bless you on this Sunday!

In His Love,
Terry Burton; November 8, 2009 5:57 AM
MarkP said...: CharlieDarwin"This discussion reminds of that age old question. Why did some creatures not change for hundreds of millions of years. They were in the same environments that produced this massive evolutionary change, yet somehow evolution passed them by....why?

Selection pressures. The most likely cause for evolutionary change in a species is a change in selection pressure, such as environment. Sharks, for example, live in essentially the same environment as their prehistoric ancestors, they face the same selection pressures. This is not a problem for evolution, and Darwin even addressed it 150 years ago in Origin- this is something that evolution predicts, not something that contradicts it.; November 8, 2009 6:45 AM
MarkP said...: Terry/ ITs All About Jesus!!! said..."You must kidding us! Right? Any dictionary will show you that a "theory" is a assertion, a hypotheisis that is Not proven!

Therefore it Not a sciene my friend."

Terry, I am sure this has been pointed out to you before, but science uses the word theory much differently than you suggest above. A theory- most definitions are closer to "A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations" or "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of situations" (in google, search "define:theory").

A theory does not grow up into a law when it is supported. In the hierarchy of scientific understanding, a theory sits above laws. Laws describe an action, but offer no explanation for it. Theories are overarching explanations for a large number of laws.

By your argument, gravity is also not science, because it is "just a theory."; November 8, 2009 6:54 AM
Secret Stash said...: Charlie Darwin wrote...
The cartoon is funny because it shows how ridiculous Darwinist Evolutionist sound.

You're about to show to show how ridiculous you are are.

How many times have we seen a Darwinist scream their heads off telling use they found some transitional fossil, only to find they either lied, had no idea or were a complete fraud.

Please gives us more examples. Piltdown Man was the only forgery to fool the scientific community (primarily in England and France but few elsewhere) and was later proven to be a fake by evolution. The Nebraska Man drawing was an artistic depiction commisioned by the magazine not a scientist. Archeoraptor fooled no one except the tards that bought the "fossil" and some of the popular press. Please, provide some actual examples or is your parroting getting to be a bit ridiculous?

Darwin himself admitted there had to be millions of transitional fossils and they are bound to start showing up. , otherwise if they didn't he would question his own theory.

Oddly enough this is a misrepresentation of the statement. Perhaps I missed MILLIONS in my read through. I hope you're not in law enforcement. You'd never catch anyone. You'd be looking for MILLIONS of finger prints all day.

That's why Darwinists have to find transitionals everywhere they look.

See above

What makes it even funnier is one of their great finds was a so called whale which they identified from a skull fragment, part of a jaw and a tooth. Of course there so-called whale was found mixed in with fossils of land mammals...go figure.

Could you provide a citation for this information? Perhaps the name given to this discovery? Please provide quality sources. I'll be more than happy to debunk it/them.

Why did some creatures not change for hundreds of millions of years. They were in the same environments that produced this massive evolutionary change, yet somehow evolution passed them by....why?

Could you provide examples of animals that didn't? If it's an "age old question" why hasn't anyone pointed out the simple answer of Natural Selection? Simply because a species population lives in the same "environment" as another doesn't mean it will experience the same changes or change along the same time line. Seems more as if the answer is simply being ignored.

So I also would like to apologize to those who have accepted Richard Dawkins as their Lord and Savior; that I in no way meant to question your deeply held religious convictions.

Face palm.; November 8, 2009 6:58 AM
Steven J. said...: Buckyball replied to Alphgeek:

"Of course the Bible knows nothing of this. It thinks whales are fish and bats are birds."

Where in the Bible does it talk about bats?

Leviticus 11:13-19 -- "These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat [Hebrew 'atalef]."

The usual apologetic approach is to point out that the ancient Hebrew word for "bird" or "fowl" was not influenced by Linnaean taxonomy: they didn't necessarily assume that to be a bird, an animal needed to have feathers, a bill, and a right but not a left aortic arch.; November 8, 2009 7:03 AM
Steven J. said...: Bob replied to Someone:

Evolution does not take place at the level of the individual, in its lifetime.
It takes place at the level of populations, over many generations.

Definition of Evolution as Change Over Time

Douglas Futuyama wrote:
The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states the following in relation to this definition of evolution:

“ ...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved. The PBS Evolution series and the Scientific American article are full of examples of this fallacy.

Sarfati's point has nothing to do with the passages you quote. Sarfati is raising the common creationist distinction between "change within kinds" (whatever "kinds" are) and universal common descent, and complaining that evoutionists use the word "evolution" for both, simply because both happen to be evolution. Safarti's argument is flawed; he can neither specify the amount of evolution he thinks is possible nor explain what barriers prevent evolution beyond this limit.

Anyway, with regard to Gunther's cartoon, it doesn't matter whether we're talking about some primitive, wolflike dog giving rise to St. Bernards and chihuahuas, or to some primitive hoofed mammal giving rise to both cows and whales: either process happens to populations (breeding groups of animals), not to individuals. No ancestral wolf gave birth to a litter of cubs containing both a chihuahua and a St. Bernard, nor did some individual wolf change into an individual of a modern dog breed. By the same token, a whale species isn't going to evolve by some individual whale "trying" to change into something else.; November 8, 2009 7:03 AM
Ryan Anderson said...: Keith said..."I do not beleive that Darwin was guided by the Holy Spirit. That is not my position"

Sorry, I should have been clearer that I was mocking the Christian belief that the Bible is true because it says it's true.; November 8, 2009 7:15 AM
CharlieDarwin said...: I never realized how many darwinists use the Bible as their rationale for believing in Darwinian Evolution.

I mean every time you ask them for a simple explanation, they run back to the Bible and say - - well, because the Bible says this and I reject that..then evolution must be true.

Its quit an argument. Of course this form of argument came from Richard Dawkins, who decided rather then trying to argue facts, he would simply ridicule anyone who pointed out flaws in his theory.

WOW, and look how Dawkins ridicule had evolved to make a whole population of Atheist ridiculers.
I guess the question is, did they evolve into ridiclue or was this an existing trait, that just appeared in the population?; November 8, 2009 7:24 AM
CharlieDarwin said...: It is kind of funny to have Darwinists arguing that the Bible text has been interpreted from Hebrew and Greek to English and therefore may have been wrongly interpreted.

These are the same people who keep insisting on sticking to the English text of the Bible for words such as 'DAY' (as in seven days)...which means something entirely different in Hebrew.

So if they have known all along that 'Day' represented something different in Hebrew, why did they make such a fallacious argument all this time?; November 8, 2009 7:28 AM
Iago said...: God job of Christian civility there Terry. Going to go out and kick an atheists puppy now ?; November 8, 2009 8:05 AM
JD said...: Nice try Bob, but despite your roll-call of theists the vast (90%) majority of established and practicing scientists do not support creationism or theism in general. Why do you think that is?

Oh and I see you did not neglect to leave Jason Lisle, AIG's resident tool, off your list...; November 8, 2009 8:37 AM
Secret Stash said...: I mean every time you ask them for a simple explanation, they run back to the Bible and say - - well, because the Bible says this and I reject that..then evolution must be true.

Creationists no a lot about false dichotomy. Let me remind you of yours...

Don't have an answer? God
Nothing yet? God
There's only two possibilities. Evolution and Creation

Also he wasn't "running to the bible" for answers. Someone had ask for the passage calling bats birds.

Its quit an argument. Of course this form of argument came from Richard Dawkins, who decided rather then trying to argue facts, he would simply ridicule anyone who pointed out flaws in his theory.

It's quite obvious you've never actually read anything by Dawkin or actually listened to one of his lectures. Rather you picking out well known figures in an effort to poison the well.

WOW, and look how Dawkins ridicule had evolved to make a whole population of Atheist ridiculers.
I guess the question is, did they evolve into ridiclue or was this an existing trait, that just appeared in the population?

Do you proof read your stuff or do you like typing drivel?; November 8, 2009 8:40 AM
Craig said...: Amy2 said...
I don't usually comment on the drawings, but that whale doesn't look transitional to me....

I know, Amy2. It looks more like it has a man living in it's stomach.

Jonah2; November 8, 2009 8:48 AM
Dimensio said...: captain howdy, you neglected to put this in your list of armchair scientists.

Captain Howdy provided a list of multiple scientific organizations that endorse the theory of evolution. You are referencing individuals; the two concepts are not logically equivalent.

Scientists of the past believed in a Creator

That a scientist holds a belief in a "Creator" has no relevance to the subject of evolution.

Just Before Darwin

That a scientist who lived prior to the publication of On the Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life did not accept the validity of the theory of evolution constitutes no demonstration of the viability of the theory; it is wholly unreasonable to suggest that a scientific theory must be accepted prior to its publication in order to be viable.; November 8, 2009 9:14 AM
Dimensio said...: Dimensio, I forgot to add the rest, sorry!

Why, then, have you not yet remedied this error.; November 8, 2009 9:16 AM
Dimensio said...: I meant to say that it showed how utterly ridiculous the THEORY of evolution really is...

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy. Your claim that the theory of evolution is "ridiculous" does not constitute a logical refutation of the theory. Additionally, for what reason have you capitalized every letter of the word "theory"?; November 8, 2009 9:18 AM
Dimensio said...: The cartoon is funny because it shows how ridiculous Darwinist Evolutionist sound.

