Atheist Central -- Ray Comfort's Blog

Saturday, November 14, 2009

"Can a truly saved Christian believe in evolution? If not then does that mean we need to believe in a literal flood, Young Earth Creation perspective etc?" Unregenerate

A Christian can believe in fairies, if he wishes. While I wouldn’t doubt the salvation of one who did, I may doubt his sanity. This is because Christianity doesn’t come from what you believe (although that is part of the equation), it comes from who you know.

Let me back up a little to explain what I mean. The Bible teaches the Jesus Christ was pre-existent before He was manifest in human form. He claimed to be the source of life, saying things like "I am the life" (see John 11:25, 14:6, John 1:4). When someone repents and believes the gospel (that Jesus Christ died for his sin and rose on the third day), he places his trust in the Savior and comes to "know" God. Then God "seals" the believer with the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ "who is our life" dwells within the believer (see John 14:16-18). The Scriptures say "Christ, who is in you" (see Colossians 1:27). Jesus said that he would come to and would actually dwell within the Christian through the Holy Spirit (see John 14:21).

Here now is the bottom line. If you have Jesus Christ, you have life, irrespective of your denomination. God knows those that love Him. If you don’t have Jesus Christ (through the new birth of John 3:3), you don’t have life. You are still dead in your sins and justly under the condemnation of God (see John 3:17-18). Here’s the pivotal verses:

"He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life..."(1 John 5:12-13).

That said, if you have the Son of God, then the Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth (see John 16:13). Your theology in time will become “sound,” and you will align your beliefs with those truths revealed in Holy Scripture, because it is God’s revelation to mankind. If the Old Testament says there was a literal flood (Jesus did also), the Christian cannot believe otherwise. If the Bible says that the earth freely floats in space when “science” of the time said that it didn’t (see Job 26:7), the Christian quickly sides with the Bible.

In the case of evolution, Scripture is very clear that God made man in His image (not as a primate). He made him and all the animal kingdom as male and female ("Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction."[1]), and He gave them (and every living animal) the ability to reproduce "after their own kind," and not to evolve in time into other "kinds" or species of animals. We see the truth of all of the above both in the fossil record and in the creation that surrounds us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

204 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 204 Newer› Newest»

Mintz said...: Wow

Ray is now putting citations. The guilt of plagiarism finally got to you?

Please note: quoting someone equally ill-informed as you does not help your case.

You quote ""Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction.""

This is false and it has been explained to you why this is false many many times. While asexual reproduction offers advantages in terms of rapid reproduction it does not produce as much variation as sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction therefore offers evolutionary advantages in a changing environment, or an environment where a species is under threat from parasites or predators which target that particular species. Please do yourself a favour and read at least one book on evolutionary biology (In this case I suggest "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley). I cannot understand why you don't educate yourself so you can try to argue your case more effectively. It simply makes no sense to argue against something when you do not understand what that something is. You only end up looking like an idiot, and you keep doing it. You should have learned this lesson many times, most significantly after your nonsense about the banana and more recently with your exchange with Eugenie Scott.

Regards

Mintz; November 14, 2009 11:32 AM
Michael Leal said...: Two things:

Firstly, could you please define what you mean by knowledge. Can someone "know" something and also be mistaken? More importantly, do you have a set of criteria for establishing knowledge as opposed to well justified belief that can be applied universally.

Secondly, do you really think that referencing another creationist site for your claim that evolution cannot explain the origin of sexual reproduction is going to hold any sway with anyone?; November 14, 2009 11:29 AM
Ryan Anderson said...: Ray said "it comes from who you know"

Thing is, no one knows Jesus. Just like no one knows Alexander the Great.

Maybe we'd know more about both of them if Christian and Muslim nutters hadn't been so enamored with burning libraries.; November 14, 2009 11:00 AM
Steven J. said...: Ray, if you'd lived four or five centuries ago, you'd have doubted the sanity of Copernicus and Galileo (certainly Martin Luther and John Calvin did). Actually, in your case, you'd probably have been doubting Newton's sanity a couple of centuries later. You tend to confuse your own prejudices and misunderstandings with logic and the laws of nature.

The Bible may or may not say that the Earth "hangs upon nothing" (I have come across one commentary on that verse in Job that holds that it refers to the sky, which the Bible repeatedly compares to a tent, having no central supporting pole as normal tents do). It also says that the sky has "windows" in it and is spread out over the disk-shaped Earth like a dome over a stadium. Do you feel some obligation to believe this? I suspect you do not; far more than you admit, or allow yourself to realize, you allow your interpretation of the Bible to be shaped and constrained by scientific fact. But you ought not doubt the sanity, or even the faith or maturity, of Christians who know more of science than you do and carry that process further.

Now, as for your scientific claims, if life on Earth is divided up into unambiguous, distinct "kinds," why do creationists disagree among themselves on whether, e.g. Homo erectus or H. rudolfensis was a human being or merely another sort of nonhuman ape? Why have fossils of Archaeopteryx, supposedly a "fully-formed bird," been mistaken for typical theropod fossils when the feather impressions go unnoticed for a while?

That humans are primates was recognized, as has been pointed out to you, by the creationist taxonomist Karl von Linne in the 18th century (indeed, the primate order -- the "first in rank" -- has that name because we belong to it, and we got to do the naming).

There are various explanations offered for the widespread replacement of asexual with sexual reproduction. For example, recombining parents' genes into new combinations makes it harder for parasites and pathogens to infect and weaken or kill offspring (so you produce fewer offspring but more survive), or that different combinations of genes makes it easier for offspring to survive rapidly changing and variable conditions.; November 14, 2009 10:34 AM
culberto said...: Call me a parrot if you will, but I just have to re-iterate- according to you, all Jews are going to hell. Jewish people do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. There is simply no way that you can avoid this truth.

Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to for a second there.; November 14, 2009 10:51 AM
Ryk said...: Ray blathered:
"He made him and all the animal kingdom as male and female ("Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction."

Uh, yeah it is, and it does. Are you sure you went to high school? This is really basic stuff. Try taking a class or two, SRSLY.; November 14, 2009 10:43 AM
Henkka said...: "Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction."

I thought this was to increase genetic variety that would in turn improve the species' responsiveness to environmental change and other factors. I might be wrong though.; November 14, 2009 10:19 AM
slydog said...: In the case of evolution, Scripture is very clear that God made man in His image (not as a primate). He made him and all the animal kingdom as male and female ("Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction."[1]), and He gave them (and every living animal) the ability to reproduce "after their own kind," and not to evolve in time into other "kinds" or species of animals.

Still displaying your scientific illiteracy...

You're a joke, Ray.
A sad, sad joke.; November 14, 2009 10:15 AM
OutlawGirl said...: So let me get this straight....

Jesus (alias Yahweh) created the heavens and the earth and all the living things, he caused the Biblical flood, confused mankind's language at the tower of Babel and killed all the first born sons of the Egyptions. Then he came down to earth, in the form of a man, then destroied this form in order to make a sacrifice to himself to forgive us for the sins he created but ONLY for people who believe he was the son of God - only he wasn't the son of God but God Himself. So when people believe in Jesus Jesus puts himself into the person and this protects them from Hell (but not from sin) and teaches you that evolution is a lie because there are no crocoducks.

Is that right?

wv: downsins; November 14, 2009 4:59 PM
Mikkala said...: @Ray Comfort

Ray Says-
"That said, if you have the Son of God, then the Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth (see John 16:13). Your theology in time will become “sound,” and you will align your beliefs with those truths revealed in Holy Scripture, because it is God’s revelation to mankind."

1. What makes any true statement something other than "The Word of God"?

2. Theology is not "sound" by definition, unless it's the incoherent sounds coming from the windpipes of folks like yourself.

Theology is indefinite by definition. Theologians depend on it. If they respected the words they chose, they would literally be able to see their work dissolve infront of them.

3.Truths revealed in holy scripture, and revelations from God, are only truths, revelations, and Gods in name, and in name alone. This isn't a statement that is describing facts of this world. This statement couldn't literally extend beyond it's content.

Ray c'mon man, I'm not even making sense of your english here pal. Say something Ray! I've been visiting your blog for about a week now and you've so far posted cartoons that say volumes about your ideas, ideals, and ethical values. Also blogs that say everything and absolutely nothing, all at once.

Not only are you being criticized by many here of being scientifically ill informed, I sincerely believe you to be even less credible in the philosophical realm.

I'm horrifically sorry to rain on your charming little orgiastic celebration of gnosis here, but you people can't possibly know what you're talking about because you're not making coherent statements that relate to this world with reference to the totality of the facts it is made up of. Moreover, you're certainly not accounting for the fact that we haven't defined what "knowledge" is in the first place.

Language needs to follow rules for good reasons Ray, and for a language to be useful to everyone, we mustn't use it exclusively to our own idealogical end. That is to undermine the purpose of language itself Ray. You need to honestly look at yourself and ask; What do I really mean when I say "myself"?

Ray, we can both agree Jesus is God. But when we say Jesus is God, do we also then say Jesus literally created the universe as we see it, if Jesus is God?

The theologian would have us look at it in such a way; In the case where Jesus being God is problematic, we simply say God is Jesus and voila! Still a Christian!! I say this is beyond the point. An epitome of meaninglessness Ray, that's what is at the very core of your "message", and the driving force behind all "messengers" like you.

P.S. I think it was also cowardly for you to remove the last sentence of the post script on your last blog. Your removal of that statement serves to buttress my arguments against you Ray. It is evidence that you're not paying attention to your words with any reasonable degree of regard for detail.; November 14, 2009 6:15 PM
Adrian Moore said...: To Michael Leal,

I gave a concise definition of epistemology, the theory of knowledge, in a comment under the "First Cause Problem" or whatever that post was, a few days back. And yes, it is possible to know something and be mistaken. It's known as the Gettier Problem.

As for the evolutionary advantages of sexual reproduction, I want to add to the genetic variation that people have been pointing out. Sexual reproduction also allows a mix of the immune systems of the parents, giving a greater chance at retrospective immunity. An article in New Scientist a few months back pointed out that humans can still smell the immune system of a prospective partner: the better the immune mix, the better a person smells to you. Sniffing out a partner sounds like a very animalistic trait. Ray, are you really that sure we're so different to animals?; November 14, 2009 6:32 PM
Dr Benway said...: Ray. You are the best stand up comedian on this blog.; November 14, 2009 6:32 PM
Wait What said...: Again you keep saying Jesus said... Jesus said... but we keep going over this Jesus said nothing... you are so big on the concept of nothing...Jesus said nothing... You have the word of what other men say Jesus said decades later. Which to this day is still being re-edited.; November 14, 2009 4:56 PM
mufa said...: "Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction."

What a big steaming pile. It has already been explained to you that there are a few hypothesis' to explain the evolution of sex, all on equal footing.; November 14, 2009 3:54 PM
Me said...: Also, I find the cartoon for this entry incredibly insulting. When you're faced with knowledge based on actual experience, and actual things in the world, versus knowledge that some guy wrote in a book 2000 years ago, who are you to tell me, or anyone, that the knowledge in the book is more 'essential', and that the other stuff is 'non-essential'. Who are you to be able to make that distinction, Mr. Comfort?

Also, you're going to get (justifiably) reamed out by younger Christians who come to your blog and see that cartoon. It's the height of unjustified elitism to label a whole section of your bretheren as inferior, just because they hold reality to be just a little bit more essential knowledge than you do. And the really sad thing is, you contrast it with Christians like yourself, who are somehow more mature because they believe the big book of multiple choice fairy tales to the letter.

They are not inferior, Mr. Comfort. You are inferior. Because you believe the bible is the inerrant and inspired word of God exclusively because the bible says it's the inerrant and inspired word of God. Your book of 'essential knowledge', doesn't fit 'non-essential' knowledge about reality, but you believe it anyway, exclusively because it told you you can. You accept physically and logically impossible things, all exlusively because they're written in the big book of multiple choice fairy tales. That is inferiority at its most worthless.; November 14, 2009 4:18 PM
Buckyball said...: Ray wrote:

"In the case of evolution, Scripture is very clear that God made man in His image (not as a primate)."

I think along with this point one has to ask: can evolution and morality coexist?; November 14, 2009 3:41 PM
Me said...: Oh my goodness, Mr. Comfort. You are going to get absolutely slaughtered on this one. I encourage everyone who reads here, who knows what they're talking about, to hammer these points of real science home to Ray and his cronies over and over, so that maybe, just maybe, they'll learn something by constant repetition.

Sexual reproduction might be more costly and inefficient, in terms of time spent between generations, but the thing you have to realise about asexual reproduction is that when organisms reproduce sexually, they are just reproducing an exact carbon copy of themselves, with little genetic variability whatsoever. Genetic variability in a particular gene pool is vitally, vitally important for the long term survival of a species, because it enhances the potential for that species to be able to evolve and thrive in new environments. So vitally important, in fact, that its potential to increase fitness overrides the alleged costs and inefficiencies.

I learnt this stuff in eighth grade, Mr. Comfort. It's not hard.; November 14, 2009 3:49 PM
Amy2 said...: P.S.
A "truly saved Christian" will believe what the Bible says, and it says, "death followed sin". Since there was no death until after Adam sinned, no physical death until man; no physical death, no evolution. No comment necessary from atheists, since the question was about the saved.

Culberto-Ray already addressed the issue of the Jews (since Christ) in the very first line. Why don't you try stirring up something that hasn't already been addressed (over and over).; November 14, 2009 3:54 PM
Buckyball said...: Steven J wrote:

"It also says that the sky has "windows" in it and is spread out over the disk-shaped Earth like a dome over a stadium."

Which verses are you referring to? And in which version of the Bible?; November 14, 2009 3:36 PM
QED said...: Ray -

The bible makes no effort to describe literally how God pulled "creation" off. The authors of the Bible were not concerned about such things... rather they used the language and customs of their time to describe a higher truth. For much of the OT, this was a mytho-poetic language, meant not to communicate scientific realities, but to communicate a message.

Hence it makes absolutely no difference if a Christian believes in evolution or not... a young earth or old earth... a global flood, local flood or no flood at all, etc. Each of these is utterly irrelevant to being a Christian and depends on how one interprets scripture.

regards,

QED; November 14, 2009 2:36 PM
DBW said...: Primates could be in God's image. You don't know.; November 14, 2009 2:34 PM
Weemaryanne said...: To fisk or not to fisk, that is the question -- whether 'tis nobler in the mind to conclude "perforce, 'tis purely another petite pile of pusillanimous poopery by the peewee preacher" or to expound on and expose his excruciating excresences?

Oh what the hey.

....A Christian can believe in fairies, if he wishes....

And the irony went unnoticed, unburied, unlamented. 'Twas a tragedy, it 'twas.

....The Bible teaches the (sic) Jesus Christ was pre-existent before He was manifest in human form....

Translation: He existed before he existed. (BTW does anyone know - or care - WHERE the bible says this?)

This contradicts Ray's claim of June 11, 2009 (in the "George and Jesus" post), to wit:

....My faith in Jesus has nothing to do with an intellectual belief, because it’s not in His historical existence....

Translation: He doesn't need to have ever existed for me to believe in him.

So first Ray claims that it don't make no nevermind whether his Imaginary Boss's Undead Kid ever lived because that's not the point anyway. Five months later Ray claims that his Imaginary Boss's Undead Kid not only lived but he lived before he lived.

Make up yer mind, wouldja?

....If you have Jesus Christ, you have life, irrespective of your denomination....

This from the same guy who brands most believers "Not Troo Christians." If I belonged to any Xian church I'd give Ray the one-finger salute.

....Your theology in time will become “sound," and you will align your beliefs with those truths revealed in Holy Scripture,....

(bellows parade-master style) PREEZENNT - ONE-FINGER SALOOT!

.... because it is God’s revelation to mankind. If the Old Testament says there was a literal flood (Jesus did also), the Christian cannot believe otherwise....

Translation: We're stoopid and proud of it, hyuk.

....If the Bible says that the earth freely floats in space when “science” of the time said that it didn’t (see Job 26:7), the Christian quickly sides with the Bible....

Because a speedier profession of faith is always to be preferred, donchaknow. Keep that finger in the air, folks.

....In the case of evolution, Scripture is very clear that God made man in His image (not as a primate)....

Which doesn't explain why we have so many features in common with apes. Unless it does.

....We see the truth of all of the above both in the fossil record and in the creation that surrounds us.

If evolution doesn't happen then where's my pet raptor?

Huh?

HUH?; November 14, 2009 3:14 PM
Hank said...: RC: Scripture is very clear that God made man in His image (not as a primate).

Why are you soooo hung up on the whole primate thing? Primates are what we are now - our ancestry goes back much, MUCH further.; November 14, 2009 1:34 PM
Nathan said...: Oh I see Ray's problem he's getting him info from trueorigins, you need to go to talkorigins, hope this helps Ray.; November 14, 2009 2:12 PM
Alphgeek said...: Interesting... You basically confirm a contention that I made in a comment on an earlier post that Christianity requires the adherent to pile presupposition upon presupposition. You extend this contention by saying that the presuppositions that the Christian accept need not even remotely be supported by rationality.

You live in a world where believing in fairies is insanity but believing in a talking, burning bush is is a core requirement.; November 14, 2009 2:25 PM
erikloza said...: Henkka,
"I thought this was to increase genetic variety that would in turn improve the species' responsiveness to environmental change and other factors."

What would the evolutionary process want to "improve the species' responsiveness to environmental change and other factors," given that the evolutionary process has no guiding intelligence or purposeful guide, according to atheistic evolution?; November 14, 2009 2:06 PM
culberto said...: Non essential Bible beliefs? Bible truths? So, some of the book of the perfect word of God isn't strictly true? Pure gold- I love it!; November 14, 2009 1:10 PM
Ethan said...: Why does anyone even believe in evolution?

It's not even science. It's just a man-made theory that has no actually support.; November 14, 2009 12:46 PM
ITs All About Jesus!!! said...: @slydog,

You are addressing a Man of GOD.
Learn some manners, and mind them son. You are out of your class!

you said "Still displaying your scientific illiteracy...
You're a joke, Ray.
A sad, sad joke."

FYI, evolution is Not a science, just a cheap piece of propaganda.
No links have been found to prove conclusively we descended from primates.

Do yourself a favor and go to the public library and read a book, instead of reading the propaganda on atheist websites.

You are rotting your brain out on that filth.; November 14, 2009 12:24 PM
ITs All About Jesus!!! said...: WayoftheMasterMinute website

Saturday, November 14, 2009

'Pained at the Heart'

God's Justice will be so thorough of Judgment Day, sinners will be "ground to powder."

David cried, "Horror has taken hold on me because of the wicked who forsake Your Law."(Psalm 119:53)

J. Oswald Sanders pleaded in prayer, "Give us souls, lest we die!" Jeremiah cried, I am pained at my very heart, my heart makes a noise in me, I cannot hold my peace, because you have heard.

Oh my soul, the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war."(Jeremiah 4:19)

Charles Haddon Spurgeon said, "When I've shot and spent all my Gospel bullets and have none left and little effect seems to be made upon my hearers, I then get in the gun and shoot myself at them."

In other words, when he had preached the truth of God's Word, his burden was such that he opened his own heart and simply implored sinners to come to the Savior.

There goes another minute.

Gone forever. Go share your faith while you still have time.; November 14, 2009 12:18 PM
ITs All About Jesus!!! said...: Friends,

Oh yes, the inerrant Word of GOD.
He is both the Life and Light of the world.

The Word (Jesus Christ) became flesh and dwelt among us.

He paid the ultimate price, a legal transaction occurred on the cross. If you repent of your sins, and put your Trust in Him, you will have eternal life.

For more Information, check out:

NeedGOD website, or GoodPersonTEST

In His Love,
Terry Burton; November 14, 2009 12:15 PM
B. Pierce said...: In the case of evolution, Scripture is very clear that God made man in His image (not as a primate).

I wish I could believe that, I really do.

Who wants to be an ape when you can be a special being made in the image of God?

Maybe if I hit my head hard enough I could forget everything I know about comparative genomics...; November 14, 2009 12:20 PM
sofa king johnson said...: Could you just give a direct answer to the question?

Well?; November 14, 2009 12:07 PM
Iago said...: So Ray just who were the neanderthal's ? Sons of Adam& eve ? Sons of Noah's sons ? Ape kind ?; November 14, 2009 12:11 PM
Tenebrae said...: In other words if you believe in evolution you arent a (true) Christian; November 14, 2009 7:12 PM
Carl (no, the other one) said...: Ray Comfort said:

In the case of evolution, Scripture is very clear that God made man in His image (not as a primate).

Then why do humans have all the characteristics of a primate? Or a mammal?

Wait a minute, are you suggesting God is bipedal creature that looks like a primate but isn't one?

Thought exercise 1: if humans are made in the image of God, and humans innately deserve Hell, what does that say about God?

Thought exercise 2: If humans are made in the image of God, and God does not like the behavior of humans, what does that say about God's opinion of himself? "I made these creatures in my image, and they are intrinsically flawed, am I flawed too?".

He made him and all the animal kingdom as male and female

Except for the animals that are asexual or hermaphrodites or parthenogenic or .....

("Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction."[1]),

Because sexual reproduction produces greater genetic diversity which increases the adaptability of a given population.

Don't try to learn science from a Young Earth Creationist website.

and He gave them (and every living animal) the ability to reproduce "after their own kind," and not to evolve in time into other "kinds" or species of animals.

Since there is no such thing as a "kind" the entire claim is baseless.

"Kinds" or species ? Since speciation has been observed this makes the claim undeniable false.

We see the truth of all of the above both in the fossil record and in the creation that surrounds us.

Yes, the complete lack of "truth" in the above claims.; November 14, 2009 7:10 PM
DeoVacuus said...: This post has been removed by the author.; November 14, 2009 1:09 PM
Rando said...: Ethan says:

Why does anyone even believe in evolution?

It's not even science. It's just a man-made theory that has no actually support.

You must see the username "Steven J" and then conveniently skip every single one of his posts. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen you try to refute one of them. Curious, that.

BTW, all theories are man-made. Stay clear of antibiotics. They are based on the man-made "Germ Theory."

What a dumb argument. But that is to be expected of you.

Here let me adjust your post for accuracy.

"Why does anyone believe in Genesis?

It's just a man-made theory (from a pre-scientific culture thousands of years ago) that has no actual support"

Don't bother to thank me.; November 14, 2009 8:02 PM
QED said...: Amy2

The Bible never teaches that physical death wasn't introduced till after the fall. That would not even make sense...

Suppose A&E succeeded in obeying God. Then according to you, there would have been no fall and thus no death. But God told all things to reproduce. With no death rate, the earth would have quickly become overrun and hence fallen victim to utter consumption.

regards,

QED; November 14, 2009 7:58 PM
DeoVacuus said...: Honest Ray, I know we True Christians(TM) aren't allowed to believe that humans are primates, but are we allowed to believe that we are mammals?; November 14, 2009 7:39 PM
Rando said...: Terry, in apparent seriousness, says:

Do yourself a favor and go to the public library and read a book, instead of reading the propaganda on atheist websites.

You are rotting your brain out on that filth.

Yeah, Terry. Slydog wouldn't be able to find any books on evolution at a public library. The only place you can read about evolution is on atheistic propaganda websites.

I have a better idea. How about you go to a public library and check out Dawkins' new book that you complained wasn't getting released for months? Then use your "science" degree to refute all the evidence that Dawkins presents. Put your money where your mouth is. Or you can continue to ignore it, like you've been doing. I know which one I have my money on.; November 14, 2009 7:54 PM
The Invisible Pink Unicorn said...: In the case of evolution, Scripture is very clear that God made man in His image (not as a primate).

So does that mean God has nipples?; November 14, 2009 7:42 PM
KCheriyan said...: Ray, this is nice. A creationist pointing to an alleged problem in evolutionary theory as told by creationists themselves. True Origins, the website you gave is one based on Young Earth Creationism. This is like Sarah Palin rating her own new book as "mavericky".; November 14, 2009 7:52 PM
Ang said...: To Slydog -

Everything came from nothing?

What a joke, a sad, sad joke.

-Angela; November 14, 2009 7:33 PM
Lurker said...: Ray, humans are a kind of primate, just like they are a kind of mammal, just like they are a kind of vertebrate. Why is that so hard to accept?

Could you please give me the qualifying characteristics of what constitutes a "primate" and then describe which of those characteristics humans lack?; November 15, 2009 7:44 AM
DeoVacuus said...: Amy2 said "A "truly saved Christian" will believe what the Bible says, and it says, "death followed sin". Since there was no death until after Adam sinned, no physical death until man; no physical death, no evolution."

If there was no death before "the fall", please explain Genesis 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"

Sounds to me like death was the default position. Only if they ate from the tree of life would they live forever.; November 15, 2009 5:56 AM
ITs All About Jesus!!! said...: @ Rando,

I did Not say he could not find your books of "filth" at a public library. I was implying he could find "Real Science" in science books - at a public library.

People like you, continue to profess 'evolution' as a science when it is 'nothing' more than a "theory". Got it Rando?

'evolution' is nothing but a bad theory on the Creation of Life in GOD's world and universe.

Continuing to pray for you and the others to turn away from your sins, and open your minds to the evidence of GOD and His Son Jesus Christ.

Please download the Introduction to Origin of Species ( 150th Special Edition ) on my profile webpage. Compliments of LivingWaters and WayoftheMaster websites.

May GOD bless you in a special way today Rando. Seriously, I do not want to see you and the other atheists to burn in Hell. I want you find Salvation in our Lord.

In His Love,
Terry Burton

*Hell's Best Kept Secret link is available on my profile webpage for Free! take care. :); November 15, 2009 7:02 AM
captain howdy said...: Ray sez--

If the Old Testament says there was a literal flood (Jesus did also), the Christian cannot believe otherwise. If the Bible says that the earth freely floats in space when “science” of the time said that it didn’t (see Job 26:7), the Christian quickly sides with the Bible.

Watch this, Christians:

Likewise, Ray, if the Bible says that

17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

19So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

20And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Note Jesus's (alleged) words: These signs SHALL FOLLOW THEM THAT BELIEVE. So my question to believers is:

Do these signs follow Ray Comfort? Do we actually see Ray Comfort going around picking up poison reptiles? Do we see Ray Comfort going around drinking Drain-O or eating breakfast at Denny's?

Well, Ray? Do we?

Do we see the sign following Ray that he speaks gibberish? OK--Bad example...; November 15, 2009 2:42 AM
Raoul Rheits said...: Culberto said:

"Jewish people do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. There is simply no way that you can avoid this truth."

You're giving Ray a diversion by not stating that you meant 'Jewish' as in Judaism.

Ray's religion advocates that practicing Jews deserve to be burned (eternally, no less) unless they convert to Christianity.

Ray said (regarding the historical persecution of Jews): "Only time will tell us if they have learned anything from history."

Yes, he really said that.; November 15, 2009 3:08 AM
Michael Leal said...: Adrian Moore:

I myself have no problem with epistemology (some of my best friends are epistles), my comment was addressed to Ray as from his point of view it seems that he cannot be mistaken about something he knows, and therefore our attempts to poke holes in the justifications for his belief are pointless.

The absurdity of trying to get Ray Comfort to address a question beyond the level of "Goddidit" or "atheistsbelievenothingcreatedeverything" I fully concede.; November 15, 2009 2:20 AM
Raoul Rheits said...: QED:

"Suppose A&E succeeded in obeying God. Then according to you, there would have been no fall and thus no death. But God told all things to reproduce. With no death rate, the earth would have quickly become overrun and hence fallen victim to utter consumption."

What's not to like? Living underneath a 1 mile high heap of heaving insects sounds adorable.; November 15, 2009 1:53 AM
Weemaryanne said...: Dr. Benway, re yours of November 14, 2009 6:32 PM:

I resemble that remark. I'm funnier than Ray even before I get out of bed.; November 15, 2009 1:39 AM
carl said...: Henkka said
"I thought this was to increase genetic variety that would in turn improve the species' responsiveness to environmental change and other factors."

Dear Hennka,
If someone is toeing the atheist party line, then that which you mentioned is the standard answer.

However, what they CAN'T tell you is:

1) How this definitely happened. They can only tell you what they "think MAY have" happened.

2) And this, of course, is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY DEPENDENT on their a-priori ASSUMPTION that it DEFINITELY DID HAPPEN in a completely naturalistic and atheistic fashion.

3) Entertaining ANY fleeting thought that their ASSUMPTION (that sexual reproduction came about by naturalistic means) might be wrong - well, that simply is NOT TOLERATED.

4) By NOT TOLERATED meaning automatic insults, name-calling, and other condescending forms of treatment.

5) All of those lengthy explanations, diagrams, charts, color slides, etc. ("paper science") produced by evolutionists to explain the evolution of sexual reproduction MUST be blindly accepted.

6) Asking for proof such as ANY form of lab demonstration, transitional fossils in various stages of changing from asexual to sexual reproduction, or ANY other PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, etc. will only be met with more of #4 above.

7) So all of this is to say, well, you may want to stick with your original answer. Don't even THINK of changing it.

Mark 13
And you shall be hated of all men for my name's sake...; November 15, 2009 2:05 AM
slydog said...: To Ang:
Yeah... God creating everything from nothing IS a sad joke.

To Terry Burton:
I was addressing a moron. Well,... now it's TWO morons, if I include you... and THREE if we throw Ang in.

You have no brain OR class, so stuff it.; November 15, 2009 2:13 AM
Dr Benway said...: Why does anyone even believe in evolution?

It's not even science. It's just a man-made theory that has no actually support.

Looks like Ethan is starting to run out of steam.; November 14, 2009 10:42 PM
Steven J. said...: Scripture citations:

Weemaryanne asked:

Translation: He existed before he existed. (BTW does anyone know - or care - WHERE the bible says this?)

John 1:1-2; 14-19, and John 8:58

The first asserts that the Word (possibly a reference to Philos' divine Logos, but more likely an allusion to the Aramaic targums -- paraphrased translations of the Hebrew scriptures -- that used "the Word of God" to refer to God's manifestations in His creation or to His people) existed before Creation, was part of God, and became a human being (in context, Jesus of Nazareth). The second alludes to Old Testament passages where God gives His name as "I am," and appears to be a claim by Jesus that he is not only older than Abraham but is somehow Abraham's God.

Buckyball asked me:

"It also says that the sky has "windows" in it and is spread out over the disk-shaped Earth like a dome over a stadium."

Which verses are you referring to? And in which version of the Bible?

The phrase "windows of heaven" occurs twice, in Genesis 7:11 ("In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened." -- NASB; other translations use "windows of heaven"), and, most famously, in Malachi 3:10 (""Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this," says the LORD of hosts, "if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows." -- NASB).

The picture seems clear: the windows of the sky can be opened to let the "waters above the sky" (Genesis 1:6-7) fall down to Earth as rain, or closed to withold rain.

Isaiah 40:22 has been much cited and argued over on this blog: "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." The picture of the sky as a dome or tent over the flat, circular Earth is quite clear.

Buckyball asked Ray:

I think along with this point one has to ask: can evolution and morality coexist?

Yes.; November 14, 2009 10:43 PM
Raoul Rheits said...: "Honest Ray, I know we True Christians(TM) aren't allowed to believe that humans are primates, but are we allowed to believe that we are mammals?"

Indeed. Ray? What say you old bean. Are we non-mammals? Does being a mammal take your Godliness away from you too?; November 14, 2009 11:41 PM
Steven J. said...: Amy2 replied to P.S.:

A "truly saved Christian" will believe what the Bible says, and it says, "death followed sin". Since there was no death until after Adam sinned, no physical death until man; no physical death, no evolution. No comment necessary from atheists, since the question was about the saved.

My comments may be unnecessary, but then, as King Lear said, "O reason not the need! Our basest beggars are in the poorest thing superfluous. ... Thou art a lady: If only to go warm were gorgeous, Why, nature needs not what thou gorgeous wear'st,
Which scarcely keeps thee warm."

First, are you sure? If Adam and Eve were given permission to eat from any plant in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge, presumably some plants died. Perhaps some animals died, as well, and the death that "entered the world" was the death of human beings.

Note that two common complaints about the introduction of death by Adam's sin are [a] that Adam did not, in fact, experience cardiopulmonary failure on the very day he ate the fruit, despite God's threat that "in the day you eat of it, you will die," and [b] despite Christ's saving believers from death, Christians still die like everyone else. A common response to both claims is that spiritual death is what is meant, but if the entrance of death through Adam's sin is primarily spiritual death, these passages say nothing about when physical death first occurred.

Second, as QED pointed out, if living things multiplied and were fruitful without dying, earth and sky would quickly become clogged solid with their multiplying, undying bodies. But more than that: evolution will go on regardless. Death doesn't cause evolution; death merely clears out the less successful, the detrimental mutation, the less fit. The rarer beneficial mutations will still occur, and these mutants will still be more successful in finding mates and passing on their genes than their less fit but undying kin. The accumulation of beneficial mutations over generations still occurs, and evolutionary adaption and speciation occurs; it's just that all the while, the ancestral populations and "failed experiments" of evolution would continue to exist alongside the successes.; November 14, 2009 11:12 PM
Ethan said...: Rando said...

"Why does anyone believe in Genesis?

It's just a man-made theory (from a pre-scientific culture thousands of years ago) that has no actual support"

Genesis isn't a man-made theory. It's the revelation of God and its true based on His authority. God authority is above all that you think you know. God's Words are true and you can bet your life on them. In fact, you're already betting your life against God and that's a guaranteed loss.; November 14, 2009 10:11 PM
Adrian Moore said...: Ang said...

To Slydog -

Everything came from nothing?

What a joke, a sad, sad joke.