You are incorrect. The referenced cartoon is an appeal to a "strawman" misrepresentation evolution. A strawman misrepresentation is inherently dishonest, and cannot constitute a logical demonstration regarding the actual subject that has been misrepresented.; November 8, 2009 9:19 AM
Dimensio said...: So I also would like to apologize to those who have accepted Richard Dawkins as their Lord and Savior;

To whom, specifically, do you refer?; November 8, 2009 9:20 AM
Dimensio said...: You must kidding us! Right? Any dictionary will show you that a "theory" is a assertion, a hypotheisis that is Not proven!

Your assertion is entirely false. A "theory" is a comprehensive explanation for an observed phenomenon that has been supported through substantial evidence such that it has attained a sufficient degree of confidence amongst scientists within relevant fields of study, thus it is held to a greater degree of confidence than is a hypothesis, and it is dishonest to refer to a theory as a mere "assertion". A "law" is a generalization regarding predictably occurring events within the universe. Neither "theories" nor "laws" may be proven. As you have been informed of this previously, it is obvious that you are now lying. As you have demonstrated that you are a serial liar through your previous incidents of dishonesty, however, your dishonesty in this regard is not unexpected.

Given that the meanings of the terms "theory" and "law" have been explained to you previously, can you please explain why you are lying about them now? Is your dishonesty a pathological condition, or do you engage in the act willfully, in the attempt to convince individuals who are thus far unaware of your history of engaging in such serial dishonesty?

Therefore it Not a sciene my friend.

Your conclusion is itself based upon demonstrable lies; your conclusion itself is therefore a lie, and thus you are a liar for stating it.

Are you taking drugs?

As you are a known liar, your speculation regarding any substances that I may be using has no credibility.

Drop my updated profile webpage for your PDF copy of "Origin of the Species, 150th Anniversary Edition"

I have little interest in examining a resource created by a known serial liar.

God Bless! Praying for your immortal souls. Repent while you can atheists. Don't die in your sins and go to hell.

As you are known to be a serial liar, your claims are not credible.; November 8, 2009 9:25 AM
Dimensio said...: As a retired counselor who worked in the government, and retired from 23 yrs of military service, I can tell you it is a "gross miscarriage of justice".

You are known to be a serial liar. As such, your stated assessment of Mr. Hovind's incarceration -- and your claim of having ever been a counselor -- are not credible.; November 8, 2009 9:26 AM
Dimensio said...: Not to mention the number of mutational attempts that the whales would have to make before producing an offspring prepared to come out of the water.

No biologist would propose that whales could evolve to a land-dwelling species in a single generation under any circumstances. I do not believe that you possess an adequate understanding of the subject that you are discussing.

Most mutations 1:10,000 are deleterious.

Please substantiate this assertion.; November 8, 2009 9:27 AM
Dimensio said...: Your homosexual activities

As you are known to be a serial liar, your claim that Rando engages in "homosexual activities" is not credible.

are still a 'great sin' in the sight of our GOD and you will be held accountable on Judgement Day.

As you are known to be a serial liar, your claim that homosexual activities -- whether Rando engages in such are not -- are a "great sin" by any measure is not credible.; November 8, 2009 9:28 AM
OutlawGirl said...: Honeybee wrote: There are three comments here so far by Q-Dragon1337, OutlawGirl and MollyKnits.

Each of you ridiculed the premise of the whale on the beach waiting to grow legs.

That's understandable because it is ridiculous when you think about it. That was exactly what Ray was trying to show. You just pretended not to get it.

No no no, I understand exactly the point Ray was trying to make. It's just so ignorant it makes me want to giggle! To put it in perspective for you, it would be like a man who doesn't understand the inner workings of a camera drawing a cartoon with a little man inside painting pictures. He's got it completely wrong.; November 8, 2009 9:28 AM
Dimensio said...: I mean every time you ask them for a simple explanation, they run back to the Bible and say - - well, because the Bible says this and I reject that..then evolution must be true.

Please provide a specific reference to the use of such an argument.

Of course this form of argument came from Richard Dawkins, who decided rather then trying to argue facts, he would simply ridicule anyone who pointed out flaws in his theory.

Please provide a specific citation of Professor Dawkins engaging in such an argument.

WOW, and look how Dawkins ridicule had evolved to make a whole population of Atheist ridiculers.
I guess the question is, did they evolve into ridiclue or was this an existing trait, that just appeared in the population?

Your inquiry is based upon an as-yet undemonstrated premise. Please substantiate your initial premise by referencing specific arguments of the nature that you have referred, including such an argument being employed by Professor Dawkins.; November 8, 2009 9:31 AM
Dimensio said...: So if they have known all along that 'Day' represented something different in Hebrew, why did they make such a fallacious argument all this time?

To what specific arguments do you refer? Please provide references.; November 8, 2009 9:31 AM
Rando said...: Terry "It's ALL about LYING for JESUS" Burton says:

Did you hear about the multiple law suits on Face Book my friend?

Watch your step, you might get hit with one yourself! :)

By all means, sue me. Please. LOL. Your understanding of the American legal system is as uninformed as your understanding of reality. No surprise there.

FYI, Richard Dawkins says "we were seeded by an advanced alien civilization" ...

Keep lying, False Convert!

Listen to your conscious!

It's "conscience", you idiot. But given pathological compulsion to lie about nearly every topic in discussion you might not have one. So I suppose you can be forgiven for not knowing how to spell it.

One last thought for you!

Mocking my posts does not change the severity of your life style.

Your homosexual activities are still a 'great sin' in the sight of our GOD and you will be held accountable on Judgement Day.

GOD did not design us to interact that way, and you know it. My hope and prayer is that you will seek professional help along with counseling. Don't be affraid to reach out, otherwise you will eventually perish in the flames of hell.

LOL. Is that your last resort towards everyone who points out what an idiot you are? Call them a homosexual? And your evidence for my homosexuality is what exactly? Couldn't be the fact that I'm married...to a woman.

You really are a sad little man. Lucky for you that Hell doesn't exist. Because you'd be right there with the rest of us heathens.

Catch ya next lie, Terry!; November 8, 2009 10:08 AM
Joshua Jung said...: You know, addressing "evolution" won't get Ray Comfort or anyone else anywhere for that matter. "Evolution" is just stupid to a creationist, and creationism is just stupid to an evolutionist. So this battle will never end.

Looking at my story, I realize that it wasn't until I decided - for myself - to study genetics, and that in an atmosphere that was not threatening, that I found myself slowly discovering that evolution was not anything I thought it was when I used to follow the likes of Ken Ham and Ray Comfort.

Truth is, until Ray Comfort actually devotes some time to studying how genetics and biology works, and not in the context of evolution, that he will even be capable of understanding.

Personally, I'd like Ray Comfort to explain - in his own words - how genetics works. If he can do that, and show how it is impossible for evolution to occur given all the different ways changes occur in the genome, then I'll begin to think he is being credible.

Unfortunately, Ray does not understand a strawman argument, and until he does he won't quit.

Ray, what if we made a cartoon showing how "stupid" Christianity is by displaying Jesus as a zombie and Christians as cannibals drinking his blood and eating his flesh?

That is a strawman, and you would respond by saying we do not "understand" Christianity.

Well, Ray, your cartoon shows that you do not understand evolution and looks about as stupid to people who understand evolution as the previous cartoon would look to you.

Ray, I'm beginning to think you are a masochist. Quite frankly, it makes sense. You believe persecution means you are a good Christian.

Quite frankly, everyone needs to stop making fun of Ray. You don't realize what you are doing. With every attack you hurl, you only make him feel more empowered. Your feeding his faith by attacking him.; November 8, 2009 11:08 AM
The cake is a lie said...: Raoul Rheits, a decent enough recital. You hit all the right notes, however I can't help but feel that you missed the essential soul of the piece. You see, in order to properly capture the true spirit of the piece you must

WRITE ... like
THIS !!

Everything must BE shouted!!! LOL !! Randomly CAPItalized "and" shouted !

"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men."

:) LOL !

When you ARE "done" typing! the "page" should
LOOK like the bib of a toddler who's
"just" eaten ;) a plate of spaghetti !!LOL!

"And all the people came up after him, and the people piped with pipes, and rejoiced with great joy, so that the earth rent with the sound of them."

LOL!!!!!

The "ending" IS usually a MATTER of choice LOL!!
yOU can "either"!!! end WTIH the shameless PLUG!!!!lolLOL!!!:) or if the piece HAS "been" particularly FULL of "spite" and BILE you can always "end" WITH the smarmy, "Praying for you" line!! LOL!!

Of course thats just one of the many ways you can convey the proper emotion in your piece another way is to type constantly without using any kind of punctuation of any kind in order to give the impression that youre talking really fastLOL

Hoping you'll get as smart as me one day!!! ! ! !!! LOL! ;)

skY cAKE! LOL!!!; November 8, 2009 11:59 AM
MollyKnits said...: My Dear Honeybee

You said:

"Your assumption about where I "get my science education" is incorrect."

I acknowledge that my assumption about where you got your science education is incorrect. However, if you believe the cartoon in question represents ANYTHING that is even remotely connected to ToE, than I can rightly assume that your science education is fundamentally flawed. You should consider a lawsuit against your high school for failing to educate you properly. Read StevenJ's post to you to understand why.

You also said:

"And as for "irony," that was the purpose of my post -- to show it. I must have failed."