-Angela

Well, actually, if you're familiar with the physical sciences at all, it's not impossible for "everything to come from nothing." Go to youtube and check out a video called "'A Universe from Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009" if you're interested. I doubt you are, though. Also Stephen Hawking addresses the issue in his book 'A Brief History of Time' by pointing out that gravity is a negative energy, which exists counter to positive energy, or matter. So, mathematically, the whole thing works out. Science and common sense aren't always in the same ballpark.; November 14, 2009 9:55 PM
Carl (no, the other one) said...: A Christian can believe in fairies, if he wishes. While I wouldn’t doubt the salvation of one who did, I may doubt his sanity.

Fairies, questionable sanity.

Archangels, cherubim, demons, spirits, souls, Man/God rising into the sky, women turned to pillars of salt, talking donkeys, talking snakes, magic fruit, flesh eating rituals, blood drinking rituals, Heaven, Hell, Satan, etc all completely sane and normal.; November 14, 2009 8:51 PM
Steven J. said...: Captain Howdy replied to Ray:

Likewise, Ray, if the Bible says that

17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

19So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

20And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Note Jesus's (alleged) words: These signs SHALL FOLLOW THEM THAT BELIEVE. So my question to believers is:

Do these signs follow Ray Comfort? Do we actually see Ray Comfort going around picking up poison reptiles? Do we see Ray Comfort going around drinking Drain-O or eating breakfast at Denny's?

I see two problems with your challenge. The first is whether these signs are promised to all Christians individually, or just to the church corporately (so that they might not manifest in the lives of all believers). Verse 20 could be taken as indicating that these signs were a special aid to the first generation of believers, especially to the apostles, and are not guaranteed to all believers.

The second is that this passage is almost certainly not part of the original text of Mark. It is not found in the oldest copies of the gospel (which is saying something, given that the oldest versions date from the third or fourth century), and appears to be a later addition to make up for the abrupt ending of the gospel (which, as it has survived, contains no mention of the actual resurrection of Jesus or his appearance to his disciples in Galilee; the last page or two seems to have been lost at some early date).

The "take up serpents" passage is surely not a command, but a reference (turned into an ex eventu prediction) to the story in Acts of Paul on Malta, where he is bitten by a snake but suffers no harm from it. Likewise, the "drink any deadly thing" passage probably refers to a legend in which enemies of the faith tried to poison the John the son of Zebedee, but the poison turned into a snake and leaped out of the goblet before he could drink it. Again, I don't think this is a command to Christians to actually drink poison to show their faith.

But since the passage was added decades or centuries later to the gospel, presumably its original readers (and writer) had noticed that Christians could indeed be poisoned, and probably did not mean to imply that they could not be, only that the original apostles could not be.; November 15, 2009 12:29 PM
Call-Upon-Jesus said...: God created the matchless processes of nature. All the fields and forests teem with miracles never equalled by all the wisdom and skill of man. The birds sing in the trees and their sweet speech is marvelous to the human ear. Man cannot make a single bird that can sing in the trees. Blind men fail to see the miracles which God has worked into each living thing (all plants, animals, and humans). An unsaved astronomer must be mad. The order, the regularity, the manifest calculation, and intricate design appears in every one of the constellations and nebulas. Every part of the universe God has created. If you don't see something of God in the creation, you must weak in mind or wicked in heart. Mostly wicked in heart. God is working everywhere around us, in the heaven, the earth, the land, and in the sea. All of them are teeming with creatures and things of His marvelous skill. The revolution of day and night, and formation and fall of rain are indisputable proofs of the eternal power of God. Seek the Lord! Man goes up and down in the world everyday, and yet he forgets and despises the God that made it all. A man could never walk through an art or science museum without thinking about the men and women that painted and invented all the things there. Yet blind men go through this world everyday and never think about the Creator that made all the things they see, hear, eat, and enjoy. Man has a strange blindness and insane infatuation - human pride and Satan blinds their minds. Man is willingly ignorant, blind to his own needs, senseless to his Creator, and an enemy to his Best Friend - Jesus Christ the Lord. Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, just like you. Don't forget, you're not God!; November 15, 2009 12:27 PM
Mumon said...: By the way that means Kirk Cameron is a member of the primate order, too.; November 15, 2009 11:11 AM
ITs All About Jesus!!! said...: @WeeMaryAnnie

I see you are still spreading your profanity and 'ignorance' of the Word of GOD, from a street corner in Toronto, Canada.

I feel sorry for the innocent bystanders in Canada! Give my best to dale. We miss him! :)

Take a moment to "spit out" the cigarette from your trashy lips and learn something!

you said "....The Bible teaches the (sic) Jesus Christ was pre-existent before He was manifest in human form.... Translation: He existed before he existed. (BTW does anyone know - or care - WHERE the bible says this?)"

If you ever took the time to read the posts, you would know!

You fly in and out, like a bat out of hell.

If you don't repent of your sins, and put your trust in Jesus Christ, you will go there and burn in the flames.

His Wrath abides on you Wee! Fear Him who has the power to cast you into it.

Here it is again!

Try reading Genesis chapter 1, verse 26. (KJV)

"26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

The key word in this verse is "US".
GOD the Father, GOD the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Trinity.

God Bless!

In His Love,
Terry Burton; November 15, 2009 12:07 PM
Aaron said...: Let us take a page from your book and quote mine something you said in your discussion with Thunderf00t in reference to pedophilia: "Is pedophilia wrong? It makes a lot of people happy."

Wow ray, such a "godly man" defending pedophilia. You make me sick.; November 15, 2009 10:52 AM
Buckyball said...: Steven J wrote:

"The picture seems clear: the windows of the sky can be opened to let the "waters above the sky" (Genesis 1:6-7) fall down to Earth as rain, or closed to withold rain."

Matthew 6:22 states, "the eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light."

By your logic, are you saying that Jesus thought people had lamps for eyeballs?

Steven J wrote:

"Isaiah 40:22 has been much cited and argued over on this blog: "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." The picture of the sky as a dome or tent over the flat, circular Earth is quite clear."

I think the key word here is "like". For instance, the statement "Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain" does not imply that the heavens are literally a set of curtains. Nor are people grasshoppers, nor is the atmosphere a tent.

Funny, though, from any angle in space, if you looked at Earth from a distance, it would look like a disc.

Now, how would a writer like Isaiah even know what shape the planet was?; November 15, 2009 10:54 AM
Mumon said...: It's a good thing the True Parents are Korean. And since I like kimchi, and our True Parents probably do, I can only conclude...

Seriously, if your deity made "man in His image" and we are primates (the DNA don't lie), then it would follow that "He" is a primate. Whether or not He separated from bonobos and chimps at about the time the genus homo did is another question.

Sorry, but we're in the "primate" category, and there's nothing you can do about it, at least until genetic therapies come along that'll allow you to go into some other order, say, reptiles.; November 15, 2009 11:09 AM
Rando said...: Ethan says:

Genesis isn't a man-made theory. It's the revelation of God and its true based on His authority. God authority is above all that you think you know. God's Words are true and you can bet your life on them. In fact, you're already betting your life against God and that's a guaranteed loss.

Well, then. You should have no problem proving that. Go for it. You don't just expect us to take your word for it, do you?; November 15, 2009 10:53 AM
Dr Benway said...: You are addressing a Man of GOD.
Learn some manners, and mind them son. You are out of your class!

Terry you slobbering douche. Who are you to talk about manners? You are a unique paradox. A truly creepy Christian if there ever was. How's that for manners? You don't deserve good manners. Neither does Ray. I laugh whenever anyone from America complains about manners. That's right up there with "American Exceptionalism." You were correct about one thing. You and Ray are in a class by yourselves. Somewhere between first grade and autistic.

FYI, evolution is Not a science, just a cheap piece of propaganda.
No links have been found to prove conclusively we descended from primates.

Typical lazy lying for Jesus. I think it might be true that you don't descend from primates. I think you are a hair shirt and camel dung golem, constructed gypsies and blessed with the blood of a drunken goat.

Do yourself a favor and go to the public library and read a book, instead of reading the propaganda on atheist websites.

Why is it that you Christians are always telling nonbelievers to do things you wouldn't dare do yourself. You have no brain left to rot you dung-golem.

You are rotting your brain out on that filth.; November 15, 2009 9:19 AM
Buckyball said...: I asked Ray:

"I think along with this point one has to ask: can evolution and morality coexist?"

Steven J replied:

Yes.

Interesting. So what is the basis for that morality? Is it based on chemicals, or something else?

Also, do you think that morality has its own evolutionary timeline? If so, where is that leading the human race? What are the indicators that progress is being made in terms of moral evolution?; November 15, 2009 10:51 AM
Rando said...: Terry says:

I did Not say he could not find your books of "filth" at a public library. I was implying he could find "Real Science" in science books - at a public library.

People like you, continue to profess 'evolution' as a science when it is 'nothing' more than a "theory". Got it Rando?

No, Terry. If you go to a public library you will find books on evolution in the "Real Science" section. Guess what book you won't find in the "Real Science" section? The Bible. C'mon, man. You have a "science degree". You should know this stuff.

Got it, Terry?

Also, you forgot to tell us when we can expect your scientific rebuttal of Dawkins' new book? I'm sure that was just an oversight on your part. We're all waiting with great anticipation. You do want to save our souls, don't you? Your prayers are obviously having no effect, so maybe you should try something else.; November 15, 2009 10:49 AM
Iago said...: Hey JD Curtis, gonna pull your parrot bit on Terry now ? "Just a theory, Just a theory,Just a theory."
Terry you are a pathological liar and have a learning deficiency.
Now go into the corner and wipe the froth off your mouth.; November 15, 2009 8:40 AM
Debunkey Monkey said...: Ray, next time someone asks you a yes or no question, could you please answer it? You avoided the question posed to you.

Other than that, the style of the post was excellent, and I enjoyed what you had to say.; November 15, 2009 8:17 AM
Mark W Laine said...: To Ryk,
You said...
"Uh, yeah it is, and it does. Are you sure you went to high school? This is really basic stuff. Try taking a class or two, SRSLY."

An interesting note, whilst sitting in my Pastors office this morning I was impressed by the magnitude of his book shelves and multiple degrees. And assuming that Ray, like most pastors, are voracious readers...Ray's ongoing learning has never stopped.

But, you discount the tremendous education given the normal Christian who is listening to the Holy Spirit for counsel. God is a great teacher and gives the normal Christian the ability to confidently stand on his/her understanding of the bible in how we interpret our world.

We Christians are thankful for men like Ray, and Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind...whom you atheists hate. Why because they are sharing Gods insight with the body of Christ that we might also grasp a special truth that God has opened their eyes too.

Churlish insinuations on your part concernig Ray's education level or intellect is a condemnation of your belief that only a university can confer legitimacy upon Ray's belief system.

We don't need no stinkin' university to confer legitimacy upon our faith in God and our belief in the Genesis account of the origins. Afterall our teacher is God...seems His credentials are of value in the Christian circles. Only the atheists seem to despise the knowledge God has to offer.

NUT in my opinion.; November 15, 2009 4:34 PM
Mark W Laine said...: To Steven J.
You said...
"Ray, if you'd lived four or five centuries ago, you'd have doubted the sanity of Copernicus and Galileo (certainly Martin Luther and John Calvin did)."

Steven J. I doubt your sanity, in the here and now, at thumbing your nose at the God of this universe.

But, for the sake of examining your assertion concerning whom Ray might think is nuts wouldn't it be better to collect evidentiary fact by asking Ray or examining the body of his work to see if he really feels that way about Copernicus or Galileo who lived five centuries ago.

So I ask you if the Rapture was to occur and Jesus was to return on the clouds, just like he went, would you be proclaiming Ray a visionary or would you still deny, deNY, DENY...hoping that plausble deniability will save you?; November 15, 2009 4:12 PM
Steven J. said...: Buckyball replied to me:

"The picture seems clear: the windows of the sky can be opened to let the "waters above the sky" (Genesis 1:6-7) fall down to Earth as rain, or closed to withold rain."

Matthew 6:22 states, "the eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light."

By your logic, are you saying that Jesus thought people had lamps for eyeballs?

That passage has always puzzled me. Your suggestion is quite possible: many ancient philosophers (e.g. Plato), puzzling over how sight worked, thought that the eye emitted rays of light that struck the objects we behold. References to the brightly-glowing sun as the "eye of the day" or to the glowing crater of a volcano as its "eye" reflect this understanding. Jesus may have shared this view that the eye emitted light in order to see.

Isaiah 40:22 has been much cited and argued over on this blog: "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." The picture of the sky as a dome or tent over the flat, circular Earth is quite clear."

I think the key word here is "like". For instance, the statement "Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain" does not imply that the heavens are literally a set of curtains. Nor are people grasshoppers, nor is the atmosphere a tent.

Well, no: people resemble grasshoppers only in size, when viewed from atop the dome of the sky -- and the sky was seen as a solid dome; having no idea how to build domed architecture themselves, the ancient Middle Easterners could think only of tents as an analogy.

Funny, though, from any angle in space, if you looked at Earth from a distance, it would look like a disc.

Aristotle, a few centuries later, would make a similar argument, noting that the circular shape of the Earth's shadow during lunar eclipses, no matter what the moon's position in the sky, argued that the Earth was a sphere. If Isaiah in fact had a clue that the Earth was a globe, he could have obtained it through observation of the natural world, without supernatural aid.

Now, how would a writer like Isaiah even know what shape the planet was?

Guesswork and intuition? The horizon isn't noticeably closer in one direction than another, so a circle is an intuitively satisfying answer to the question "what shape is the flat Earth?" A disk-shaped Earth also fits under a bowl-shaped sky.; November 15, 2009 3:58 PM
Me said...: Mr. Comfort, I've asked you some questions, and I've been waiting quite a while for them at this point.

To re-iterate:

1. Where is your evidence that Hell exists.

2. Why is it absurd that humans are related to bananas and turnips?

And a new one for you.

3. Since you deny basic biology, that pins us as primates, do you also deny that we are mammals, or vertabrates? Basic biology tells us that we are those things too.

Please don't be rude any longer, in continuing to ignore my questions and avoid answering them. That would not be very Christian of you, would it?; November 15, 2009 4:07 PM
Me said...: 5. You're wrong. Science is not predicated on 'you must believe me'. It's pretty much based on the opposite actually - 'Don't take my word for it. Prove me wrong'.

6. There are myriad transitional fossils that show all sorts of things. Please stop trotting out this tired old creationist canard that has been proven demonstrably false every time it has been advanced.

7. You're wrong. Scientists will change their mind in a second, if they have enough of a reason to. Unfortunately for you and people like you, creationism doesn't provide anywhere near enough of a reason to. And we've already gone over why you receive the treatment in #4. Ridiculous ideas, like the idea that the bible fits the evidence better than evolution does, by definition, are deserving of ridicule.; November 15, 2009 3:58 PM
Mark W Laine said...: To Iago...
You said...
"So Ray just who were the neanderthal's ? Sons of Adam& eve ? Sons of Noah's sons ? Ape kind ?"

I have a friend, with whom I work, whose forehead juts out in a manner that is quite pronounced. Include the fact that as you age your facial features grow ever more pronounced.

Neanderthals were sure enough descendents from Adam and Eve (as were you) and you want to use these dearly departed as some type of evidence for your evolutionist faith/dogma.

YAWN!!! Just came back to see how *YAWN* boringly repetitious you folks really are.; November 15, 2009 3:57 PM
Me said...: @ Carl:

Your 7 points show an incredible ignorance of science.

1. None of science can tell you what definitely happened, not even something as well supported as the theory of evolution is. To ask that of science is to not get science. The hypothetico-deductive reasoning process of science is perfectly legitimate, and you know yourself that it's perfectly legitimate, because you accept a whole bunch of science that used exactly that method to reach its conclusions.

2. Reality is not a presupposition. Adding imperceptible stuff to reality (like you add an imperceptible God) is.

3. You're wrong. It would be tolerated if there was an explanation that fit the data better. You wouldn't tolerate some inferior explanation for anything when you've already got one, and scientists don't tolerate inferior explanations for stuff they have perfectly good explanations for either.

4. You're wrong. If someone came up with a better explanation for something than one we already have, they would be celebrated by the scientific community at large. They would become an overnight celebrity, and their discovery would be front page news worldwide. Scientists love when that happens, because it gives them something new to do, as opposed to working within the same old parameters, trying to falsify this theory or that.

The reason you get treated like you've described, by people who know better, is because ridiculous ideas, by definition, deserve ridicule.; November 15, 2009 3:57 PM
Jonathan said...: For what its worth:

One can certainly be a Christian and still believe in evolution. Nowhere in the early Christian church's historical creeds (specifically, the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed) is anything stated that must disagree with the scientific theory of evolution.

Now sure, many who hold to evolution would disagree with those creeds, but my point is they are not mutually exclusive of one another. Many 'evolutionists' rejection of Christianity or Theism has nothing to do with evolution, as observed from the many posts atheists have recently share. (Thanks for those, by the way).

- Chaplain Entrekin; November 15, 2009 1:20 PM
Arthur said...: Steven J says:

I don't know; I've never been face to face with an actual angel. Or, if I have been, I didn't notice it and haven't figured it out subsequently. So I really have no idea how compelling an angel appearing before me would be. Evidently, if the gospels can be trusted, not everyone who sees an angel realizes what they are or how they got there. Of course, if the Bible can be trusted, Satan can masquerade as an angel of light ....

For that matter, suppose I were shocked and awed into submission by an apparition in blinding white raiment, and believed everything he told me. Does my subjective impression of this being, my finite, fallible mind's spur-of-the-moment subjective conclusion that anyone who can have this effect on me must be speaking for God, prove that the being really does speak for God? Or should I be skeptical and ask for objective evidence, even if my voice shakes?

Remember that the event takes place during a ritual in the Temple of God. How many demons do you know that would violate the temple by appearing in it?; November 15, 2009 3:52 PM
Mike Pilliod said...: To answer the O.P...Yes.; November 15, 2009 3:45 PM
Weemaryanne said...: Call-Upon-Jesus seems to think s/he is making a valid point at November 15, 2009 12:27 PM by wagging his/her finger and intoning: "Don't forget, you're not God!"

No kiddin'. That's because nobody is a superpowerful superbeing that gets annoyed by unauthorized sex.

OTOH, the RNA molecule has been replicated, so scientists may be on the verge of creating life in the lab.*

Tell me again, who's yer daddy? I mean, who's yer superpowerful superbeing whose "matchless" creation is about to be matched?

*Don't take my word for it. Look it up. There was an article in New Scientist back in May titled "Molecule of life emerges from laboratory slime", and there are others.; November 15, 2009 12:49 PM
Dr Benway said...: Take a moment to "spit out" the cigarette from your trashy lips and learn something!

His plate has definitely shifted.; November 15, 2009 5:57 PM
Chris Good said...: Asking if morality is "just" chemicals (and electrons) is like asking if witnessing a murder is "just" photons.

I mean it's only photons being absorbed by your retinas and being converted into electrical impulses for the brain, not like it actually MATTERS or anything.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The fact that we're just a random collection of atoms does not make our experiences in any way less significant.

If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you prick us, do we not bleed? We do, we don't think "Oh there go the atoms that make up my blood leaving the atoms that make up my body" we scream: "Argh! You SOB! That really freaking hurt! I'm going to punch your lights out!"; November 15, 2009 5:24 PM
Mikkala said...: @ Carl to Henkka

"All of those lengthy explanations, diagrams, charts, color slides, etc. ("paper science") produced by evolutionists to explain the evolution of sexual reproduction MUST be blindly accepted."

Carl dear boy,

Riiiiiiight so...

Would you please go ahead and remind us all what happens to those who decide not to believe the bible and the claims and content found therein?

Come to think of it- since personal experience counts for so very much, judging by the standard of your posts- not a single science teacher, or text, I have had the occasion to examine, has stated, that I MUST believe it, with possible exception to my "science book" Ie. creationist handbook. from Christian academy.

Every single day I attended academy, church 3x weekly etc. I was told directly on no uncertain terms; 1. The bible says you must believe this. 2. The elders say that the bible says we must believe it. I'll let you tell us all what happens when we don't Carl my man.

Science by it's definition Carl, doesn't care wheather or not, I, or anyone here believes anything. It is indifferent respective to belief by it's nature. But with all the "diverse" ideas about the nature of science being batted around this blog, maybe we do need a refresher Carl old boy.

It almost seems as though only the "true Christians" hold any purchase on "true science". I'm not certain you've even differentiated between science, and scientists, but that is something you probably figured in. You theists love nothing more than to obscure language further, and I know it.

But please Carl, do enlighten us all dear boy. Who is it again, that really does care if you believe, and particularly if you don't?

God's got a special job set aside for you in heaven Carl, big guy ;-)

Cheeri-o

"As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste." - Song of Solomon 2:3; November 15, 2009 5:20 PM
truth seeker said...: to MUMON

you said:
if your deity made "man in His image" and we are primates (the DNA don't lie), then it would follow that "He" is a primate.

can you please tell me what DNA proves that we are primates?

thanks.; November 15, 2009 5:19 PM
Robert said...: Hi. A first-time commenter here. I just wanted to ask all the atheists here something. Every time I move one of my fingers, billions upon billions of cells in my body act in perfect unison. Each of those cells is a miniature city, with specific instructions for reproduction, creation of proteins, absorption of nutrients, etc. And you want me to believe that all of that just came together by itself? I couldn't design anything remotely close to that if my life depended upon it. And you believe that it came from nothing spontaneously. That makes about as much sense as me wanting a rapid squirrel tied to my face.; November 15, 2009 7:51 PM
Adrian Moore said...: To Michael Leal,

Yeah mate, don't worry, I was just backing you up there ;); November 15, 2009 7:50 PM
Buckyball said...: Steven J wrote:

"Aristotle, a few centuries later, would make a similar argument, noting that the circular shape of the Earth's shadow during lunar eclipses, no matter what the moon's position in the sky, argued that the Earth was a sphere.

In regards to eclipses, it's interesting that God told the Israelites not to worry about them (Jeremiah 10:1-2).; November 15, 2009 7:45 PM
Buckyball said...: Steven J wrote:

"That passage has always puzzled me. Your suggestion is quite possible: many ancient philosophers (e.g. Plato), puzzling over how sight worked, thought that the eye emitted rays of light that struck the objects we behold. References to the brightly-glowing sun as the "eye of the day" or to the glowing crater of a volcano as its "eye" reflect this understanding. Jesus may have shared this view that the eye emitted light in order to see."

Hmmm. Well, what branch of the evolutionary tree do you think produced such a creature as found in Song of Songs 4:3-5?

Also, do you think when Jesus said "you are the salt of the earth" that he was actually referring to the chemical composition of his listeners?

Speaking of chemical composition, do you think morality is nothing more than just chemical reactions or related to DNA? Do you think there has been a worldwide moral evolution in any way? What evidence do you have to support your position?; November 15, 2009 7:41 PM
Iago said...: Mark W. Laine, always good to see and idiot, or Creationist ( same thing in my book) voice an opinion hear. It made me chuckle. And made me recall that you havd mentioned a long time ago a wrestler that was a neaderthal, any luck with who that was BTW ?
Anyway go and look up neanderthal genome sequencing. Interesting read.; November 15, 2009 7:32 PM
truth seeker said...: to MUFA

you said:
"It has already been explained to you that there are a few hypothesis' to explain the evolution of sex, all on equal footing."

pardon me, but did you say there are a few hypotheses?

hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation.

that means there's less evidence than a theory would have to back it up. in fact, theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth but isn't a proven truth or law.

sexual reproduction is a crisis for evolutionary thinking (as are many other facets of the system of evolution). no truth or law could ever, in a gazillion years, come out of these various unsound explanations.

in the evolutionary pursuit of origins wisdom, it seems one needs to abandon sound logic. thereby being left with empty labels, word manipulations and faulty logic that surprisingly are used to protect the very shaky hypotheses and theories. mind boggling!

i'm not trying to be provocative, just honest.; November 15, 2009 7:30 PM
mufa said...: If Yahweh really did not want people to use their faculties of reason, He would have not endowed people with them. There is nowhere in the Old or New Testament that says:

"You shall not accept the theory of evolution; it is an abomination."

or

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then for an evolutionist to enter the kingdom of God"

or

"If there is a man who believes he is descended from primates, he has committed a detestable act; he shall surely be put to death."

or

"Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor evolutionists"

As abhorrent, tyrannical, megalomaniacal, capricious, death-obsessed, and insatiably bloodthirsty Yahweh is, He does not condemn people who accept common descent in any way, sorry.; November 15, 2009 7:28 PM
John Tucker said...: Ray,

I recently had a brief discussion with a Christian on Facebook who believes in theistic evolution. With your permission, I would like to copy and paste this blog entry as a note at my FB account (I will give you full credit). Please let me know if you're ok with this.

Thanks,
John; November 16, 2009 9:54 AM
Ryk said...: Mark W Laine said essentially:

Ray got all da dagburnd eddykashun he needs. He tellsus whut da magic man dunnit.; November 16, 2009 6:29 AM
Iago said...: Hey Robert instead of a rabid squirrel tied to your face, you have a rabid sky-god tied to your consciousness.; November 16, 2009 5:02 AM
Steve said...: Steven J

A quick point of call --the sky really does have windows-- odd, I know, but absolutely true.; November 16, 2009 9:49 AM
Robert said...: Hi Ray. I'm 17, a new convert (praise God), and I want to witness at my high school. The problem is that I have no idea how to do it right and I'm nervous. Do you have any advice or recommendations? Thanks. :); November 16, 2009 9:17 AM
Ryk said...: Mark W Laine said to Steven J:
"So I ask you if the Rapture was to occur and Jesus was to return on the clouds, just like he went, would you be proclaiming Ray a visionary or would you still deny, deNY, DENY...hoping that plausble deniability will save you?"

If magic unicorns showed up in a gumdrop spaceship would you believe in the magic pixies of candyland or would you just deny, deny, deNY, DENY hoping that plausible deniability would get you yummy treats.?

Seriously you use some future act of magic to justify your ridiculous fantasies and then expect us to believe you based on something made up that you say is going to happen.

That is the point just about every atheist on this blog is trying to make. You saying a bunch of magic stuff is going to happen doesn't mean it will. It just means you are gullible enough to believe in old superstitions. Demonstrate the magic stuff and then maybe someone will care.; November 16, 2009 8:40 AM
Ryk said...: Mark W Laine also said:
"Churlish insinuations on your part concernig Ray's education level or intellect is a condemnation of your belief that only a university can confer legitimacy upon Ray's belief system."

No I never said he needed college, or even high school to inform his belief system. In fact I would be skeptical of any college that would inform his belief system. I said he needed a class on basic biology to inform his woeful lack of knowledge on what the theory of evolution states.

Regardless of whether he agrees with the accuracy of what is stated by the TOE. Claiming it doesn't explain something that it does, trivially, at the level of tenth grade biology, is either incredibly ignorant or blatantly dishonest. In this case I say both.; November 16, 2009 8:33 AM
Ryk said...: Mark W Laine said:
"But, you discount the tremendous education given the normal Christian who is listening to the Holy Spirit for counsel. God is a great teacher and gives the normal Christian the ability to confidently stand on his/her understanding of the bible in how we interpret our world."

Shorter: See I gotz eddykashun, magic man tells me stuff.; November 16, 2009 8:26 AM
Ryk said...: Mark W Laine goes on:
"We don't need no stinkin' university to confer legitimacy upon our faith in God and our belief in the Genesis account of the origins. Afterall our teacher is God...seems His credentials are of value in the Christian circles. Only the atheists seem to despise the knowledge God has to offer."

shorter: Dem dere Kolleges is fer dummies, I noes what invisible magic man said in mah old book. Dats nuff eddykashun fer me.; November 16, 2009 8:28 AM
Ryk said...: Arthur asked Steven J:
"Remember that the event takes place during a ritual in the Temple of God. How many demons do you know that would violate the temple by appearing in it?"

I don't know any demons personally, but I imagine any who could, would. Do you have evidence that a demon or Satan ,assuming they existed, could not go into the temple to trick people. It would seem like the best place.; November 16, 2009 6:33 AM
Mumon said...: truth seeker:

The 95% of our DNA in common with chimpanzees & bonobos.; November 16, 2009 7:46 AM
Ryk said...: Robert said:
"I couldn't design anything remotely close to that if my life depended upon it. And you believe that it came from nothing spontaneously. That makes about as much sense as me wanting a rapid"

I hear from many creationists the basic argument that goes. Well I couldna a made it so magic skydaddy musta dunnit wit da magic.

I don't know why this follows. If I know I can't make something why would I assume that some other being, even an invisible magic one could. All that my inability to make something speaks to is my own limitation. It says nothing at all about the origin of the thing.

If it did say anything the most logical inference would be the opposite of the one your making. It would be "Well I can't make this and know one I have ever heard of can make it, so it must be of natural origin and not made by anyone at all."

In the end though "I can't make that" only says what you can't make and provides no information about the origin of anything or the existence of your invisible friend.

Oh and I think you meant Rabid squirrel, although a Rapid one would probably be bad also.; November 16, 2009 6:23 AM
erikloza said...: Henkka,
"I thought this was to increase genetic variety that would in turn improve the species' responsiveness to environmental change and other factors."

What would the evolutionary process want to "improve the species' responsiveness to environmental change and other factors," given that the evolutionary process has no guiding intelligence or purposeful guide, according to atheistic evolution?

Sorry, it should be, "Why would the evolutionary process....."; November 16, 2009 6:02 AM
Mikkala said...: @Carl to Henkka

"By NOT TOLERATED meaning automatic insults, name-calling, and other condescending forms of treatment."

Awww Carl poor boy,

Looks like your feelings were hurt by some less than classy individuals. But let's examine your claims a little more closely, shall we?

I know I know, "true science" that is done exclusively by "true Christians" sets out of confirm all your emotional attatchments and ideas. That's what it's all about right?

That being said, I think you've got your data bacwards and upside down Carl old chap. Let me remind you that basically in every post you write, you finish with no less than a bible verse, intended to condescendingly call any one who doesn't subscribe to your hero story "fool" or, "ignorant" or, "selfish", "evil".

Today's particular post suggests you're a martyr persecuted for his righteousness. Charming as ever Carl.

Listen Carl, perhaps all of your concerns about the conduct of dissenters on this post, could easily be resolved in the mirror?

You can talk to me Carl, I won't call you names, I promise. I'm quite certain that my own words will support themselves with no resort to childish insult, or reference to superior knowledge, or a paper idol.; November 16, 2009 5:19 AM
Bob said...: Ryk said...
Ray blathered:
"He made him and all the animal kingdom as male and female ("Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction."

Uh, yeah it is, and it does. Are you sure you went to high school? This is really basic stuff. Try taking a class or two, SRSLY.
------------------------------
Oh, I get it now, evolution started out as an asexual reproduction system and so now homosexuality is merely one trying to get in touch with one's historical roots. (believe me some crackpot evolutionist will read that and it will then start being taught in our universities and high schools as scientific fact, no joke, that is how their system works just wait and see).; November 16, 2009 5:48 AM
Anna Sethe said...: Robert said...

Hi. A first-time commenter here. I just wanted to ask all the atheists here something. Every time I move one of my fingers, billions upon billions of cells in my body act in perfect unison. Each of those cells is a miniature city, with specific instructions for reproduction, creation of proteins, absorption of nutrients, etc. And you want me to believe that all of that just came together by itself? I couldn't design anything remotely close to that if my life depended upon it. And you believe that it came from nothing spontaneously. That makes about as much sense as me wanting a rapid squirrel tied to my face.

Sorry to break that to you, but I'm afraid you'll have to live with that squirrel.

Or you could try to understand what the hypothesis of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution really say about spontaneously generated structures.; November 16, 2009 5:08 AM
Weemaryanne said...: Hello, Robert,

And you want me to believe that all of that just came together by itself?....

I don't care what you believe. I want you to KNOW.

....I couldn't design anything remotely close to that if my life depended upon it....

Me neither. But human survival doesn't depend on cell biology. It depends upon thinking - that is, using the one advantage we have over all other living things.

....And you believe that it came from nothing spontaneously....

Nope. I believe nothing that cannot be supported by evidence (and even if I did it would be irrelevant). I know what scientists know - namely, that everything came from chemical reactions. You know, the things that atoms do.

....That makes about as much sense as me wanting a rapid squirrel tied to my face.

Either a "rapid" or a "rabid" squirrel-in-the-face would be uncomfortable and potentially dangerous. But since neither is likely to occur I think we can discount the possibility altogether.; November 16, 2009 3:31 AM
captain howdy said...: Hi again, Steven--

To my impromptu challenge of:

Do these signs follow Ray Comfort? Do we actually see Ray Comfort going around picking up poison reptiles? Do we see Ray Comfort going around drinking Drain-O or eating breakfast at Denny's?

you replied:

I see two problems with your challenge. The first is whether these signs are promised to all Christians individually, or just to the church corporately (so that they might not manifest in the lives of all believers). Verse 20 could be taken as indicating that these signs were a special aid to the first generation of believers, especially to the apostles, and are not guaranteed to all believers.

I'm placing heavy emphasis on Jesus's (alleged) choice of words:

"These signs SHALL FOLLOW THEM THAT BELIEVE."

The choice of wording reveals the author's intent. "Shall follow" doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room.

Remember, these words are attributed to Jesus himself. The Christian believer doesn't have a lot of latitude when it comes to the words of Jesus; not if they really believe Jesus is divine. Taken at face value, Jesus seems to be saying that if you are a believer, you will display signs following. Call it a command, prediction, whatever. To me, the text reads as if Jesus is describing a method by which true believership can be determined. There is nothing in the wording I can see that would indicate this was a limited-time offer, some restrictions apply (limit 12). I see no indication of poetic language being used and I rather doubt that this can be some weird aramaic figure of speech. I don't agree with your interpretation of v. 20 at all. To me, the verbiage just indicates that the people he was talking to confirmed His words by going out and preaching the gospel with signs following, thereby obeying Jesus. No limitation is even implied. What I want to know is why they obeyed Jesus but Ray apparently isn't (unless he's displaying these wondrous signs in secret, and how likely is THAT??)