We ridiculed the premise of the cartoon because it is a faulty premise (in other words, ToE doesn't work like that). You tried to suggest that three of us, who pointed out the flawed premise of the cartoon, where just too stupid to "get it." Ironically, your support of the cartoon illustrated, quite nicely, the point of MY post -- Ray, his cartoonist, and now YOU know less about science than any adult should.

Here's a thought, learn something about ToE before you try and laugh at people who actually know what it is all about.; November 8, 2009 12:30 PM
Steven J. said...: CharlieDarwin said:

It is kind of funny to have Darwinists arguing that the Bible text has been interpreted from Hebrew and Greek to English and therefore may have been wrongly interpreted.

It's kind of funny to have people point out obvious facts? Here's an obvious fact you ought to find hilarious: there is no one on this blog arguing that Darwin was divinely inspired and inerrant, or that we ought to accept evolution because Darwin taught it, or that evolutionary theory consists of all and only his ideas. There are no "Darwinists;" there are people who recognize the reality of common descent and natural selection.

These are the same people who keep insisting on sticking to the English text of the Bible for words such as 'DAY' (as in seven days)...which means something entirely different in Hebrew.

The Hebrew yom has a range of meanings that overlaps almost exactly with the range of English "day." And please note that this blog is crawling with young-earth creationists who will insist that the days of creation were literal, consecutive, 24-hour days, and that the Hebrew permits no other interpretation of yom when the word is preceded by an ordinal number (e.g. "first day," "second day," etc.). There are a couple of old-earth, day-age creationists, but they're greatly outnumbered and out-posted.

I realize that consistency and honesty are not your strong suits, but is it so terribly unreasonable for skeptics on this blog to interpret Genesis the same way most of the Christians here do -- the same way, indeed, that most Christians historically have?

On the other hand, if you actually paid attention to the people whose arguments you mock and misrepresent, you might note that in fact some of the "Darwinists" here have pointed out explicitly that there are alternate interpretations of the days of creation, going right back to Augustine of Hippo, who suggested that the creation week was not a chronology and that the days were not only not literal days, but not periods of time at all.

So if they have known all along that 'Day' represented something different in Hebrew, why did they make such a fallacious argument all this time?

The skeptics here do not know that yom represents a differet concept from "day;" how could they, given that it does not? I suppose some have argued (as most of the creationists here do) that it "obviously" means a 24-hour day in the context of Genesis 1, but certainly not all skeptics here have so argued.; November 8, 2009 12:31 PM
photosynthesis said...: Honeybee,

I meant to say that it showed how utterly ridiculous the THEORY of evolution really is...

OK, if we agree that the cartoon does not represent evolution, and you still think the cartoon shows how utterly ridiculous the THEORY of evolution is, should it follow that you think this cartoon represents the theory of evolution? That would still be wrong, but I truly want to know what you mean.

(I know there is a difference between evolution, the actual natural process, and the theory attempting to explain it, but you just got me even more curious.)

G.E.; November 8, 2009 1:07 PM
MVP said...: What an idiotic cartoon.

The artist clearly knows as little about evolution as you do.

You are displaying ignorance beyond imagination here...really you should be embarassed.; November 8, 2009 1:37 PM
Happy Humanist said...: Once AGAIN folks. Scientists have never claimed that whales came out of the water, grew legs and became terrestrial. However, there IS evidence that an ancestor to whales and other members of the cetacean order of animals was a land animal that evolved to live in the sea. That is why all whales and dolphins are air breathing mammals.

Let me just ask you non-evolutionists this.....if God created whales to live in the ocean, then why would he make it neccessary for them to come to the surface to breathe----just like humans? While some whales with large lungs can stay underwater for sometimes as long as an hour, they all have to come to the surface eventually to breathe or they will suffocate and drown. Doesn't sound like very intelligent design to me.; November 8, 2009 2:52 PM
captain howdy said...: Bob said--

captain howdy, you neglected to put this in your list of armchair scientists.
Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

Carl made the ludicrous statement that:

"The theory of evolution IS NOT true science, except for those weekend armchair science fiction buffs who fantasize about how our whole world came to be, without a Creator."

I then proceeded to provide a large list of scientific and educational organizations--not individuals, but entire organizations--that support the teaching of the theory of evolution; proving carl's claim false. And that list is incomplete. It doesn't mention other highly prestigious organizations such as the National Academies of Science, the American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science, or the American Medical Association, to name only 3.

Your list only says that the scientists you cite "accept the Genesis account" without specifying what that means. Accept it literally? Figuratively? What?

Besides, I can provide a list of over 1100 PhD scientists that have signed off on the following statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

...and this list consists solely of scientists with the name "Steve" or a derivative (Stephanie, Estefan, etc). Steves are roughly 1% of the population, so that list actually represents 110,000 scientists if any and all names had been allowed on the list. This also proves carl's claim that only armchair science fiction buffs consider evolution to be legitimate science to be laughably false.

To see the list for yourself go to ncse dot com, click "taking action" and then click "project steve".; November 8, 2009 3:22 PM
Alphgeek said...: Buckyball said:

"Where in the Bible does it talk about bats?"

Steven J kindly pointed out the relevant verse. That's what I had in mind.

Despite the apologetic he provided it is clear - now, thanks to science - that bats are not birds.

The Bible was erroneous on this point.

If God wished the Bible to be accurate and infallible, would He not inform the authors that bats and birds were dissimilar?

I presume Hebrew now contains a word for bat that differentiates them from birds? So it is not impossible that God could have instructed the authors to coin a word that allowed such differentiation when they were writing Leviticus.

It is less accurate that the Bible conflate bats and birds than it would be to conflate pigs and bats. Pigs are more closely related to bats than bats are to birds.

Why not include bats in the list of unclean animals with pigs? While still incorrect, this would be closer to reality.

Of course the bible uses arbitrary similarities such as cloven hooves and chewing of the cud to determine which animals the Jews could and could not consume so perhaps I expect too much of it. But surely God's word should be accurate?

Of course what really happened is that the fallible human authors of the Bible drew their conclusion from the superficial resemblance of bats and birds.

God - being nonexistent - was not able to provide them with an accurate description of the relationship between bats and birds.; November 8, 2009 3:39 PM
Alphgeek said...: CharlieDarwin said:

"I never realized how many darwinists use the Bible as their rationale for believing in Darwinian Evolution."

If you insist on using the term Darwinist, you should properly capitalise it. It is a word based on a proper noun.

But the fact is that despite accepting the theory of evolution by natural selection, I am not a Darwinist.

Any more than my acceptance of the theory of universal gravitation makes me a Newtonist, or my acceptance of special relativity makes me an Einsteinist.

You apparently accept Ray Comfort's position regarding theology and the sciences. Does that make you a Comfortist?; November 8, 2009 4:09 PM
Reynold said...: Terry
I did agree with this part:

"How can the "atheist" hive believe in such a "something from nothing" religion? Even Richard Dawkins believes we were seeded by a higher intelligence of space clams beyond the stars. LOL "

FYI, Richard Dawkins says "we were seeded by an advanced alien civilization" ...

I need to report this to your beloved king! LOL

You do realize that what you're sprouting is complete bull, right? Dawkins has said over and over that he was giving an example of how "intelligent design" could have come about and how it could be tested, if it was actually real!.

The man nowhere said that he believes ID had actually happened in the first place, much less that aliens did it.

Here, let me help you, from his article Lying for Jesus? on his website:

This 'Ultimate 747' argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or may not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphatically NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.

Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE." I can't remember whether this was the moment in the film where we were regaled with another Lord Privy Seal cut to an old science fiction movie with some kind of android figure — that may have been used in the service of trying to ridicule Francis Crick (again, dutiful titters from the partisan audience).; November 8, 2009 4:12 PM
OutlawGirl said...: CharlieDarwin wrote: This discussion reminds of that age old question. Why did some creatures not change for hundreds of millions of years. They were in the same environments that produced this massive evolutionary change, yet somehow evolution passed them by....why?

Wouldn't the evolutionary process affect some amount of change over 400 million years, even in a pretty happy creature.

Truth is that creatures that have existed for eons, such as the coelacanth, have seen change. In fact coelacanth is actually the name of an order - not an individual species. The living species of coelacanth (there are only two) are different from the specimens in the fossil record.

Another common example is the shark. Sharks are also considered an order - a superorder in fact, not a single species. Many species of shark have come and gone since the dawn of time (to use a metaphor).; November 8, 2009 4:20 PM
OutlawGirl said...: CharlieDarwin wrote: I mean every time you ask them for a simple explanation, they run back to the Bible and say - - well, because the Bible says this and I reject that..then evolution must be true.

Evolution is true because of the mass of evidence that backs it up and because it has united fields of life science, allowing knowledge gained in one field to be applied to another.; November 8, 2009 4:23 PM
Buckyball said...: Steven J wrote:

"The usual apologetic approach is to point out that the ancient Hebrew word for "bird" or "fowl" was not influenced by Linnaean taxonomy: they didn't necessarily assume that to be a bird, an animal needed to have feathers, a bill, and a right but not a left aortic arch."

Your analytical skills are unique indeed.

While we're on the subject of birds, I heard once that pi is misrepresented in the Bible. I think someone said it had something to do with birdbaths. What do you think?; November 8, 2009 4:44 PM
Dimensio said...: Even Richard Dawkins believes we were seeded by a higher intelligence of space clams beyond the stars.