Ray believes enough to toss out 150 years of biology because it doesn't line up with his holy book. So what I wanna know is--Does he believe enough to start running around like Steve Irwin hassling mambas and gargling Clorox? I'm betting the answer is no and I'm calling him on it.

The second is that this passage is almost certainly not part of the original text of Mark.

The validity of this group of verses is under dispute, it is true. But Ray seems to consider it as valid scripture. These points have been raised previously, and Ray hasn't raised this objection. The King James version includes these verses in Mark 16. I don't know which version of the Bible Ray uses, but I'd be willing to bet the verses I referenced are there.

The "take up serpents" passage is surely not a command, but a reference (turned into an ex eventu prediction) to the story in Acts of Paul on Malta, where he is bitten by a snake but suffers no harm from it. Likewise, the "drink any deadly thing" passage probably refers to a legend in which enemies of the faith tried to poison the John the son of Zebedee, but the poison turned into a snake and leaped out of the goblet before he could drink it. Again, I don't think this is a command to Christians to actually drink poison to show their faith.

Wording is everything when you're quoting the Deity. And there's just no hint that any of this is in reference to a specific, isolated event. These signs shall follow them that believe. The Bible is either inerrant--like Ray insists it is--or it isn't. For Ray, the Bible's inerrant enough to throw out 150 years of biology. I want to see if it's inerrant enough for Ray to start kissing cobras. I'm betting it isn't.; November 16, 2009 3:25 AM
Weemaryanne said...: ....How many demons do you know that would violate the temple by appearing in it?

Arthur, are you saying that demons obey rules? I thought the whole point of being a demon was that there are no rules that impose restraints on a demon's behavior!

And if demons can be constrained by rules, why then they're pansies and nothing to be afraid of.

Q.E.D. Also L.O.L.; November 16, 2009 3:21 AM
Alphgeek said...: Robert said:

"Hi. A first-time commenter here. I just wanted to ask all the atheists here something. Every time I move one of my fingers, billions upon billions of cells in my body act in perfect unison. Each of those cells is a miniature city, with specific instructions for reproduction, creation of proteins, absorption of nutrients, etc. And you want me to believe that all of that just came together by itself? I couldn't design anything remotely close to that if my life depended upon it. And you believe that it came from nothing spontaneously. That makes about as much sense as me wanting a rapid squirrel tied to my face."

Wow I'm glad you decided to delurk and tell us all that. You've really cracked it wide open, Robert.

Rabid squirrels. Miniature cities in our bodies. All come together by itself out of nothing spontaneously, just like ebilution says.

Hey, are you sure you couldn't design all that yourself? You sound pretty smart to me.; November 16, 2009 3:10 AM
CharlieDarwin said...: ""culberto said...
Call me a parrot if you will, but I just have to re-iterate- according to you, all Jews are going to hell.""

Careful, Mintz and others are going to claim your just quote mining from Hitler and White Supremacist web sites.; November 16, 2009 2:57 AM
CharlieDarwin said...: Mintz,

This is quite a breakthrough. Are you claiming the Red Queen theory is now a proven fact and all other theories of evolution of two sexes are now null and void, including Darwin's himself?

I have been led to believe by many Evolutionists that this was not settled science, but you appear to declare the arguments over and the Red Queen theory is the winner!; November 16, 2009 2:26 AM
CharlieDarwin said...: It would seem that sexual reproduction pretty much cancels the idea that evolution is anything but a crap shoot. You could have the best shiny new gene for whatever upgrade you planned on your next model and having two sexes only gives you a 50% chance of passing on the upgrade.; November 16, 2009 2:31 AM
Neil Smith said...: culberto said...
Call me a parrot if you will, but I just have to re-iterate- according to you, all Jews are going to hell. Jewish people do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. There is simply no way that you can avoid this truth.

Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to for a second there."

Hi culberto

Did Ray say that?

He did however quote this scripture:

"He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life..."(1 John 5:12-13).

Here is a further scripture from the Bible that make it clear:

"For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:17-18

God Bless.
Neil.; November 16, 2009 1:25 AM
Raoul Rheits said...: Robert:

"I couldn't design anything remotely close to that if my life depended upon it.

Exactly, and that's one reason (regardless of the evidence)why gradual evolution via selection makes infinitely more sense than some kind of designer'.

"And you believe that it came from nothing spontaneously. That makes about as much sense as me wanting a rapid squirrel tied to my face."

Well, I don't believe that at all, but don't let facts spoil your squirrel/face interface experience.

You also seem to be confusing 'atheist' with 'people that believe in evolution'. You are also confusing 'evolution' with 'abiogenesis'.

But hey, what's new in the world of 'magical man got to have did did it' Creationisnm?; November 16, 2009 1:51 AM
Hope to (Heaven) said...: Outlaw girl …
@

So let me get this straight....

Jesus (alias Yahweh) created the heavens and the earth and all the living things, he caused the Biblical flood
Hope to : Because the imagination of the people are constantly wicked .
, confused mankind's language at the tower of Babel
( So that the people will not be crush by their own tower . ( they do not have the technology to do that yet . )
and killed all the first born sons of the Egyptions
( because the Egyptian . Kill the first male of Israel . )
. Then he came down to earth,
( He left the glory of heaven )
in the form of a man,
( Jesus christ )
then destroied this form in order to make a sacrifice to himself
( Jesus : a judge at the same time a father nonetheless )
to forgive us for the sins he created but ONLY for people who believe he was the son of God
( Wrong way to put it . Only for the people who want to : God never force anyone )
- only he wasn't the son of God but God Himself. So when people believe in Jesus Jesus puts himself into the person and this protects them from Hell
- ( sorry from sin too . Those who Truly believe no longer live in Sin . )
-
- (but not from sin) and teaches you that evolution is a lie
- ( Macro Evolution only ) ( micro evolution – yes . Proof act 17 . He made one blood of all nation . Black white , yellow . Etc … )
-
- because there are no crocoducks.
- (Yes that is right

Is that right?
( you are right !! ); November 16, 2009 12:44 AM
kanga4ca said...: Robert said;

"That makes about as much sense as me wanting a rapid squirrel tied to my face."

Funniest. Line. Ever.

Thanks for getting this long-time lurker to post; November 15, 2009 10:06 PM
Kharnivore said...: Robert said:

"And you want me to believe that all of that just came together by itself? I couldn't design anything remotely close to that if my life depended upon it.

Snowflakes must blow your freaking mind.; November 15, 2009 11:01 PM
Me said...: Robert, you've heard of the argument from design, right?

Google it, and observe how often your line of reasoning has been shown to be spurious.; November 15, 2009 9:58 PM
Steven J. said...: Mark W Laine replied to Iago:

I have a friend, with whom I work, whose forehead juts out in a manner that is quite pronounced. Include the fact that as you age your facial features grow ever more pronounced.

Neanderthals were sure enough descendents from Adam and Eve (as were you) and you want to use these dearly departed as some type of evidence for your evolutionist faith/dogma.

There are juvenile neanderthal fossils; they looked distinctively different from Homo sapiens even as infants, though oddly their faces started smaller than ours and simply developed to large size (with protruding brow ridges) as they grew.

Mark W Laine replied to me:

Steven J. I doubt your sanity, in the here and now, at thumbing your nose at the God of this universe.

I'm sorry to hear that. I'd be hard-pressed to come up with five billion people on this planet whose opinion I valued more highly than I do yours.

But, for the sake of examining your assertion concerning whom Ray might think is nuts wouldn't it be better to collect evidentiary fact by asking Ray or examining the body of his work to see if he really feels that way about Copernicus or Galileo who lived five centuries ago.

No, I don't think that would be better. My whole point is that Ray's interpretation of the Bible is very selectively literal: the Old Testament, at least, is no less consistent or clear in affirming a flat Earth surmounted by the solid dome of the sky than it is in affirming a young Earth rather than a 4.55 billion year old one, or special creation rather than common descent. Ray happens, now, to accept that Galileo was right, but his mockery of science and his rejection of the value of evidence and human reason where these contradict the dogma he's accepted lead me to suppose that if he'd lived in Galileo's time, he would have rejected Galileo's ideas as clearly unbiblical.; November 15, 2009 9:36 PM
Steven J. said...: Buckyball replied to me:

Interesting. So what is the basis for that morality? Is it based on chemicals, or something else?

You asked if evolution and morality could coexist. Morality is based in human nature (what sense would, e.g. a prohibition against adultery make, if human sexuality were more like those of aphids?). The justification for morality is our own sense of sympathy and a desire to live in a functional society. It doesn't particularly matter to this point what underlying mechanisms account for human nature, whether it's chemicals or electrical impulses or a "ghost in the machine."

You did not ask, could morality evolve (though the fact that monkeys and nonhuman apes can make judgments based on fairness or cooperate with kin or allies suggests strongly that it can), or what exact genes it depends on or how the brain makes moral evaluations.

Also, do you think that morality has its own evolutionary timeline? If so, where is that leading the human race? What are the indicators that progress is being made in terms of moral evolution?

Evolutionary theory need not imply that the human moral sense is evolving fast enough for us to notice the change in historical times (though it may be, in subtle ways). Evolutionary theory does not imply the inevitability of "progress" in any sense. On the other hand, the percentage of individuals killed in person-on-person violence (whether private homicides or wars) seems to have declined gradually over the past thousand years, notwithstanding a couple of world wars and the Holocaust. On a per capita basis, modern civilization is much less violent than life in historical hunter-gatherer societies.; November 15, 2009 9:35 PM
Steven J. said...: Arthur replied to me:

Regarding whether Zacharias was justified in doubting that the angel he saw was really an angel and really spoke for God:

Remember that the event takes place during a ritual in the Temple of God. How many demons do you know that would violate the temple by appearing in it?

To the best of my knowledge, I don't know any demons, so the answer would be [a] zero and [b] unrevealing. I suppose if demons existed and had the motives classically attributed to them by Christian writings, they'd violate the Holy of Holies if they were able to do it. Would God prevent them from doing so? I'm not sure the Bible gives guidance. Certainly, from time to time, impious or unauthorized men managed to penetrate the holy precincts, from Uzziah trying to officiate as high priest to Athaliah seeking refuge in the temple. Perhaps God would permit a demon to enter the temple until the priests expelled it.

In any case, presumably even a pious priest might hallucinate inside the temple, though interrogating one's own hallucination raises interesting epistemological questions.; November 15, 2009 9:35 PM
HaleS.91 said...: ROBERT SAID:
"Hi. A first-time commenter here. I just wanted to ask all the atheists here something. Every time I move one of my fingers, billions upon billions of cells in my body act in perfect unison. Each of those cells is a miniature city, with specific instructions for reproduction, creation of proteins, absorption of nutrients, etc. And you want me to believe that all of that just came together by itself? I couldn't design anything remotely close to that if my life depended upon it. And you believe that it came from nothing spontaneously. That makes about as much sense as me wanting a rapid squirrel tied to my face."

I have a question for you, Robert. You wonder how it can be possible for such a complex organism to occur without an intelligent design, and happen by itself. I have to ask you, what's stopping it? Why wouldn't it be able to happen on its own?

Look at this on a wide scale. We're talking billions of years since the big bang, with a near infinite amount of particles floating about an expansion of the universe. With the laws of mechanical, electrical, and magnetic physics, and many other factors, bound something was going to happen. Many things could have happened. It was all a matter of circumstance, of cause and effect. It just so happens that we are the overall effect so far. So how is the fact that we are so complex any factor on this?

Of course you can't design anything as complex as us. It's understandable that one man can't create something in 80 or so years that evolution happened to manifest over millions. I could scribble across a large piece of paper for 10 hours randomly. You would be hard pressed to draw an exact duplicate of that picture in 5 minutes.

You don't even have to understand evolution fully to figure this out. I'm not even necessarily an evolutionist. You just have to think of this from a rational philosophical viewpoint. Try, please try, to apply some logical thought to this rather than jumping to oversimplifications.; November 15, 2009 9:28 PM
Steven J. said...: Robert said:

Robert said...
Hi. A first-time commenter here. I just wanted to ask all the atheists here something. Every time I move one of my fingers, billions upon billions of cells in my body act in perfect unison.

It would be much weirder if they all scooted off in different directions, considering that they're attached to one another.

Each of those cells is a miniature city, with specific instructions for reproduction, creation of proteins, absorption of nutrients, etc. And you want me to believe that all of that just came together by itself?

Of course not. Those trillions of cells didn't come together: they were produced when a single original cell split, over and over again, and the resultant cells differentiated from one another. All this happens, so far as can be determined, through purely physical processes, involving chemical signals and chemical reactions, not any sort of constant intelligent tinkering.

The particular patterns of signals and interactions were shaped by billions of generations of reproduction, mutation, and the survival of a handful of mutants while the vast majority of mutants failed to survive. Natural selection is a process for massive testing in parallel and the accumulation of beneficial traits. It does not involve species just "coming together" from nothing in one fell swoop.

I couldn't design anything remotely close to that if my life depended upon it. And you believe that it came from nothing spontaneously.

Ardipithecus was not nothing. Its distant monkey ancestors were not nothing. The basal chordates of the late Precambrian were not nothing. Even the undersea vents where life is thought to have first formed were not nothing; even the dust and gas from which the solar system congealed was not nothing. It's not clear whether there ever was nothing, but certainly evolution makes no claims about things coming from "nothing" spontaneously.

That makes about as much sense as me wanting a rapid squirrel tied to my face.

I think you mean "rabid squirrel," though I'm not clear on why you would want either tied to your face.; November 15, 2009 9:05 PM
Steven J. said...: Buckyball replied to me:

Hmmm. Well, what branch of the evolutionary tree do you think produced such a creature as found in Song of Songs 4:3-5?

Haplorrhine primates, hominoid superfamily. The passage is clearly using similes, not even metaphors: "thy lips are like a thread of scarlet," not "they lips are a thread of scarlet."

Also, do you think when Jesus said "you are the salt of the earth" that he was actually referring to the chemical composition of his listeners?

You seem to be changing the subject. Certainly there is figurative language in the Bible. There are even metaphors, and passages (e.g. Jesus' reference, in John 6:53, to eating his flesh and drinking his blood, where different Christian sects differ on whether he's being figurative, referring to incorporating his teachings, or literal, referring to transubstantiation during communion).

And there is language which hardly anyone thinks is figurative, and language which you, at least, will hardly acknowledge to be figurative. As far back as the fourth century, there were theologians (such as Augustine of Hippo) who thought that the "days of creation" were figurative rather than literal; do you think that the creation accounts in Genesis are metaphorical? They no more fit modern geology, paleontology, comparative anatomy and genomics, etc. than a domed sky with windows in it fits modern meteorology?

As for how to distinguish between them, perhaps there is no foolproof criterion (which rather raises the question of why God couldn't make Himself clearer). But we have records of how the middle eastern cultures in biblical times thought about geography, biology, astronomy, etc. Many of these cultures thought that the Earth was a flat disk surmounted by the solid dome of the sky (including bible-believing Jews of the first centuries BC and AD). Many thought that the eyes literally emitted light, like a lantern. None, so far as I know, thought that teeth were really sheep or that people were normally made of salt. So passages that speak of the sky as a solid dome are more likely to be meant literally than those that speak of a girl's neck as a masonry tower.

Speaking of chemical composition, do you think morality is nothing more than just chemical reactions or related to DNA? Do you think there has been a worldwide moral evolution in any way? What evidence do you have to support your position?

I see no reason to posit a nonphysical entity that occupies our bodies and does our thinking, emoting, and moral decision-making for us, if that's what you mean. I'm not sure what you mean by "worldwide moral evolution." Ethologists have observed indications that nonhuman primates have a rudimentary sense of fair play and cooperation. I don't see any absurdity in supposing that a moral sense is an evolved feature of human beings.; November 15, 2009 9:04 PM
Carl (no, the other one) said...: Robert said...

Every time I move one of my fingers, billions upon billions of cells in my body act in perfect unison. [...] And you want me to believe that all of that just came together by itself? I couldn't design anything remotely close to that if my life depended upon it. And you believe that it came from nothing spontaneously.

Hi Robert.

Let's get down to the business of exposing your logic fallacies.

1) Argument from Personal Incredulity - just because you personally don't understand something does not make it supernatural. It's that type of stupid thinking which leads to virgins thrown into volcanoes.

2) Nobody claims (other than those who don't know what they are talking about) that the human body came from "nothing", nor "by itself" and certainly not "spontaneously". This claim amounts to a logic fallacy known as the Strawman Argument.

There is nothing to stop you learning about Evolution Theory (which is agnostic - not atheistic) but you won't learn anything reading Ray Comfort.; November 15, 2009 8:57 PM
Carl (no, the other one) said...: Buckyball said...