Professor Dawkins has stated no such claim. You have been informed of this previously; as such, your claim constitutes a lie. This is expected, however, as you are a serial liar.; November 8, 2009 5:50 PM
Airaien said...: oh my, this is one funny cartoon.

Even funnier is that people actually think that way.

Thanks for the laugh

Debunkey Monkey said...

Interestingly enough, whales actually evolved from four-legged mammals.

see....It's funny and sad at the same time.; November 8, 2009 6:34 PM
Buckyball said...: Alphgeek wrote:

"Despite the apologetic he provided it is clear - now, thanks to science - that bats are not birds.

The Bible was erroneous on this point."

Was it though? Or was it actually a sufficient classification at the time for the intended audience?

Alphgeek wrote:

"If God wished the Bible to be accurate and infallible, would He not inform the authors that bats and birds were dissimilar?"

And doing that would prove...what, exactly? Was the point to give a lengthy diatribe about the differences between species or to illustrate something entirely different and far more important?

"But surely God's word should be accurate?"

Is Hebrews 4:13 or Jeremiah 17:10 inaccurate? How would you prove otherwise?; November 8, 2009 7:00 PM
Steven J. said...: Verandoug said:

This may not demonstrate perfectly what you believe as evolutionists, but even if that whale produced offspring that were trying to come out of the water, it would be detrimental to the infant. Infants struggle right from the start of life. To add an additional struggle of a new means of respirating is nonsense.

Whales respire through their noses, the same way other mammals do; it's just that their noses are perched at the top of their heads. Again, during embryonic development, the nostrils first form at the front of the skull, and migrate back behind and above the eyes as the skull grows and matures. This process stopped at earlier and earlier stages in the whale's ancestors, as can be seen in fossils showing the nostrils/blowhole further forward on the skull.

Of course, other than that, you have a point: whales as they currently are are, unlike walking catfish, mudskippers, penguins and seals, poorly suited to an amphibious or sporadically terrestrial existence. Given that many land mammals can venture into water and swim, even find food in the water in some cases, it would have been much easier for a terrestrial hoofed predator to become partially or intermittently aquatic than for a modern whale to become partially or intermittently terrestrial.

Evolutionary theory does not imply that whales are on the verge of evolving back into land animals anymore than it implies that bears on on the verge of evolving into bats. Some species have features, evolved for one purpose, that can be easily if perhaps not efficiently employed for some other purpose (so-called "pre-adaption" or "exaption"). Whales are highly specialized for a purely aquatic existence and lack traits that are obviously exaptable for a life on land.

The infant would die or be picked off by predators very easily. Not to mention the number of mutational attempts that the whales would have to make before producing an offspring prepared to come out of the water. Most mutations 1:10,000 are deleterious.

Most mutations are neutral; a large minority, but still a distinct minority, are harmful. It is likely that fewer than one in ten thousand mutations is beneficial, but that is not at all equivalent to 9,999 mutations out of 10,000 being harmful; the average individual mammal carries dozens of mutations and suffers no particular harm from them.

Not to mention that the fossil record shows animals being produced at the just right timing for the conditions of the earth and then being taken out and replaced when those conditions change again. It shows a sort of logic.

Well, yes: the cold material unthinking logic of natural selection. A species can't survive if it isn't suited for the conditions that exist around it, and will perish or change if the conditions change drastically (though actually, it's not at all clear to me why pterosaurs were "just right" for the Jurassic and birds are "just right" for the Neogene).; November 8, 2009 7:30 PM
Steven J. said...: Buckyball replied to me:

Your analytical skills are unique indeed.

While we're on the subject of birds, I heard once that pi is misrepresented in the Bible. I think someone said it had something to do with birdbaths. What do you think?

I think you're trying to be sarcastic, but you're only managing to be obnoxious. You should seek out a different personal ministry; that one is already being abundantly handled by other Christians on this blog.

You are, of course, referring to the description of the building of the "bronze sea," the immense laver in Solomon's temple, which is described as being ten cubits in diameter and thirty cubits in circumference. From this, it is inferred that the Hebrews knew pi to only one significant figure, whereas most of the cultures around them knew it to two or three significant figures. It has even been suggested that the author didn't realize that if you give the diameter of a circle, you automatically give its circumference (i.e. that the ancient Hebrews didn't even know that pi -- a constant ration of a circle's circumference to its diameter -- even existed).

I don't see that the latter follows; the author probably knew there was such a ratio but assumed that his readers (or hearers: most of his original audience would have been illiterate, and needed to have the account read to them) did not. As for the former, "three" as a value for pi is imprecise, not inaccurate.; November 8, 2009 7:31 PM
Steven J. said...: Alphgeek replied to Buckyball:

Why not include bats in the list of unclean animals with pigs? While still incorrect, this would be closer to reality.

Of course the bible uses arbitrary similarities such as cloven hooves and chewing of the cud to determine which animals the Jews could and could not consume so perhaps I expect too much of it. But surely God's word should be accurate?

Actually, the cloven-hoofed cud-chewers are the ruminant artiodactyls, or pecorans, which constitute a clade. This does give the somewhat surprising result that giraffes are clean animals, suitable for kosher dining or sacrifice, but it's perfectly consistent with modern taxonomy.

The various clean birds don't seem to represent any sort of natural group within the larger class of birds, quite apart from including bats (which may actually be nested within the ferungulata, which includes pigs; the exact relationship of bats to other mammals seems somewhat unsettled).

Happy Humanist said:

Let me just ask you non-evolutionists this.....if God created whales to live in the ocean, then why would he make it neccessary for them to come to the surface to breathe----just like humans?

It's been pointed out that lungs are more efficient than gills: fish expend a significant fraction of their total energy budget (maybe a fifth of it) just moving water past their gills so they can extract oxygen. And that's for cold-blooded animals with very small brains (brains use a disproportionate amount of the body's oxygen for their size). Gills would not be very efficient for a marine mammal; air's a lot easier to move around than water is. The risk of drowning when the whale can't get to the surface is a trade-off for being able to get enough oxygen, fast enough, for a huge, high-metabolism, big-brained animal.; November 8, 2009 7:50 PM
Ethan said...: Alphgeek said...
Buckyball said:

"Where in the Bible does it talk about bats?"

Steven J kindly pointed out the relevant verse. That's what I had in mind.

Despite the apologetic he provided it is clear - now, thanks to science - that bats are not birds.

The Bible was erroneous on this point.

If God wished the Bible to be accurate and infallible, would He not inform the authors that bats and birds were dissimilar?

Do you also believe that everyone who ever said that Pluto was a planet was wrong and therefore idiots who should not be taken seriously, because “scientists” have decided to tweak their definition?

And do you still use the word "atom" which means uncuttable, or indivisible, something that cannot be divided further?

Yeah for scientist and all their worldly wisdom (…at least when they do get it right… once in a while).

But if they don't like the Bible it's always easy to change the definition of a word and say, "Look, God was wrong, ha ha." Or blame God for not speaking in same meticulous detail about every single solitary thing as they would. Only if God wrote exactly to the standard of Alphgeek would he then listen to the message about the truth of his sin and reality of Hell. Sorry Alphgeek, God doesn’t revolve around you.

And Alphgeek, I really can’t trust anything you say anyways because you believe that a book can have a physical brain and that’s just not true.

Alphgeek: “Of course the Bible knows nothing of this. It thinks whales are fish and bats are birds.” November 6, 2009 4:30 PM

Really? The Bible, a book with paper and ink “knows” and “thinks.” How? Since words matter so much to you I’m amazed that you beleive that a book has a brain in it? Weird.; November 8, 2009 8:58 PM
Raoul Rheits said...: Alphgeek:

"You apparently accept Ray Comfort's position regarding theology and the sciences. Does that make you a Comfortist?"

Raytheist.; November 8, 2009 10:27 PM
Me said...: So how's the evidence for Hell coming along Mr. Comfort?

I can only assume by how long it's taking that there is an awful lot that you are compiling to show me and the others who are waiting with baited breath for you to produce it.

Still, we will probably be waiting even longer if such evidence doesn't actually exist... Just saying...

Or because this thread is about evolution, how about that other thing I asked someone, anyone, to talk me through, why it's so hard to accept the fact that we're in some way related to bananas and turnips.; November 8, 2009 11:52 PM
CharlieDarwin said...: """Alphgeek: .......
Any more than my acceptance of the theory of universal gravitation makes me a Newtonist, or my acceptance of special relativity makes me an Einsteinist.

You apparently accept Ray Comfort's position regarding theology and the sciences. Does that make you a Comfortist?""""

Actually I have never commented on Mr. Comforts beliefs, nor my own.

I would call you a Newtonist or an Einsteinist if you treated them as a 'faith', and not science.; November 9, 2009 2:53 AM
Bob said...: Steven J said...
Anyway, with regard to Gunther's cartoon, it doesn't matter whether we're talking about some primitive, wolflike dog giving rise to St. Bernards and chihuahuas, or to some primitive hoofed mammal giving rise to both cows and whales: either process happens to populations (breeding groups of animals), not to individuals. No ancestral wolf gave birth to a litter of cubs containing both a chihuahua and a St. Bernard, nor did some individual wolf change into an individual of a modern dog breed. By the same token, a whale species isn't going to evolve by some individual whale "trying" to change into something else.
------------------------------
Steven, Please explain the process of evolution, let's say with a modern day human, but reversing the process and tracing it back to the point of origin, providing specifics and scientific proof.
I would assume you can do this logically if evolution were true, with every living thing.; November 9, 2009 5:58 AM
MVP said...: Bob sat on his backside and lazily said:

"Steven, Please explain the process of evolution, let's say with a modern day human, but reversing the process and tracing it back to the point of origin, providing specifics and scientific proof.
I would assume you can do this logically if evolution were true, with every living thing"

No Bob, why dont you make an effort for once in your life and read books on the subject. That is possibly the most lazy request I have ever seen. And practically impossible on a blog anyway.

LAZY.; November 9, 2009 8:34 AM
Dimensio said...: Even funnier is that people actually think that way.

I do not understand. Why do you believe that Mr. Comfort's and Mr. Gunther's demonstrably incorrect understanding of the subject of evolution in spite of clear and detailed explanations of the errors that they have demonstrated in their understanding to be humourous?; November 9, 2009 8:48 AM
Steven J. said...: Bob "replied" to me:

Steven, Please explain the process of evolution, let's say with a modern day human, but reversing the process and tracing it back to the point of origin, providing specifics and scientific proof.
I would assume you can do this logically if evolution were true, with every living thing.

I do not think you are in fact so stupid as to really assume that, but perhaps you are.

It does not follow that because we can tell that an event has happened, we can reconstruct every detail of the event. People are still arguing over the causes of the Great Depression, which is not much of a reason for supposing that it never happened. People are still arguing over why and how the Nazis ended up killing six million Jews (though I know of no credible historian who thinks they did it because "Darwinism" implied it would be a good idea), but this is not a reason to suppose that the Holocaust did not happen.

Evolution -- common descent with modification is a separate question from the exact causes of evolutionary events (e.g. what selection pressures favored which mutations leading to bipedalism, larger brains, a more carnivorous diet, etc. in our ancestors). And of course when neither of us can name our own ancestors of a mere thousand years ago, you must expect that many details will have been lost along the way. This does not mean that the basic fact of common ancestry cannot be recovered.

Common descent is abundantly evidenced in the nested hierarchy of life (a consistent tree-like pattern of relationships that we see in cases of branching descent with modification -- e.g. language families or sets of copies of a single original manuscript -- but not in cases of separate design and creation), in shared genetic and anatomical quirks (from shared GULO pseudogenes in humans and other primates to the shared anteorbital fenestrum and gizzard of birds and crocodilians), to fossils that straddle any dividing line you might wish to draw between humans and nonhuman primates (creationists of course insist that all fossil hominids are either "fully-formed humans" or "fully-formed apes," but they cannot agree on which class, e.g. the "Java man" skullcap or skull ER1470 fit into).; November 9, 2009 8:58 AM
Bob said...: MVP said...
Bob sat on his backside and lazily said:

"Steven, Please explain the process of evolution, let's say with a modern day human, but reversing the process and tracing it back to the point of origin, providing specifics and scientific proof.
I would assume you can do this logically if evolution were true, with every living thing"

No Bob, why dont you make an effort for once in your life and read books on the subject. That is possibly the most lazy request I have ever seen. And practically impossible on a blog anyway.

LAZY.
----------------------------------
MVP, I would think that if you believe something to be true you should at least be able to explain why you believe it, therefore let me pose the same question to you; MVP, Please explain the process of evolution, let's say with a modern day human, but reversing the process and tracing it back to the point of origin, providing specifics and scientific proof.
I would assume you can do this logically if evolution were true, with every living thing.; November 9, 2009 9:21 AM
Secret Stash said...: Even Richard Dawkins believes we were seeded by a higher intelligence of space clams beyond the stars.

No matter how many times this is refuted Creationists still insist on making this claim. Heck they'll start uploading videos en masse to YouTube every 3-4 months.

If you point out exact quotes from their Intelligent Design buddies talking about aliens they fall silent. Heck, William Dembski at the Discovery Institute is on record stating that the "designer" could have been space aliens! Heck, it's right there in "The Design Inference". Behe repeats this in "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis".; November 9, 2009 9:59 AM
James B. said...: A question for Steven J.

In one post you stated that
"Evolution is not about individuals changing, but about populations changing: some traits becoming more common and others less common among a breeding group of organisms over time."

Could you provide more detail of your meaning of populations in respect to breeding groups?

For example, I am trying to understand are you referring to those that share only a common trait within a breeding group and call that group a population? Or if it is something different?

Can a population consist of many breeding groups?

This may be a poor example, but would you be saying that population group A, give birth to those that had multiple traits (lets call them breeding group AA and breeding group AB for example). Those with trait AB tended to breed with more with other trait AB's, so that over generations those in AA and AB showed phsyical changes, so now we population AA and population AB?

I do have a follow-up question but first want to understand your meaning of 'breeding group' and 'population' in respect the the content of your statement.

Thank you,
James B.; November 9, 2009 10:07 AM
B. Pierce said...: Steven J. said:
I don't see that the latter follows; the author probably knew there was such a ratio but assumed that his readers (or hearers: most of his original audience would have been illiterate, and needed to have the account read to them) did not. As for the former, "three" as a value for pi is imprecise, not inaccurate.

1 Kings 7:23 simply says 10 cubits from rim to rim, and 30 for the circumference.

It is possible the author meant 10 cubits for the diameter measured on the outer rim (since its thickness is not zero) and 30 cubits for the inner circumference. This would make the inner diameter 9.55 cubits.

9.55 x 3.14 = 29.99 cubits.; November 9, 2009 10:27 AM
MarkP said...: Bob said-"Please explain the process of evolution, let's say with a modern day human, but reversing the process and tracing it back to the point of origin, providing specifics and scientific proof."

Did you miss the comment where I laid out the evolutionary path from early fish to early mammals? Or are you just moving the goal posts for fun?

Wikipedia has a great entry on the evolution of modern man (in google search "human evolution wikipedia" it should be the first link). It gives you the information you asked for and citations for the evidence. Enjoy.; November 9, 2009 10:32 AM
MarkP said...: Also Bob, the link at the top of that wikipedia entry for the "timeline of human evolution" contains good information going all the way back to before the Eukaryota/Prokaryota split. This is a much more complete explanation than my earlier one.; November 9, 2009 10:43 AM
Bob said...: I will try to simplify the question a little.
Steven,MVP,anyone, Please explain the process of evolution, let's say with a modern day human, but reversing the process and tracing it back to the point of origin.

BTW, Often in the history of evolutionary theory, early preliminary reports of new fossil finds are over-optimistic. Until recently, the pongid (ape-like) characters of the renowned fossil find, Skull KNM–ER 1470 from East Rudolph, Africa, have been ignored and the supposed human features have been emphasized. The early enthusiasm generated by this find of an apparently human-like creature has now been somewhat dissipated by the use of bone-scanning techniques not available to the original researchers in 1972. Skull 1470 now appears to be that of an australopithecine with a larger brain size.(AIG); November 9, 2009 11:14 AM
MarkP said...: James B. asked "Could you provide more detail of your meaning of populations in respect to breeding groups?"

In biology, a population is generally defined as a group of individuals which interbreed. This definition gets a little messy when you start adding things like immigration/emigration, but it comes down to genetic isolation. A group is its own population if the influx of genes from another group are so minimal that they are negligible.

A population is not (in principal) defined by any sort of phenotypic character, though that can be used as a marker to identify whether genes are flowing (if one group has a blue dot for example, and you never see that type of dot in any other group, it is reasonable to assume that they are isolated pending further tests).

I don't know how this definition is fundamentally different from the term "breeding group" as you use it in your comment. It could be a matter of the degree of isolation required to call something a "population" as opposed to a "breeding group."; November 9, 2009 11:16 AM
Bob said...: MarkP said...
Also Bob, the link at the top of that wikipedia entry for the "timeline of human evolution" contains good information going all the way back to before the Eukaryota/Prokaryota split. This is a much more complete explanation than my earlier one.
------------------------------
Thanks Mark, I will check it out.; November 9, 2009 11:18 AM
Steven J. said...: James B. replied to me:

"Evolution is not about individuals changing, but about populations changing: some traits becoming more common and others less common among a breeding group of organisms over time."

Could you provide more detail of your meaning of populations in respect to breeding groups?

I meant to use the terms as more or less synonymous. A "population" is a group of organisms of the same species who share a particular environment and have a good chance of running across and interacting with one another. A single species might be divided into many local populations, separated by barriers that individuals can cross only with great difficulty, so that interbreeding between different populations, while possible in principle, is practically impossible.

By "breeding group" I simply mean a population of sexually-reproducing organisms. There are species that are asexual or parthenogenetic: a local population of aphids, for example, are all female and don't mate with one another or exchange genes. The whole concept of "species" with asexual or parthenogenetic organisms can get a bit tricky, but still, since individuals will differ (due to mutations) and since some individuals will have more offspring than others, the mix of traits in the population will change over time.

This may be a poor example, but would you be saying that population group A, give birth to those that had multiple traits (lets call them breeding group AA and breeding group AB for example). Those with trait AB tended to breed with more with other trait AB's, so that over generations those in AA and AB showed phsyical changes, so now we population AA and population AB?