In regards to eclipses, it's interesting that God told the Israelites not to worry about them (Jeremiah 10:1-2).

To be accurate here, Jeremiah - claiming to speak for Yahweh - said don't fear signs in the Heavens.; November 15, 2009 8:44 PM
Carl (no, the other one) said...: truth seeker said...

hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation.

Okay.

that means there's less evidence than a theory would have to back it up.

Half mark. A hypothesis and theory can have almost identical evidence. A theory has been successfully tested and applied.

in fact, theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth but isn't a proven truth or law.

Oh, and a spectacular stumble at the last hurdle. Theories don't become laws. Laws don't outrank theories (for example, General Relativity outranks Laws of Motion in terms of accuracy).

A theory can be wrong (hypothetically) so therefor can't be "proven truth". Instead of "proven" why not say "provisional"?; November 15, 2009 8:39 PM
Ray Comfort said...: "John Tucker said... Ray,

I recently had a brief discussion with a Christian on Facebook who believes in theistic evolution. With your permission, I would like to copy and paste this blog entry as a note at my FB account (I will give you full credit). Please let me know if you're ok with this.

Thanks,
John"

John...Of course :); November 16, 2009 10:09 AM
James B. said...: Terry,

Please friend when answering non-believers or anyone, answer in kindness and speak respectfully.
I saw a remark made in a reply to Weemaryanne that was unneeded.

You are in a public forum where you are representing Chrisitans, uncouth language or language that with that appearance should be refrained from use.

Thank you,
James B.; November 16, 2009 11:01 AM
Steven J. said...: CharlieDarwin said:

It would seem that sexual reproduction pretty much cancels the idea that evolution is anything but a crap shoot. You could have the best shiny new gene for whatever upgrade you planned on your next model and having two sexes only gives you a 50% chance of passing on the upgrade.

With rare exceptions (a mutation that confers immunity to a common, deadly or sterilizing disease or resistance to a widespread poison), having the upgrade isn't going to guarantee your survival, and lacking it isn't going to guarantee that you die without offspring. Mathematical models of natural selection often assume that a beneficial mutation makes the mutant one percent more likely than an individual without that allele to survive and leave descendants.

Note that casinos rarely go bankrupt, despite having only a slightly better chance of winning a game of chance than the patrons betting against the house do. Small margins of advantage can add up over time: casinos get rich, and beneficial traits spread slowly through the population and accumulate.

Sexual reproduction gives you only a 50% chance of passing on any beneficial trait you have to any offspring (note that most species produce a lot of offspring: think of sea turtles laying their dozens of eggs in a nest, or insects with their hundreds or thousands of eggs). On the other hand, it gives each offspring that same 50% chance of inheriting any beneficial traits from the other parent, and thus a 25% chance that two beneficial traits will combine, enabling beneficial traits to accumulate faster.; November 16, 2009 10:51 AM
Steven J. said...: Erikloza replied to Henkka:

"I thought this was to increase genetic variety that would in turn improve the species' responsiveness to environmental change and other factors."

What would the evolutionary process want to "improve the species' responsiveness to environmental change and other factors," given that the evolutionary process has no guiding intelligence or purposeful guide, according to atheistic evolution?

Sorry, it should be, "Why would the evolutionary process....."

Why would bacteria want to evolve antibiotic resistance, given that bacteria hardly seem to have the cognitive or emotional prowess to want anything at all? They don't want to, of course; it's just that certain mutations give the mutants the ability to survive and thrive when the environment includes lots of antibiotics, and these variants replace antibiotic-vulnerable types.

Evolution doesn't have to want anything. If sexually-reproducing single-celled organisms leave more descendants (because when conditions change, some of their descendants will have mixtures of traits that enable them to survive, whereas genetically-uniform asexual reproducers will be uniformly wiped out), the ability to reproduce sexually will spread, with no one actually thinking about it or wanting it.; November 16, 2009 10:51 AM
OutlawGirl said...: Robert wrote: Hi. A first-time commenter here. I just wanted to ask all the atheists here something. Every time I move one of my fingers, billions upon billions of cells in my body act in perfect unison. Each of those cells is a miniature city, with specific instructions for reproduction, creation of proteins, absorption of nutrients, etc. And you want me to believe that all of that just came together by itself? I couldn't design anything remotely close to that if my life depended upon it. And you believe that it came from nothing spontaneously. That makes about as much sense as me wanting a rapid squirrel tied to my face.

That's a good question! Richard Dawkins addresses it in The Greatest Show on Earth.; November 16, 2009 10:49 AM
Starbuck said...: Robert said...
Hi Ray. I'm 17, a new convert (praise God), and I want to witness at my high school. The problem is that I have no idea how to do it right and I'm nervous. Do you have any advice or recommendations? Thanks. :)

Study the Bible. Study it a lot. Everyday. And grow some thick skin. As you can see how people on here talk about Christians, you are going to need it.; November 16, 2009 10:44 AM
OutlawGirl said...: CharlieDarwin wrote: It would seem that sexual reproduction pretty much cancels the idea that evolution is anything but a crap shoot. You could have the best shiny new gene for whatever upgrade you planned on your next model and having two sexes only gives you a 50% chance of passing on the upgrade.

If a gene was that wildly successful the individual with that gene would obviously produce more than one offspring and the offspring with that gene would survive to reproduce further.

*facepalm* Honestly, I... I just don't know what to do with you creationists.; November 16, 2009 10:46 AM
Mintz said...: Charlie Darwin said to me:

Mintz,

This is quite a breakthrough. Are you claiming the Red Queen theory is now a proven fact and all other theories of evolution of two sexes are now null and void, including Darwin's himself?

I have been led to believe by many Evolutionists that this was not settled science, but you appear to declare the arguments over and the Red Queen theory is the winner!

Nice try but I think you'll find if you re-read my post again that I gave two different hypotheses with the clauses joined by OR. I recommended "The Red Queen" as a book to read on the subject of the evolution of sexual reproduction because it is a readable popular science book on the subject of the evolution of sexual reproduction. As well as the Red Queen hypothesis it is a reasonable introduction to competing hypotheses. Have you read it?

Regards

Mintz

BTW - I thought someone said you were a Poe. Are you?; November 16, 2009 10:43 AM
Ryan Anderson said...: Ray; it feels good when someone give you full credit for something you wrote or said, no?; November 16, 2009 10:15 AM
John Tucker said...: "John Tucker said... Ray,

I recently had a brief discussion with a Christian on Facebook who believes in theistic evolution. With your permission, I would like to copy and paste this blog entry as a note at my FB account (I will give you full credit). Please let me know if you're ok with this.

Thanks,
John"

"Ray said... John...Of course :)"

Thanks, Ray!; November 16, 2009 10:30 AM
Arthur said...: Weemaryanne said: ....How many demons do you know that would violate the temple by appearing in it?

Arthur, are you saying that demons obey rules? I thought the whole point of being a demon was that there are no rules that impose restraints on a demon's behavior!

And if demons can be constrained by rules, why then they're pansies and nothing to be afraid of.

Q.E.D. Also L.O.L.

I suggest you read the first few chapters of Job for starters. And then all those times that God punished people in regards to teh ark of the covenant and offering profane fire. Then also consider what Jesus did when he got to the courtyard and saw the money changers.

Do you think God took His Temple seriously. Yep. Do you think that He would take it seriously if Satan and/or his demons tried to enter it? Yep.; November 16, 2009 2:38 PM
Joshua Jung said...: Regarding your link, the entire point of that article is off.

All it takes is one point in all of history where sex had a single advantage over asexual reproduction for it to evolve and be retained.

Today you can find animals that can reproduce both sexually and asexually and they are called heterogamous (heterogamy).

So, let's posit an environment where sexual reproduction enforces social cohesion (because the animals have to get along to some extent or else they do not get sex and reproduce) and socially cohesive animal groups are more likely to survive because of strength in numbers.

Let's also posit that at some point a species was heterogamous. The creatures that were more likely to reproduce sexually out-survived their asexually reproducing peers because of strength in numbers. Over time, the ability to reproduce asexually was lost.

Tada! The evolution of sex.

That wasn't that hard, I must have done something wrong...; November 16, 2009 2:56 PM
CharlieDarwin said...: Outlawgirl:
""facepalm* Honestly, I... I just don't know what to do with you creationists.""

What makes you think I am a creationist? Is it because I deny the Thy Father, Darwin and am a non-believer of his faith.

That I have asked for proof of the miracle called Darwinian evolution, so that I may believe....

I have asked for more then Tangled Banks and Red Queens and Primordial Soups?...

I am more a heretic then a creationist,... to your faith.; November 16, 2009 12:59 PM
CharlieDarwin said...: Mintz says
""I recommended "The Red Queen" as a book to read on the subject of the evolution of sexual reproduction because it is a readable popular science book on the subject of the evolution of sexual reproduction.""

But the Red Queen as I understand it is a hypothesis and not a scientific fact. Many Atheists here have been insisting they have already explained the solution of separate sexes, but now you are claiming you only have a hypothesis available and not an actual fact based science.

It is kind of weird the the 'science' of evolution has so many made up hypothesis with funny names.

So which funny named hypothesis is the real genuine explanation of the facts.; November 16, 2009 12:48 PM
CharlieDarwin said...: Outlawgirl:If a gene was that wildly successful the individual with that gene would obviously produce more than one offspring and the offspring with that gene would survive to reproduce further."

The problem is that the offspring wouldn't have the gene, and with sexual reproduction the number of offspring are also reduced thus further reducing the odds of passing anything of value on.

Outlawgirl, me thinks Darwin might have been right about you girls...sorry.; November 16, 2009 12:37 PM
Iago said...: Robert, go and read Terry, Starbuck,Mark W. laine, Bob, JD Curtis,Buckyball and of course Ray.
Read what they say, see what absolute blithering whackaloons they are,and then do just the opposite.; November 16, 2009 12:13 PM
erikloza said...: Steven J.,
"it's just that certain mutations give the mutants the ability to survive and thrive when the environment includes lots of antibiotics, and these variants replace antibiotic-vulnerable types."

Do you qualify this as an accident in the big picture of the universe's history?; November 16, 2009 11:57 AM
Bob said...: Weemaryanne said...
... I believe nothing that cannot be supported by evidence (and even if I did it would be irrelevant). I know what scientists know - namely, that everything came from chemical reactions. You know, the things that atoms do.
--------------------------------
So you don't believe in "laws of logic", the "basic reliability of our senses" or "objective morals"?

If you truly believe that everything came from chemical reactions reality could not make sense.
If evolution were true, there would be no rational reason to even believe it because an evolutionists brain is merely the result of millions of years of random chance processes and the brain would just be a collection of chemical reactions, preserved because they had some sort of survival value in the past.
If evolution were true then evolutionists thoughts are simply the necessary result of chemical reactions over time and therefore the evolutionist must think and say that evolution is "true", not because it is rational, but because that would be the necessary consequence of blind chemistry.

But do we not have the ability to make choices, the freedom to consider options and choose the best?; November 16, 2009 12:03 PM
GermanMike said...: If a notorious liar tells you that he always lies, can you trust him?; November 16, 2009 11:40 AM
Starbuck said...: Iago said...
Mark W. Laine, always good to see and idiot, or Creationist ( same thing in my book) voice an opinion hear. It made me chuckle. And made me recall that you havd mentioned a long time ago a wrestler that was a neaderthal, any luck with who that was BTW ?
Anyway go and look up neanderthal genome sequencing. Interesting read.

So, a Christian who adheres to the Bible is an idiot in your understanding? So if a person believes in evolution, then they are a smart person?

Is that what you are saying Iago?

Is that how it goes with you?

If that is true, why do you try to talk to Ray? After all he is an idiot, according to you.

Ummm.. Where does that leave you Iago?

There are scientists that beleive in God and creation.. oh wait, you would label them an idiot and then marginalize them, disrespect them and ridicule them.

Yea.. You have no right to call anyone a liar. You are intellectually dishonest. What's worse, you are a liar.

Please people.. if Iago says something on here, please remember that he is just a liar and don't take what he says at face value. Investigate what he says if you care about what he says.; November 16, 2009 11:49 AM
Starbuck said...: OutlawGirl said...
CharlieDarwin wrote: It would seem that sexual reproduction pretty much cancels the idea that evolution is anything but a crap shoot. You could have the best shiny new gene for whatever upgrade you planned on your next model and having two sexes only gives you a 50% chance of passing on the upgrade.

If a gene was that wildly successful the individual with that gene would obviously produce more than one offspring and the offspring with that gene would survive to reproduce further.

*facepalm* Honestly, I... I just don't know what to do with you creationists.

That would be nice, but mutations seem to be horribly harmful. Has any benificial mutations been recorded? One that was actually passed down generation to generation? After all evolutionists have had 150 years to try to capture it.

I'm just curious..; November 16, 2009 11:39 AM
Joshua Jung said...: "You are in a public forum where you are representing Chrisitans, uncouth language or language that with that appearance should be refrained from use."

If morality is absolute, there should not be a different standard for Christians.

However, the very fact that segregation of morality based on social group has taken place reveals that the author of this comment understands that morality is relative to the social group to which one adheres.

And if morality is relative... then, well... you know.; November 16, 2009 11:25 AM
Starbuck said...: Ryk said...
Mark W Laine said:
"But, you discount the tremendous education given the normal Christian who is listening to the Holy Spirit for counsel. God is a great teacher and gives the normal Christian the ability to confidently stand on his/her understanding of the bible in how we interpret our world."

Shorter: See I gotz eddykashun, magic man tells me stuff.

So if I believe in what you call magic man, and who I call God The Father, God The Son, and God the Holy Spirit, then I am an uneducated fool?

Is that the point you are trying to make?; November 16, 2009 11:36 AM
captain howdy said...: @Robert--

You said:

Hi. A first-time commenter here. I just wanted to ask all the atheists here something. Every time I move one of my fingers, billions upon billions of cells in my body act in perfect unison. Each of those cells is a miniature city, with specific instructions for reproduction, creation of proteins, absorption of nutrients, etc. And you want me to believe that all of that just came together by itself? I couldn't design anything remotely close to that if my life depended upon it. And you believe that it came from nothing spontaneously. That makes about as much sense as me wanting a rapid squirrel tied to my face.

Ouch. Rough way to make an intro, Robert.

Hi. I'm Captain Howdy, one of Ray's more persistent and venomous atheist hecklers. Welcome aboard. I see a lot of the heathens 'round here have introduced themselves to you already, and some of them rather rudely.

I feel compelled to point out that if you're a Christian and your comment is typical of how articulate you are, I'm probably going to be kind of mean to you. Just so you know. But I also tell you this to reassure you that it's all in good fun, really. I have no problems with people being Christians, as long as they keep their religion out of the public school science curricula and out of other peoples' private lives. Otherwise, believe away. Just be more careful with your choice of words, if you don't want to get razzed.; November 16, 2009 11:07 AM
Steven J. said...: Steve replied to me:

A quick point of call --the sky really does have windows-- odd, I know, but absolutely true.

A quick search of Google shows several hits for "sky windows" but none referring to actual windows in the actual sky. Could you elaborate?; November 16, 2009 11:13 AM
Joshua Jung said...: "more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction."

Wait... if you agree with this, then you are admitting God is a bad designer, because he used a "costly and inefficient" system - the very epitome of bad design.

If you don't agree with it... why are you using it to make your point?

Why not just admit you don't understand that which you make confident assertions about?; November 16, 2009 11:16 AM
OutlawGirl said...: CharlieDarwin wrote: The problem is that the offspring wouldn't have the gene, and with sexual reproduction the number of offspring are also reduced thus further reducing the odds of passing anything of value on.

You must be a poe. Please explain how sexual reproduction reduces the number of offspring an animal can have. While you're at it, explain how none of the individuals in a clutch of 100 sea turtle eggs could manage to be born with a gene which each one of them had a 1 in 2 chance of inheriting.

Outlawgirl, me thinks Darwin might have been right about you girls...sorry.

So you agree with Darwin that women are inferior to men. It's nice to know where your view on gender equality, but your opinion on this matter doesn't mean any more to me than Darwin's does. Just be glad you're not a praying mantis or an angler fish.; November 16, 2009 6:38 PM
Bob said...: Iago said...
Robert, go and read Terry, Starbuck,Mark W. laine, Bob, JD Curtis,Buckyball and of course Ray.
Read what they say, see what absolute blithering whackaloons they are,and then do just the opposite.
--------------------------------
Robert, As you can see by the way Iago resorts to name calling that he really doesn't rely on evidence to support his claims. He is kinda entertaining though. As for a resource for witnessing there are a great number of websites that offer excellent information such as Living waters, Answers in Genesis,etc.. and for some excellent expository preaching check out focal point radio ministries with Dr. Mike Fabarez.
Don't let these atheists fool you with their twisted beliefs, just be like the Bereans in Acts 17:11 and if the nonsense that evolutionists try to pass off as "scientific fact" doesn't line up with Scripture you will know that it is false, actually, it becomes pretty easy to spot rather quickly.; November 16, 2009 6:38 PM
Weemaryanne said...: Starbuck pretends to want to know:

...Has any benificial mutations been recorded? One that was actually passed down generation to generation?....