You may be describing a process (more theorized than observed) known as sympatric speciation, where what looks like one local population where everyone has the chance to interbreed nonetheless splits into two distinct subspecies and then two distinct species. Normally, speciation is "allopatric;" two populations of the same species, isolated (or nearly so) from each other evolve in different directions and eventually become disinclined to interbreed or outright unable to do so.; November 9, 2009 11:54 AM
Chris B said...: Bob: "MVP, Please explain the process of evolution, let's say with a modern day human, but reversing the process and tracing it back to the point of origin, providing specifics and scientific proof."

That seems an awful lot of work, considering you know as well as we do that you will neither understand nor accept whatever explanation and evidence is presented to you.

If you seriously want to learn about evolution, why not go read a textbook rather than demand someone else take the time and effort to try to explain it to you.; November 9, 2009 1:14 PM
CharlieDarwin said...: ""Me said: So how's the evidence for Hell coming along Mr. Comfort?""

Me, Hell is where the Darwinist Atheists keep all their transitional fossils and vestigial organs, and their DNA factory. Ohh, and their current day transitional forms they are obviously raising in secret.; November 9, 2009 1:14 PM
Alphgeek said...: Buckyball said:

"Was it though? Or was it actually a sufficient classification at the time for the intended audience?"

Surely the Bible is intended to be God's word for all time? Why then make what would come to be seen as an error?

Simplification is one thing, error is an entirely different thing.

"And doing that would prove...what, exactly? Was the point to give a lengthy diatribe about the differences between species or to illustrate something entirely different and far more important?"

It would prove that God was privy to knowledge beyond that of man. Which might add some credibility to the Bible which is apparently lacking due to the error.

Come on now, it would have been trivially simple for God to separate bats out from bird. Bats are not birds!; November 9, 2009 1:47 PM
CharlieDarwin said...: Ray, you should have understood whales scare Darwinists.

Since we found that Whales have spindle neurons, like humans and higher primates, but unlike chimps, those poor Darwinist have been scratching their heads trying to figure out how they screwed up so bad to claim that spindle neurons only existed in higher intelligence, more highly evolved forms.; November 9, 2009 1:53 PM
Alphgeek said...: Ethan said:

"Do you also believe that everyone who ever said that Pluto was a planet was wrong and therefore idiots who should not be taken seriously, because “scientists” have decided to tweak their definition?

And do you still use the word "atom" which means uncuttable, or indivisible, something that cannot be divided further?

Yeah for scientist and all their worldly wisdom (…at least when they do get it right… once in a while)."

The difference is that science makes no claim to infallibility. Some here say that the Bible is the literal and infallible record of creation, etc.

The test for accuracy must necessarily be applied more stringently to a book that is claimed to be infallible.

"But if they don't like the Bible it's always easy to change the definition of a word and say, "Look, God was wrong, ha ha." Or blame God for not speaking in same meticulous detail about every single solitary thing as they would. Only if God wrote exactly to the standard of Alphgeek would he then listen to the message about the truth of his sin and reality of Hell. Sorry Alphgeek, God doesn’t revolve around you."

I've changed no word in the Bible. The authors conflated bats with birds, not me. Or do you dispute this interpretation of the Bible?

In which case, who is it who is imposing their own definitions on the Bible?

"And Alphgeek, I really can’t trust anything you say anyways because you believe that a book can have a physical brain and that’s just not true.

Alphgeek: “Of course the Bible knows nothing of this. It thinks whales are fish and bats are birds.” November 6, 2009 4:30 PM

Really? The Bible, a book with paper and ink “knows” and “thinks.” How? Since words matter so much to you I’m amazed that you beleive that a book has a brain in it? Weird."

It was a figure of speech. I could have said "the Bible says nothing about this". Would you then accuse me of believing that the Bible has a mouth?

But I make no claim to infallibility either. The Bible does so it must be held to a higher standard of accuracy.

Bats are not birds.; November 9, 2009 1:58 PM
Alphgeek said...: CharlieDarwin said:

"Actually I have never commented on Mr. Comforts beliefs, nor my own."

True. But I assume that since you post in support of Ray's position on these issues that you at least tacitly accept his contentions.

If this is not the case I'd be interested in hearing what you do believe.

"I would call you a Newtonist or an Einsteinist if you treated them as a 'faith', and not science."

As I said, I accept the theories based on the evidence. If evidence is found that contradicts the theories, I will no longer accept them.

This is the opposite of religious faith - belief not resting on logical proof or material evidence.

Given your position, I'll assume that when you subsequently refer to Darwinists that you are not including me in that classification.; November 9, 2009 2:04 PM
John Doyle said...: Bob: "MVP, Please explain the process of evolution, let's say with a modern day human, but reversing the process and tracing it back to the point of origin, providing specifics and scientific proof."

Richard Dawkins wrote this book already. It is called "The Ancestor's Tale" and is available from all good book stores.; November 9, 2009 2:28 PM
MarkP said...: Bob said-" Please explain the process of evolution..."

The process of evolution is simple, I think a bit of the backlash to your question was your request to use modern humans as an example. It seemed to many that you were looking for much more depth than a blog comment is good for (hence why I pointed you to wikipedia instead).

Evolution requires three things to work-
1- Variation in a trait
2- That the trait be heritable
3- Differential reproductive success

For example- imagine a species of bugs which live on a solid colored background. The bugs are many different colors (variation), some more or less similar to the background. This color is determined by a single gene (it is heritable). Mutations in this gene give rise to different colors.

Now, imagine that you introduce a predator- something that eats these bugs. Which of the bugs do you think will be most difficult to find/catch? It is reasonable to imagine that the bugs that look the most like the background will survive, and thus have the most offspring (differential reproductive success). From this, you would expect the next generation to have more bugs similar to the background than the previous generation. This change in frequency is evolution.

Over many generations you would expect to see the bugs that look very little like the background to be eliminated from the population.

Now, as to speciation- what do you expect would happen if you had two separate populations on different backgrounds? You would expect each population to move closer (on average) to its background color. They could now be identified as separate subspecies. Given enough time, reproductive barriers would arise (from different accumulation of mutation) and the groups could be called species.

Now, in nature, selection pressures are likely to be more dynamic than a single color, and you would expect the populations to diverge on a number of characters. This has been observed in bird beak size/shape and food preferences of bugs (look up the Apple Worm Maggot).

Is that the explanation you were looking for?; November 9, 2009 2:51 PM
photosynthesis said...: Charliedarwin,

I would call you a Newtonist or an Einsteinist if you treated them as a 'faith', and not science.

Then you are an idiot.

G.E.; November 9, 2009 5:05 PM
Me said...: CharlieDarwin said:

"Hell is where the Darwinist Atheists keep all their transitional fossils and vestigial organs, and their DNA factory. Ohh, and their current day transitional forms they are obviously raising in secret."

Okay, and where is that? Give me something objective and observable by which I can perceive Hell to be a real place.

By the way, I was asking Mr. Comfort. Not you.; November 9, 2009 5:36 PM
OutlawGirl said...: CharlieDarwin wrote: Since we found that Whales have spindle neurons, like humans and higher primates, but unlike chimps, those poor Darwinist have been scratching their heads trying to figure out how they screwed up so bad to claim that spindle neurons only existed in higher intelligence, more highly evolved forms.

1. Chimps do have spindle neurons. A quick Google search confirms this.

2. Humans did not evolve from chimps, we share a common ancestor. Even if scientists supposed we did evolve from chimps - as you seem to assume - the absense of spindle neurons would not disqualify them from being our direct ancestor since they could have arisen in an intermediate form between chimps and humans.

3. Cetaceans, particularly dolphins, are considered intelligent. Some dolphins have even been observed using tools.; November 9, 2009 6:51 PM
Ethan said...: Alphgeek said...
Bats are not birds.

Of course they aren’t. Everyone knows that bats are wooden sticks used in baseball. That Bible is just so wrong! It even says that murder is a sin. What’s up with that?; November 9, 2009 6:57 PM
Steven J. said...: Charlie Darwin lied to Ray:

Ray, you should have understood whales scare Darwinists.

Since we found that Whales have spindle neurons, like humans and higher primates, but unlike chimps, those poor Darwinist have been scratching their heads trying to figure out how they screwed up so bad to claim that spindle neurons only existed in higher intelligence, more highly evolved forms.

First, Chimpanzees have spindle neurons, as do other great apes. It is not known why spindle neurons exist; they are thought to be associated with higher intelligence but the nature of the association is not known. One idea is simply that spindle neurons help make large brains work better. Whales have large brains, of course.

Second, whales are generally considered to be the most highly evolved mammals that have ever lived. Of course, "highly evolved" doesn't mean "smartest," or "best," or "most universally fit" (there is no such thing as universal fitness). It means "most changed from the last common ancestor of the groups being compared. In the case of whales, these changes include a large brain, but also include loss of hind limbs, modification of forelimbs into flippers, streamlining and several other modifications fitting whales to aquatic life, etc.

There is an "evolutionary tree," not an "evolutionary ladder," and there is no single direction towards which all lineages trend.; November 9, 2009 7:19 PM
Airaien said...: Some guy named "Me" said....

Okay, and where is that? Give me something objective and observable by which I can perceive Hell to be a real place.

Hey Me, lol

So if you could observe it you would believe it....right?

So have you seen the x-ray of your brain?

Have you handled a trillion dollars?

Have you....

I could go on for days. Evidence isn't what keeps you from believing. Your will is your obstacle. Work on it.; November 9, 2009 7:41 PM
OutlawGirl said...: PART ONE
Bob wrote: Please explain the process of evolution, let's say with a modern day human, but reversing the process and tracing it back to the point of origin.

Explaining evolution in reverse is difficult because evolution cannot work in reverse. Even though dolphins have returned to the sea they have not "devolved" into fish. They remain mammals, modified land mammals.

I'm going to use an example from Richard Dawkins' new book. I do this not because I idolize Dawkins, or something silly like that, but because I think he put it well. Dawkins used female rabbits in his example. Per your request, I’ll pick a modern human as my starting point and (for simplicity’s sake) will go back in time through his patriarchal bloodline, from son to father.

This modern human’s name is Charles Darwin. He is standing in a long line with many other modern humans that stretches back farther than you can see. Standing behind him is his father, Robert Darwin, and standing in front of him is his son, George Howard Darwin. You notice that Charles looks very similar to Robert but the two are not exactly alike. The same is true for Charles and George. Similar, but not exactly alike.

Now we begin to walk down the line, past Charles in the direction of Robert. Standing behind Robert is Charles’ grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. Erasmus is similar to Robert but less similar to Charles. Standing behind Erasmus is Robert Darwin of Elston. Robert of Elston is similar to Erasmus but less similar to Robert and even less similar to Charles and far less similar to George. A subtle pattern of similarities is beginning to emerge. As well walk further back in time we eventually come to William Darwin, the earliest known ancestor of Charles Darwin, born during the 13th century. William Darwin looks nothing like his famous descendent Charles. William’s son also looks nothing like Charles but looks very similar William.

At what point did Charles Darwin’s ancestors cease to resemble him at all? It’s very difficult to pin-point the exact moment this occurred.

Let’s not waste time. We walk past William, traveling further back in time. From here on out the men have faces but no names. Eventually we come to an ancestor who looks nothing like William. We’re not sure who he is or where he lived but judging from his clothing it must have been a long, long time ago.

We continue past this ancestor, moving deeper and deeper into time. The men’s clothes gradually become more primitive, their beards become greasy and tangled, their skin shows greater damage from the sun and their hands become like giant calluses. We’re now passing through the Stone Age.

[Continued…]; November 9, 2009 7:56 PM
OutlawGirl said...: PART TWO
Suddenly something strange begins to happen. You don’t notice it at first. A slight protrusion of the brow. A curiously shaped nose. They still look human. Further and further back in time we go, walking through hundreds of thousands of years, yet nothing seems to be changing. Suddenly you realize something is wrong. The faces you’re passing don’t look quite human anymore. You almost didn’t notice it because each man looks very similar to the man in front of and behind him. The differences just accumulated slowly and snuck up on you.

The men you’re passing gradually grow shorter, hairier, their noses flatten and their brows protrude. In your mind you try to pin point the exact moment humans became unspeakably ugly but no matter how hard you try you can’t seem to find it because every face you’ve passed is like one pixel in a gradient of colors.

Finally you find yourself at the end of the line. Another branch has slowly been creeping over the horizon toward you and now, finally, you meet it. You are standing at an evolutionary fork in the road.

Standing in the center of the fork is a creature that looks something like Ardipithecus. Behind it is another, very similar creature. In front of it, where the branch splits, are two creatures that also look very much like Ardipithecus but with a few key differences, though they may be very difficult to spot. You notice that Ardipithecus looks nothing like the last true human you saw (though you’re not quite sure when you saw him) and nothing like Charles Darwin. A cold chill runs down your spine.

A final note: You also mentioned how scientists tend to be over-optimistic about new discoveries. I’ve noticed this too and it’s one of the reasons I’m always cautious about new discoveries, because sometimes human enthusiasm can turn into human error, as was the case with Ida. I won’t try to cover up these mistakes. They happen. The point is, they’re always corrected in time.; November 9, 2009 7:57 PM
Anna Sethe said...: CharlieDarwin said...

Ray, you should have understood whales scare Darwinists.

Since we found that Whales have spindle neurons, like humans and higher primates, but unlike chimps, those poor Darwinist have been scratching their heads trying to figure out how they screwed up so bad to claim that spindle neurons only existed in higher intelligence, more highly evolved forms.

You should consider using different sources, Charlieboy. Chimps have spindle neurons.

The spindle neurons are present in the cingulate cortex of chimpanzee fetus.

Hayashi M, Ito M, Shimizu K.

We report the existence of the spindle neurons in layer Vb of the anterior cingulate cortex (Brodman's area 24b) in a chimpanzee fetus (embryonic day 224), which was stillborn. About 5.3% of neuronal cells in layer Vb were the spindle neurons at this stage. The width of the spindle neurons was 10-15 microm. In layer V of the prefrontal cortex (Brodman's area 46) in the chimpanzee fetus, and in layer Vb of the cingulate cortex in adult macaque monkeys, no spindle neurons were observed. The immunoreactivity against brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) was detected only in the pyramidal neurons at this stage. These findings suggest that the existence of the spindle neurons in layer Vb of the anterior cingulate cortex and the presence of BDNF in the pyramidal neurons are intrinsically characterized during the embryonic stage of the chimpanzee.

Do you actually know what spindle neurons are?; November 10, 2009 12:28 AM
Steven J. said...: OutlawGirl replied to CharlieDarwin:

Since we found that Whales have spindle neurons, like humans and higher primates, but unlike chimps, those poor Darwinist have been scratching their heads trying to figure out how they screwed up so bad to claim that spindle neurons only existed in higher intelligence, more highly evolved forms.

1. Chimps do have spindle neurons. A quick Google search confirms this.

2. Humans did not evolve from chimps, we share a common ancestor. Even if scientists supposed we did evolve from chimps - as you seem to assume - the absense of spindle neurons would not disqualify them from being our direct ancestor since they could have arisen in an intermediate form between chimps and humans.

This is true, although -- given that as Charlie more or less notes, other great apes less closely related to us than chimps have them -- it would be more parsimonious to conclude, if chimps really did lack spindle neurons, that for some reason they lost a feature of the brain the Pan/Homo last common ancestor had (which, oddly, would make them, in that respect, more evolved than we are).; November 10, 2009 2:42 AM
Me said...: @ 'some guy called' Airaien:

I'm pretty sure you don't get to tell me what my 'obstacle' is. I'm pretty sure that the reason I don't believe Hell exists is because I have no reason to believe Hell exists. If evidence were to come along that confirmed the existence of Hell, that would constitute a reason to believe Hell exists.

Incidently, I've seen an image of my brain, yes. Quite a few times, in fact.

I'm not quite sure what your point about holding a trillion dollars is, but I suspect it wasn't a very good one. I have evidence that at least the concept of a trillion dollars exists, without having to hold the money in my hands. A trillion dollars in cash money would be a sight to behold, though.; November 10, 2009 4:03 AM
Chris B said...: Ethan: "Of course they aren’t. Everyone knows that bats are wooden sticks used in baseball. That Bible is just so wrong! It even says that murder is a sin. What’s up with that?"

I think you and Starbuck should hang out sometime.; November 10, 2009 5:10 AM
Bob said...: OutlawGirl, Thank you for sharing that little piece of fiction, someone has quite the imagination.

You also said...
A final note: You also mentioned how scientists tend to be over-optimistic about new discoveries. I’ve noticed this too and it’s one of the reasons I’m always cautious about new discoveries, because sometimes human enthusiasm can turn into human error, as was the case with Ida. I won’t try to cover up these mistakes. They happen. The point is, they’re always corrected in time.
----------------------------
That is a good example of a presupposition. When the discovery is made they want it to support their presupposed idea that evolution is true and therefore force their evolutionary interpretation of the discovery and state that it is fact.

You stated that mistakes happen and that in time they are corrected, the problem is is that when they are discovered to be hoaxes they just keep repeating the same process; discovery-hoax, discovery-hoax... does that not tell you something.

You can run but you cannot hide from the inevitable justice of God. Repentance and faith.; November 10, 2009 6:14 AM
fullcircle said...: @ RAY

PART 1

(As I can't post this on your 'Only for thinkers' page (error message for PART 2), I'm hoping it'll go through here...)

Well, to begin with, the quote is unattributed. Was that an oversight on your part? Reading between the lines, sounds to me like you're passing off your own words as someone else's. If that's so, then you're not 'being straight' which, as you know, is a euphemism for lying (not that I care one way or the other; there is lying & there is lying, from harmless to injurious. Lying, as with all 'wrongdoing', is a matter of personal conscience & morality, where legal remedies are brought to bear, only if societal norms've been infringed & if the culrpit's been 'found out'. God doesn't figure.)

The fact that your putative skeptic is asking for "insight" or help from you or "the other Christians on this blog", after having been repeatedly 'let down' by the very people he is seeking 'enlightenment' from, doesn't ring true (psychologically speaking)! If his words are to be believed, he's ignored the reams of 'evidence' supplied by atheists here that Hell isn't a real place.
Not quite sure what, if any point, he's making?

But what worries me more is your response to it. Could it be you feel under pressure to churn out posts 'to keep the ball rolling' & don't always have time to consider what you're saying? I mean, we're all human & fall short at times.
In your case, as blogger-in-chief, maybe you should consider posting less often & to more effect?