Excuse me while I FACEPALM.

Sigh.

Well, let's see now. There's the series of mutations and subsequent adaptations that enabled us to balance our upper bodies on a small point created by the intersection of our spine and hips. These mutations made it possible for us to walk upright, thereby freeing our upper limbs to do all the interesting, useful, delightful things they do and which I will forbear to list here for lack of space.

Related to this is the mutation(s) that made our feet arched rather than flat, therefore better for running.

And remember, much depends on what you consider "beneficial." Consider the mutation - recently traced back to about 10,000 years ago - that gave blue eyes to a small minority of us. This was one of the things which make it possible for a few female babies to grow up to be Swedish models. I only mention this one because I'm given to understand that Swedish models are a cause for some small celebration in certain quarters.

Similarly, there's the mutation that gives red hair to some of us. Not necessarily beneficial to its possessor, true; but come on now, fellas, admit it: Who among you wouldn't be pleased as punch to walk down the street with a redheaded gal on your arm? Huh? Huh?; November 16, 2009 6:29 PM
Steven J. said...: Erikloza replied to me:

Do you qualify this as an accident in the big picture of the universe's history?

Are you capable of actual thought, or do you just regurgitate half-comprehended slogans and catch phrases?

What do you mean by "accident?" That I might not have been here? That my existence was not preordained and planned. So far as I can see, that would be the case even without taking evolution into account.

A hundred happenstances might have prevented my parents from ever meeting; ten thousand might have prevented me from ever being born once they had. Any single human being is fantastically unlikely, a one in a hundred million chance even granting his parents actually meet. You don't need evolutionary theory to make your own existence an astonishingly unlikely lottery win.; November 16, 2009 6:31 PM
OutlawGirl said...: CharlieDarwin wrote: What makes you think I am a creationist? Is it because I deny the Thy Father, Darwin and am a non-believer of his faith.

That right there. That is why I think you are a creationist. Only a creationist would actually believe that atheists worship Darwin as a god.

I am more a heretic then a creationist... to your faith.

Explain how you are a heretic to my "faith."; November 16, 2009 6:24 PM
photosynthesis said...: CharlieDarwin,

I would suspect you are a Poe if it weren't for some clues in previous threads that make you "believable" as belonging to the list of idiot creationists (again, not all creationists are idiots, but you sure are).

Outlawgirl:If a gene was that wildly successful the individual with that gene would obviously produce more than one offspring and the offspring with that gene would survive to reproduce further."

The idiot posing by the name of CharlieDarwin:
The problem is that the offspring wouldn't have the gene, and with sexual reproduction the number of offspring are also reduced thus further reducing the odds of passing anything of value on.

Dear idiot, what part of "50% chance of passing on the upgrade" that you wrote did you not understand? If you have enough offspring (as most organisms do), the chances that at least some of the offspring will have the upgrade are quite high. Add to that better survival, and while the ones missing the "upgrade" fail, the number of organisms with the upgrade increases, until the upgrade is widely spread over the generations. This is elementary arithmetic.

Outlawgirl, me thinks Darwin might have been right about you girls...sorry.

And your utter idiocy shows once again, now mixed with unashamed misogyny.

I explained to you how Darwin was talking about average tendencies of each gender, and that he talked about advantages in women and disadvantages in males too, all as he could have perceived those features by his time. I also explained to you how by the tactics of quote-mining, we might as well claim that Darwin thought less of males rather than of females.

That you refuse to learn from your mistakes tells a lot about how much you cherish your beliefs. So little that you cannot be even a bit honest. Is it like that CD? God vanishes as soon as you start learning something? As soon as you notice that you are idiotically wrong?

G.E.; November 16, 2009 6:12 PM
Mintz said...: Starbuck said:

That would be nice, but mutations seem to be horribly harmful. Has any benificial mutations been recorded? One that was actually passed down generation to generation? After all evolutionists have had 150 years to try to capture it.

I'm just curious..

If you are genuinely curious I suggest you put "examples of beneficial mutations" into Google. I also suggest you Google for "8th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism" and watch the video.

I'm afraid your understanding of the term mutation appears to come from "B" movies or comic books. It has little to do with children born without legs or whatever. A mutation is simply a genetic sequence that was not copied from one generation to the next 100% correctly. Mutations may be harmless, some do not even change the resultant amino-acids produced, and some are deadly and often mean the foetus does not reach full term. So many harmful mutations are filtered out before birth. As we are both humans we both carry somewhere between 100 and 200 mutations that our parents did not possess. There are lots of types of mutation, the simplest being a point mutation where one single nucleotide is incorrectly copied and substituted with another. There are also deletion mutations and mutations where whole sections of DNA become duplicated or reversed. Beneficial mutations arising through evolution have been directly observed in the lab, with perhaps the most notable being Lenski's repeatable experiments with E.coli.

In humans it has been discovered that a mutation (CCR5-delta 32) that appears to have arisen in Europe before the 13th century and was able to propagate after the the Black Death (suggesting it offered some protection from bubonic plague). About 10% of people of European ancestry posses this mutation while its incidence is much less in people with non-European ancestry. This mutation confers immunity to AIDS. Is that beneficial enough for you? We also know that tri-chromatic vision arose through a duplication mutation from a di-chromatic ancestor. Do you consider colour vision beneficial? Of course beneficial is all contextual, while the mutated gene responsible for sickle-cell anaemia is detrimental to those who posses a copy from both parents a single copy of the gene confers protection from malaria. Thus on a population level is it beneficial in equatorial Africa, but not beneficial (and potentially harmful) if you live in Northern Europe or North America.

Regards

Mintz; November 16, 2009 6:02 PM
Steve said...: Steven J

Well, there are two kinds of windows in the sky (actual windows in the actual sky) and here's the really odd thing --while neither can be climbed into, they do open corresponding doors on the earth (actual doors on the actual earth) that can most certainly be walked into.

How best to describe these apertures? Whilst I can proffer my own explanation, I think it much more appropriate to point instead to their source (actual, yes Sir) in Deuteronomy 11:26-32 & 30:19-20.

As I say, all very odd indeed, but no less true for it.; November 16, 2009 6:01 PM
Ryk said...: Starbuck asked:
"So if I believe in what you call magic man, and who I call God The Father, God The Son, and God the Holy Spirit, then I am an uneducated fool?"

Pretty much, but what I was actually responding to was Mark W Laines claim that the magic man talks to Christians and gives them a special education better than those "stinkin colleges"

But if you want to quote mine me and claim I said believing in old myths makes you an idiot I am not going to argue. Just remember you said it not me.; November 16, 2009 5:45 PM
Weemaryanne said...: Bob, if you're a SyeTenb sockpuppet then you can urinate off.

If not, then your comment to me is merely stupid rather than criminally annoying:

So you don't believe in "laws of logic", the "basic reliability of our senses" or "objective morals"? (1)

If you truly believe that everything came from chemical reactions reality could not make sense. (2)
If evolution were true, there would be no rational reason to even believe it because an evolutionists brain is merely the result of millions of years of random chance processes and the brain would just be a collection of chemical reactions,(3) preserved because they had some sort of survival value in the past.
If evolution were true then evolutionists thoughts are simply the necessary result of chemical reactions over time and therefore the evolutionist must think and say that evolution is "true", not because it is rational, but because that would be the necessary consequence of blind chemistry.(4)

But do we not have the ability to make choices, the freedom to consider options and choose the best?(5)

(1) All of these are supported by a variety of evidence. I don't need to believe in 'em, because they've been demonstrated to work.

(Unlike your imaginary friend.)

(2) Reality does make sense (to those who bother to study it) and yes, everything comes down to simple chemical reactions.

(3) DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING! Go to the head of the class.

(4) BZZZT. Oh, dear, and you showed some promise, there, for one microsecond. It's blind unthinking chemistry, yes, but that's not what makes us capable of thought and that's not what makes evolution a fact.

You get an F and a teacher's note: "Needs to apply himself more or he'll never amount to anything."

(5) That's BS, you know it, and don't talk to me as if I'm too blanken stupid to know it. It's your version of the atheists are incapable of morality argument and nobody's buying it.

Don't respond to me unless you're prepared to learn something. I do not suffer fools gladly.; November 16, 2009 5:54 PM
CharlieDarwin said...: Good job Joshua Jung. You perfectly described the evolution of sex as all evolutionists...a wonderful story devoid of an science or actual facts.; November 16, 2009 5:16 PM
Buckyball said...: Steven J wrote:

"On the other hand, the percentage of individuals killed in person-on-person violence (whether private homicides or wars) seems to have declined gradually over the past thousand years, notwithstanding a couple of world wars and the Holocaust. On a per capita basis, modern civilization is much less violent than life in historical hunter-gatherer societies."

Do you have statistics for this somewhere? It seems like there was greater mass participation with World War II.

Also, the weapons used became more violent and far more destructive as time went on in that war. Given another year or two, who knows what the V-2 rockets would have been tipped with.

In fact, some of the weapons have now become so destructive that it actually seems to have brought about an almost temporary, if false, sense of peace in certain areas of the world.; November 16, 2009 5:16 PM
truth seeker said...: to CARL(no, the other one)

thanks for your post.

YOU SAID:
Half mark. A hypothesis and theory can have almost identical evidence. A theory has been successfully tested and applied.

I SAY:
it seems like you're using word manipulation. the point is they are not the same and there are zero specimens to test and apply the hypotheses or theories of transitional evolutionary sexual reproduction (or whatever empty label scientists came up with). therefore no evidentiary support exists.

----
YOU SAID:
a)Oh, and a spectacular stumble at the last hurdle. Theories don't become laws.

b)Laws don't outrank theories (for example, General Relativity outranks Laws of Motion in terms of accuracy).

I SAY:
a)did i stumble? i never said theories become laws, you're incorrectly reading between my lines.

b)never said this either. my point was that technically "truth and law" doesn't change or they wouldn't be truth or law. however, hypotheses and theories do change, which is what evolution is and why it isn't even remotely trustworthy.
----
YOU SAID:
a)A theory can be wrong (hypothetically) so therefor can't be "proven truth".

b)Instead of "proven" why not say "provisional"?

I SAY:
a)i know what a "theory" is and that it's not "proven truth". every intelligent design believer's point!!

b)as far as "provisional", or temporary, this holds the same weight as "hypothesis".

which brings us back to my original post, another crisis for evolution theory.; November 16, 2009 5:13 PM
Buckyball said...: Steven J wrote:

"Haplorrhine primates, hominoid superfamily. The passage is clearly using similes, not even metaphors: "thy lips are like a thread of scarlet," not "they lips are a thread of scarlet."

Your "windows" passage made frequent use of the word "like". Wouldn't that make them similes also?

Steven J wrote:

"You seem to be changing the subject. Certainly there is figurative language in the Bible."

Not really. I'm just extending your own logic to see where it goes (referring back to your comments about curtains, windows and tents).

Steven J wrote:

"I see no reason to posit a nonphysical entity that occupies our bodies and does our thinking, emoting, and moral decision-making for us, if that's what you mean."

You didn't answer my question. I asked if you thought that morality is strictly based on chemical reactions and/or DNA. I didn't ask or imply anything about "nonphysical entities", so I'm not sure how you came up with that.

Steven J wrote:

"I'm not sure what you mean by "worldwide moral evolution."

Well, if you assume morality to be strictly chemically based, should there be a sort of "natural selection" effect with the strongest morality (good or bad) succeeding in the long run? In other words, would the "bad" morality (er, chemicals, DNA, etc.) be weeded out over thousands of generations? Shouldn't morality evolve, too, if it is a physical process?; November 16, 2009 5:10 PM
Steven J. said...: Steve replied to me:

Well, there are two kinds of windows in the sky (actual windows in the actual sky) and here's the really odd thing --while neither can be climbed into, they do open corresponding doors on the earth (actual doors on the actual earth) that can most certainly be walked into.

How best to describe these apertures? Whilst I can proffer my own explanation, I think it much more appropriate to point instead to their source (actual, yes Sir) in Deuteronomy 11:26-32 & 30:19-20.

As I say, all very odd indeed, but no less true for it.

What translation are you using? I see references in those passages to choices, and to curses and blessings, but none at all to the sky, and none at all to windows, doors, or floodgates, whether in the sky or on the Earth. You might be speaking figuratively, of course, but metaphorical doors or windows would not be "actual windows in the actual sky" or "actual doors in the actual earth."

Nor, of course, is it clear to me why something would be true merely because it is said in Deuteronomy. So perhaps you should indeed endeavor to explain what you are talking about.; November 16, 2009 7:50 PM
Steven J. said...: Buckyball replied to me:

"On the other hand, the percentage of individuals killed in person-on-person violence (whether private homicides or wars) seems to have declined gradually over the past thousand years, notwithstanding a couple of world wars and the Holocaust. On a per capita basis, modern civilization is much less violent than life in historical hunter-gatherer societies."

Do you have statistics for this somewhere? It seems like there was greater mass participation with World War II.

I do not have such statistics at hand, though I've seen this point made in a couple of places. Stephen Pinker notes the death rates from interpersonal violence in stone-age hunter-gatherer societies today: twenty to sixty percent of all males in such societies were killed by other hunter-gatherers. That's a level of violence not seen in any war in the 20th century, if you average it across entire societies rather than focus on targeted groups.

Or you can look at typical punishments: the Romans crucified thousands of people, many of them for offenses that today would carry only a few years imprisonment. Look at the Assyrians, pulling off cute stunts like flaying thousands of captives alive and using their skins to cover walls, while their heads were stacked in giant piles. World War 2 had greater total numbers: more countries involved with much higher populations, but if you view the slaughter as a percentage of people available to be slaughtered, it was less violent than, say, the Thirty Years War, or the Roman suppression of the Judean Rebellion, etc.

Also, the weapons used became more violent and far more destructive as time went on in that war. Given another year or two, who knows what the V-2 rockets would have been tipped with.

In fact, some of the weapons have now become so destructive that it actually seems to have brought about an almost temporary, if false, sense of peace in certain areas of the world.

Our capabilities for violence are immense, but they do not seem to be used to anything close to their full potential. Of course, there's something disconcerting about the thought that, with modern weapons, we'd only have to get to stone-age levels of enthusiasm for mutual homicide once, and then we'd be back to an actual stone age....; November 16, 2009 7:43 PM
That Guy said...: Magical Window Steve,
Forgive us for not taking your assertions and the rantings of bronze age goat herders as 'proof', but you will have to do better than that. What, specifically, are you referring to as 'windows in the sky' that correspond to 'windows on the earth'? You do know that Stargate Atlantis is fiction, right?; November 16, 2009 7:27 PM
Steven J. said...: Buckyball replied to me:

Your "windows" passage made frequent use of the word "like". Wouldn't that make them similes also?

Looking at those passages again, I see nothing said about anything being "like" windows in the sky; the author simply refers to windows, or floodgates, in the sky or heavens. Those might be metaphors; they are not similes.

You didn't answer my question. I asked if you thought that morality is strictly based on chemical reactions and/or DNA. I didn't ask or imply anything about "nonphysical entities", so I'm not sure how you came up with that.

I thought that I implicitly answered your questions: our brains do our thinking, and our brains are physical entities, operating through the rules of chemistry and physics, built through chemical processes influenced by genes. None of this should imply that our moral decisions are decided purely by internal brain chemistry, with no input from the external world.

Well, if you assume morality to be strictly chemically based, should there be a sort of "natural selection" effect with the strongest morality (good or bad) succeeding in the long run? In other words, would the "bad" morality (er, chemicals, DNA, etc.) be weeded out over thousands of generations? Shouldn't morality evolve, too, if it is a physical process?

Yes, although strictly speaking, what would be evolving would be human brains, and their tendency to learn certain sorts of rules, feel and express certain sorts of tendencies, and make certain sorts of intuitive judgments. Note that "strongest" here would mean "most likely to increase the individual's chance of leaving copies of his genes (whether in his children's bodies, or those of nephews and nieces) in future generations. Morality isn't, itself, a physical thing; it is decisions made and actions taken by physical things.; November 16, 2009 7:42 PM
Alphgeek said...: Bob said:

"Robert, As you can see by the way Iago resorts to name calling that he really doesn't rely on evidence to support his claims. He is kinda entertaining though. As for a resource for witnessing there are a great number of websites that offer excellent information such as Living waters, Answers in Genesis,etc.. and for some excellent expository preaching check out focal point radio ministries with Dr. Mike Fabarez.
Don't let these atheists fool you with their twisted beliefs, just be like the Bereans in Acts 17:11 and if the nonsense that evolutionists try to pass off as "scientific fact" doesn't line up with Scripture you will know that it is false, actually, it becomes pretty easy to spot rather quickly."

Robert, as I mentioned in my long post, evolution and Christianity do not have to be mutually exclusive. It only seems that the literal interpretation of the Bible has a problem with science.

Ironically, Biblical literalists seem to see no problem in interpreting parts of the Bible literally and parts metaphorically.