Where to begin? Your obsession with 'sin' has become a tiresome byword or 'catchall' for you & your Christian brethren, & has no traction or credibility with your opponents. I find it difficult to believe that the penny hasn't dropped yet, at least for you; as for the challenged, befuddled wannabes posting here in your wake, I have no such difficulty.

As for 'idolatry', your rather strained definition defines your belief to a T. Don't forget that, to the unapologetic atheist, your God is no more real than the dream he had last night. Offering Scriptural quotes or personal avowals of one's faith to the atheist, makes no impression at all; I'd have thought this was axiomatic by now. Instead of offering endless incantations, professions of belief & exhortations to him, maybe trying to tackle him by honestly engaging with him, rather than systematically avoiding issues that make you uncomfortable would, at least, make him (the atheist) feel you were serious about your beliefs. As it is, the earnestness & sincerity of your beliefs remains in doubt, even as your beliefs, in his mind, are patently absurd.

(Continued in PART 2); November 10, 2009 7:21 AM
dawkwin said...: >Funny/sad but all to true.

>Abortion
>Liberalism
>Homosexuality

>In there purest forms..end up the same way.; November 10, 2009 7:34 AM
MarkP said...: Bob said "That is a good example of a presupposition. When the discovery is made they want it to support their presupposed idea that evolution is true and therefore force their evolutionary interpretation of the discovery and state that it is fact."

That is equivalent to saying that a physicist presupposes that the theory of gravity is true and when a discovery is made they want it to support their presupposed idea that gravity is true and therefore force their gravity interpretation onto the discovery and state that it is fact.

Evolution has been confirmed by all evidence collected over the last 150 years. There has been nothing to suggest that it is not true; the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of it (search "evidence of common descent wikipedia"). Everything the Discovery Institute has suggested opposes evolutionary theory has been debunked (see, for example, every example of irreducible complexity ever put forth).

Evolution has been critically examined, and there are still discussion over the exact mechanisms and relationships. But, there is no serious scholarly objection to evolutionary theory. The list of individuals who oppose it is not evidence against evolution. If you believe there is actual evidence opposing common descent with modification or (even better) supporting creationism, please- describe it here and point us towards the full evidence.; November 10, 2009 8:05 AM
Secret Stash said...: @Bob
Your statement is a gross misrepresentation of what was stated.

It makes no difference if a scientist flies off the handle and "presupposes" anything. His/Her/Their finding are open to review from the scientific community.

You stated that mistakes happen and that in time they are corrected, the problem is is that when they are discovered to be hoaxes they just keep repeating the same process; discovery-hoax, discovery-hoax... does that not tell you something.

I'm asks you Creationists over a hundred times to provide actual examples of all these hoaxes. Allow me to disqualify a few so you don't waste my time.

Piltdown Man was the only true hoax and even though largely only fooled scientists in England and France (US museums would not display it as a complete fossil). It was proven to be a hoax using improved testing methods. You could say it was proven wrong by evolution.

Nebraska Man is a Creationist favorite. However, the drawing was commissioned by the magazine and was criticized by the Henry Fairfield Osborn the scientist who had misidentified the tooth.

Archeoraptor fooled no on except the small handful of people that paid for the "fossil" and a few in the popular press. All submissions to scientific journals were REJECTED.

Now please put up or shut up.; November 10, 2009 8:35 AM
Patrick said...: Steven J said... the Pan/Homo last common ancestor

Robin Williams in Hook?; November 10, 2009 9:54 AM
OutlawGirl said...: Bob wrote: That is a good example of a presupposition. When the discovery is made they want it to support their presupposed idea that evolution is true and therefore force their evolutionary interpretation of the discovery and state that it is fact.

Have not creationists done the same, yet in more overwhelming numbers?

You stated that mistakes happen and that in time they are corrected, the problem is is that when they are discovered to be hoaxes they just keep repeating the same process; discovery-hoax, discovery-hoax... does that not tell you something.

Here's the thing: hoaxes are becoming very, very difficult to create in the scientific world. Piltdown man had his reign but as more fossil hominids were discovered Piltdown man suddenly became the odd one out. He didn't fit in anywhere with the new discoveries. This led scientists to re-examine the skull and, wouldn't you know it, it was a fraud.

The reason why a forgery is unlikely to pass inspection today is that we have thousands and thousands of fossils to compare with, so a forgery would stand out plainly. Our dating methods have also improved.

Mistakes will always happen. That is a give-in and its something you must accept if you put "faith" in science. Imagine how many crashes it took before we achieved safe air travel, imagine how many prototypes exploded in flight before we designed the first space craft capable of traveling to the moon, yet only crazy people insist we never went there.

You're kind of like them, Bob. There's proof right in front of your fingertips yet you insist it all had to be manufactured in a studio somewhere in Hollywood.

I'm not asking you to give up your faith, Bob. There are lots of Christians out there that know evolution is true and don't have a problem with it at all. Golly, there's at least one YEC who says the evidence for evolution is very strong. The truth is I really don't understand why you think you can ONLY be an evolutionist and an atheist or a Christian and a creationist. Reality begs to differ.

So why not give science a chance, eh? Faith is all about believing something in the absense of evidence so what are you scared of?

OutlawGirl, Thank you for sharing that little piece of fiction, someone has quite the imagination.

I knew you would say that Bob but it was a pleasure to write anyway. I hope somebody gets something out of it.; November 10, 2009 10:00 AM
Bob said...: Steven J. said...
Bob "replied" to me:

Steven, Please explain the process of evolution, let's say with a modern day human, but reversing the process and tracing it back to the point of origin, providing specifics and scientific proof.
I would assume you can do this logically if evolution were true, with every living thing.

I do not think you are in fact so stupid as to really assume that, but perhaps you are.
--------------------------------
Steven, apparently someone was stupid enough to at least attempt to explain it.

John Doyle said...
Richard Dawkins wrote this book already. It is called "The Ancestor's Tale" and is available from all good book stores.
Repentance and Faith.; November 10, 2009 10:14 AM
Bob said...: Secret Stash said...
@Bob
Your statement is a gross misrepresentation of what was stated.

It makes no difference if a scientist flies off the handle and "presupposes" anything. His/Her/Their finding are open to review from the scientific community.

You stated that mistakes happen and that in time they are corrected, the problem is is that when they are discovered to be hoaxes they just keep repeating the same process; discovery-hoax, discovery-hoax... does that not tell you something.

I'm asks you Creationists over a hundred times to provide actual examples of all these hoaxes. Allow me to disqualify a few so you don't waste my time.

Piltdown Man was the only true hoax and even though largely only fooled scientists in England and France (US museums would not display it as a complete fossil). It was proven to be a hoax using improved testing methods. You could say it was proven wrong by evolution.

Nebraska Man is a Creationist favorite. However, the drawing was commissioned by the magazine and was criticized by the Henry Fairfield Osborn the scientist who had misidentified the tooth.

Archeoraptor fooled no on except the small handful of people that paid for the "fossil" and a few in the popular press. All submissions to scientific journals were REJECTED.

Now please put up or shut up.
--------------------------------
Sorry if the truth upsets you but the truth is what it is.
Repentance and faith.; November 10, 2009 10:26 AM
photosynthesis said...: Bob,

(Sorry to butt in OutLawGirl and Bob)

That is a good example of a presupposition. When the discovery is made they want it to support their presupposed idea that evolution is true and therefore force their evolutionary interpretation of the discovery and state that it is fact.

Wrong Bob. Evolution is a fact. When a new discovery is made, the most enthusiastic run all over the place proclaiming to have found the fossil that answers all those other pending questions, such as what exactly did the ancestors of humans and chimps look like. But nobody is trying to proclaim with every new fossil that evolution is a fact. We already know that.

That evolution is true is not an issue except for the creationists who do not want to look at the evidence. In scientific circles, it is very hard to publish evidence for evolution anymore. There is so much that reviewers and journals only want truly outstanding new information. Otherwise they just give us a shrug.

You stated that mistakes happen and that in time they are corrected, the problem is is that when they are discovered to be hoaxes they just keep repeating the same process; discovery-hoax, discovery-hoax... does that not tell you something.

Exaggerated claims are not the same as hoaxes. That some scientists exaggerate does not mean that every discovery has been an exaggeration either. That a few hoaxes have appeared is undeniable. That there are, in full contrast, many more fossils that do exemplify evolution in action is something that your charlatan preachers keep you away from. Mostly by talking about a few problems, some real, many fabricated by dishonest quote-mining and cherry-picking by those same charlatans.

You can run but you cannot hide from the inevitable justice of God. Repentance and faith.

Since there is no such God, there is nothing to run from. Since the dishonest tactics come from the creationist side, I think that talks more about the non-existence of their proclaimed God, than anything else. Otherwise they would have no need to quote-mine, and cherry-pick to make their claims about evolution being false, or a theory in crisis.

G.E.; November 10, 2009 10:29 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 212 Newer› Newest»

Atheist Central -- Ray Comfort’s Blog

Friday, November 6, 2009

212 comments:

The Origin of Species - Special Introduction

WHEN IS YOUR APPOINTMENT?

Previous Posts

Were you once a Christian? Listen to this to see your problem...

Recent Videos

Receive Ray's Blog by Email

Receive Ray's Blog by Reader

Add Ray's Blog to Your Website

Great Links

Put a Banner for Ray's "Comfort Food" Blog on Your Website