How do they do this? Does God make clear which parts are literal and which are metaphorical? Or do we rely on our preachers, fallible men that they must be?

I must note at this point that a literalist view of the Bible not only conflicts with evolution, it also conflicts with:

Geology (6,000-10,000 year old Earth vs 4.5 billion year old Earth)

Optics (Rainbows never occurred prior to the Flood)

Genetics (breeding cattle in front of striped poles can affect their offspring)

Medicine (people living for hundreds of years, miracle cures)

Plate techtonics (is the Bible compatible with continents that have physically moved over millions of years?)

Astronomy (if the Universe is only several thousands of years old, how is it that we can see the light from galaxies billions of light years away?)

Cosmology (The Universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old, not 6-10 thousand years old)

Physics (how is it possible for the Sun to stand still in the sky as described in the Bible? Tidal forces would disrupt the orbits of the planets. The energy implied in the Earth's orbit would destroy the Earth if the Earth stopped orbiting the Sun instantaneously)

Geography (The bible describes the Earth as a flat disk, not a globe (more precisely, an oblate spheroid)

Bob seems to be asking you to reject these scientific facts as they also conflict with a literal Bible. How do you feel about that?; November 16, 2009 7:15 PM
captain howdy said...: @Starbuck--

You said:

Please people.. if Iago says something on here, please remember that he is just a liar and don't take what he says at face value. Investigate what he says if you care about what he says.

What lies has Iago told? Just about everything he's said so far has panned out.

I don't care what Starbuck says. I believe you, Iago.; November 16, 2009 7:13 PM
Bob said...: Weemaryanne said...
Bob, if you're a SyeTenb sockpuppet then you can urinate off.

If not, then your comment to me is merely stupid rather than criminally annoying:

So you don't believe in "laws of logic", the "basic reliability of our senses" or "objective morals"? (1)

If you truly believe that everything came from chemical reactions reality could not make sense. (2)
If evolution were true, there would be no rational reason to even believe it because an evolutionists brain is merely the result of millions of years of random chance processes and the brain would just be a collection of chemical reactions,(3) preserved because they had some sort of survival value in the past.
If evolution were true then evolutionists thoughts are simply the necessary result of chemical reactions over time and therefore the evolutionist must think and say that evolution is "true", not because it is rational, but because that would be the necessary consequence of blind chemistry.(4)

But do we not have the ability to make choices, the freedom to consider options and choose the best?(5)

(1) All of these are supported by a variety of evidence. I don't need to believe in 'em, because they've been demonstrated to work.

(Unlike your imaginary friend.)

(2) Reality does make sense (to those who bother to study it) and yes, everything comes down to simple chemical reactions.

(3) DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING! Go to the head of the class.

(4) BZZZT. Oh, dear, and you showed some promise, there, for one microsecond. It's blind unthinking chemistry, yes, but that's not what makes us capable of thought and that's not what makes evolution a fact.

You get an F and a teacher's note: "Needs to apply himself more or he'll never amount to anything."

(5) That's BS, you know it, and don't talk to me as if I'm too blanken stupid to know it. It's your version of the atheists are incapable of morality argument and nobody's buying it.

Don't respond to me unless you're prepared to learn something. I do not suffer fools gladly.
--------------------------------
All of your responses were mere arbitrary opinions with no evidence to support, merely responses based on your presuppositions that evolution is true, and the name calling I must admit only contributes to expose your obvious inability to provide proof. (a common tactic among evolutionists). Thanks anyways.; November 16, 2009 7:01 PM
Alphgeek said...: PART TWO

Fourth, presenting naive objections to evolution will generally prompt the type of response you initially received. Arguing against evolution because it seems incredible to you is not a valid disproof of evolution. There is a great deal inside and outside science that I find incredible and yet the evidence clearly points to the truth of it.

For example, Google "two slit experiment" for an example - how can a single electron pass simultaneously through two slits? Well, whether I find it incredible or not, indeed that is exactly what the electron appears to do! Incredulity has no bearing on the truth of an argument.

Remember, most of the arguments presented here have been debated for decades, if not hundreds of years. It really pays to do your homework prior to engaging in an argument.

Fifth, we do not want you to believe anything you don't want to believe! All we are doing is presenting the evidence and arguments as we see it. I know plenty of Christians, muslims, hindus - their personal beliefs are their business. My wife's grandparents were all devout Christians. Three were professional scientists and one was a minister (who also accepted evolution). All were decent, honest and impressive people.

What tends to annoy us here is the apparent dishonesty that Ray seems to use to argue against evolution. Many of his arguments are what is described as "straw man" arguments. Such as the one he constantly pushes that "atheists believe everything came from nothing". I believe no such thing - I don't KNOW where everything came from so I have no position either way - but Ray claims that I believe nothing created everything and that to do so is intellectually dishonest. This type of thing makes some people angry, having words put into our mouths which are then turned against us.

The truth is that they are Ray's words, put into our mouths. We have rejected them time and again and yet it keeps coming up. Does it make sense now why sometimes we get frustrated? And what does it say for Ray's honesty - a self-professed man of God?

I hope you find this useful and I encourage you to not accept ANYTHING uncritically, whether I say it or Ray says it. Always shine the torch of reason over any statements you read. ESPECIALLY here!

I haven't gotten into any evidence for evolution - it's not my strong point, or my interest. If you want to hear the arguments in favour, read Steven J's posts, he has a lot of knowledge regarding evolution. Or just have a look on Wikipedia - they have good summaries of science as it happens in the real world, not Ray's warped view of it.

Make up your own mind, on your own terms. And remember, there is nothing that prevents one from accepting evolution and having faith in God. Millions of others around the world do so with no anxiety at all.; November 16, 2009 6:52 PM
truth seeker said...: to MUMON

you said: The 95% of our DNA in common with chimpanzees & bonobos.

thanks for the confirmation. respectfully, your statement is what i expected but not proof that we are primates. it is a colossal assumption to make from a similarity. however, the homology does point to a common designer. similar never means "the same" and 95% is not 100%. four or five percent is a huge difference in the dna of humans and chimps and is surely an impossible barrier for mutations to cross.

"The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information."; November 16, 2009 6:56 PM
Bob said...: Joshua Jung said...
...Let's also posit that at some point a species was heterogamous. The creatures that were more likely to reproduce sexually out-survived their asexually reproducing peers because of strength in numbers. Over time, the ability to reproduce asexually was lost.

Tada! The evolution of sex.

That wasn't that hard, I must have done something wrong...
--------------------------------
Now with the onslaught of homosexuality, what will be the result if heterosexuals lose their ability to reproduce? will we observe reverse evolution? Will humans just start having babies by themselves. I will admit, you have quite the imagination J.J. Thanks.; November 16, 2009 6:48 PM
OutlawGirl said...: Starbuck wrote: That would be nice, but mutations seem to be horribly harmful. Has any benificial mutations been recorded? One that was actually passed down generation to generation? After all evolutionists have had 150 years to try to capture it.

Well, what's your definition of harmful? I spoke to another creationist who claimed that any change in a gene, regaurdless of the effect on the organism, is harmful because it causes the gene to be altered. Of course this is a misunderstanding. The phenotype (the trait expressed by a gene) is more important to an organism's survival than the genotype (the gene itself).

In fact we do know of several benefical mutations. There's the mutation that causes humans to be born with double muscle, making them much stronger than other humans in their age group. Another rare mutation is found in humans if European descent. It's very rare, but people with this mutation are all but immune to HIV. Scientists think the mutation occured at the time of the black plague.

It's important to note that most mutations are neutral and whether or not a mutation can be considered benefical often depends on the enviorment. A mutation that adds extra hair to the body would be wonderful for survival in a cold, wintery enviorment but extremely detrimental in the desert. Sometimes the only difference between a benefical mutation and a detrimental one is where in the world it occurs.; November 16, 2009 6:46 PM
Alphgeek said...: Robert said:

"Hi. A first-time commenter here. I just wanted to ask all the atheists here something."

OK, first I'd like to start by apologising for my harsh introduction. I read Captain Howdy's response to you and it gave me pause for thought. I like to believe that dialogue is more constructive than immediately dismissing ideas outright, especially rudely as I did.

Your later post, indicating that you are a new convert and fairly young also makes me want to reconsider my response.

I'd like to start again by addressing your post and trying to perhaps explain my initial frustration.

First, it's important to make the distinction between atheists and, for want of a better word, evolutionists. Not all who accept evolution are atheists and not all atheists accept evolution. This is super important to understand - atheism and evolution really don't have much in common except that it seems that most atheists accept evolution. I'd also guess that most Christians accept evolution rather than rejecting it. It's interesting to note that the US has one of the highest levels of rejection of evolution in the world. Evolution deniers are a very small minority in Australia where I live.

Second, you should understand that many of the atheists posting here were former Christians, or "false Christians" as Ray call them. I personally have never believed in a God or had religious belief.

Some had decades of time in the Church. SOme know the bible as well as Ray does, and better than many of the Christians posting here. Some originally rejected evolution for reasons similar to those that Ray preaches or for other reasons but, after examining the evidence, came to accept evolution. Very few of us here are ignorant of what the Bible says. Most of us are fairly well versed in science, even if we aren't all professional scientists.

Third, most arguments that you see posted here critical of evolution are not accepted widely. In fact, most arguments against evolution have been thoroughly debunked. Evolution is not in question within scientific circles or amongst the informed population around the world.

This is not to say that our minds are closed! Almost all "evolutionists" would reject evolution in an instant if any rational, scientific evidence was presented that showed that the theory was wrong. Such evidence does not seem to exist yet. Note that Christians here do not provide scientific evidence to disprove evolution, they try to point out flaws that are either misunderstandings or based on false premises.

Despite what some commenters here say, evolution is not a religion. We don't have our sense of self-worth or salvation tied up in the theory of evolution. We have nothing to lose if it turns out (unlikely) that evolution is wrong. But ask yourself the question, what does Ray lose if evolution were "proven true". I use quotes because it is impossible to "prove" a scientific theory - yes, we've seen many arguments around that very topic.

Always be careful of people who claim to have special knowledge of what others believe. For example, a common issue raised here goes along the lines that "atheists believe in evolution because they hate God". Unless an atheist tells you that they personally hate God, no such conclusion can be drawn. In fact, an atheist who claimed to hate God would not even seem to me to be an atheist! How can you hate something that you do not believe exists?

TO BE CONTINUED...; November 16, 2009 6:44 PM
Dr Benway said...: Hi. A first-time commenter here. I just wanted to ask all the atheists here something.

Why do you confuse the issue. If you want to talk about evolution, which has nothing to do with atheism, why not just say that?

Every time I move one of my fingers, billions upon billions of cells in my body act in perfect unison. Each of those cells is a miniature city, with specific instructions for reproduction, creation of proteins, absorption of nutrients, etc.

You should wait and learn what the body actually does before your come here to discuss it.

And you want me to believe that all of that just came together by itself? I couldn't design anything remotely close to that if my life depended upon it. And you believe that it came from nothing
spontaneously.

You have no idea what you're talking about. What does it matter if you could design anything? I doubt you can tie your shoes without "divine intervention." You don't understand evolution. Go by a book that wasn't written by a creationist.

That makes about as much sense as me wanting a rapid squirrel tied to my face.

Not sure what a "rapid" squirrel is. I'm guessing they do something very quickly... Bad analogy even without the typo. I don't expect anything to make sense to you until you get off your lazy behind and educate yourself.; November 17, 2009 7:34 AM
Dr Benway said...: sexual reproduction is a crisis for evolutionary thinking (as are many other facets of the system of evolution). no truth or law could ever, in a gazillion years, come out of these various unsound explanations.

Care to back that up with some evidence?

i'm not trying to be provocative, just honest.

That is a lie.; November 17, 2009 7:25 AM
Dr Benway said...: An interesting note, whilst sitting in my Pastors office this morning I was impressed by the magnitude of his book shelves and multiple degrees. And assuming that Ray, like most pastors, are voracious readers...Ray's ongoing learning has never stopped.

Degrees from diploma mills or theological diploma mills? They/he don't read anything that isn't tainted with God.

But, you discount the tremendous education given the normal Christian who is listening to the Holy Spirit for counsel.

Ha ha. You are truly funny. Even Ray says that people who hear voices are nuts. So you are saying that a normal Christian is nuts. Makes sense to me.

God is a great teacher and gives the normal Christian the ability to confidently stand on his/her understanding of the bible in how we interpret our world.

So... Are you bigoted against abnormal Christians? What are they anyway. What is a normal Christian Dubya? Is he/she/it just like you? Hearing voices. Spouting nonsense.

We Christians are thankful for men like Ray, and Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind...whom you atheists hate.

Of course you love these men. In a biblical way, of course. How much money do you send them each month? They are your pimps and you can guess what that makes you. It's a good thing there is no Christ, because he would be truly disappointed in the douche bags that supposedly speak for him.

Why because they are sharing Gods insight with the body of Christ that we might also grasp a special truth that God has opened their eyes too.

That is such a poor sentence. And it sounds kind of creepy.

Churlish insinuations on your part concernig Ray's education level or intellect is a condemnation of your belief that only a university can confer legitimacy upon Ray's belief system.

You are still bringing the stupid Mark. Ray is no a very bright guy, who has managed to forge a decent living off Jesus, because intelligence is generally seen as a detriment to the religious. I love it when you try to sound intelligent. You fail every time. Go back to your little hut and pray some more Dubya.

We don't need no stinkin' university to confer legitimacy upon our faith in God and our belief in the Genesis account of the origins.

From your writing it is obvious that you don't need a university although a few years of remedial English might do you some good.

You go right ahead believing your fairy tales Huck. Just don't expect anyone with an IQ over 80 to agree with you.

Afterall our teacher is God...seems His credentials are of value in the Christian circles.

Well... Duh... Of course he has cred with you silly goats. You're IQ hovers around 25. I'm amazed that you can breath and think at the same time.

Only the atheists seem to despise the knowledge God has to offer.

That's a lie. Atheists, and every other religion and many in your own religion disagree with you. That doesn't translate into despise you silly monkey.

NUT in my opinion.

Yes. You are a nut. One without a chewy center. Just a shell of stupidity surrounding a vacuum that you take instructions from.; November 17, 2009 7:19 AM
Dr Benway said...: Chris Good...

Your post was....

BAD.; November 17, 2009 7:23 AM
Dr Benway said...: Neanderthals were sure enough descendents from Adam and Eve (as were you) and you want to use these dearly departed as some type of evidence for your evolutionist faith/dogma.

You never disappoint when you bring on the stupid Mark.; November 17, 2009 7:01 AM
Dr Benway said...: So I ask you if the Rapture was to occur and Jesus was to return on the clouds, just like he went, would you be proclaiming Ray a visionary or would you still deny, deNY, DENY...hoping that plausble deniability will save you?

Wow. Dubya's back and he's still crazy as ten diminished loons. The rapture. Dang. I wish it would happen. Too bad it won't. Wanna make a bet? I'm glad you're back. Terry is about to jump the shark and go back into seclusion. We need a good dose of Christian Crazy. Glad you're back.; November 17, 2009 7:00 AM
Iago said...: Bob said :

Robert, As you can see by the way Iago resorts to name calling that he really doesn't rely on evidence to support his claims.
endquote

Well let's see. You want evidence that the bunch of you are blithering whackaloons...hmmm...

Let's see :

Terry with his continual insistence the Darwin was a hash smoker,and that it was in the HMS Beagle logbooks however Richard Dawkins went and stole the originals so that the world wouold never know it. He also insists that the Philapdelphai Experiment was real and resulted in a rip in time. That the Supreme Court chambers have the Ten Commandments up on the walls. And he also makes various accusations of peoples sexual preference without proof.

Starbuck, his threats of violence and his admitted mental disorders that he treats with prayers and not the medicine he was prescibed.

Mrk W. Laine, his belief that there was a wrestler that was an acutal neanderthal and when asked for proof, says he does not remember who it was. And lest we also forget that he physically fought with a demon that looked like Benito Mussolini.

JD Curtis seems to have an unhealthy fixation for me and seems to have a reading comprehension problem.

Bob you seem to have the same problems as JD.

Buckyball again reading comprehension is lacking.

Ray, his continual lies and outright fabrications. He will apologize and then a few days later forget that he did and go back to business as before.

And to Starbuck, please do feel free to investigate my remarkds, I do not expect to have everything I say believed. So go right ahead and check things out. Please give me the evidence that I have lied.; November 17, 2009 6:54 AM
Chris B said...: Charlie Darwin: "What makes you think I am a creationist?"

The smug ignorance, the condescending insults, the refusal to acknowledge evidence or engage in reasoned argument, the non-sequitors and ad hominems, the race-baiting and sexism, and all of that noise about evolution being a religion, for starters.; November 17, 2009 6:45 AM
captain howdy said...: Bob said to Weemaryanne--

All of your responses were mere arbitrary opinions with no evidence to support, merely responses based on your presuppositions that evolution is true, and the name calling I must admit only contributes to expose your obvious inability to provide proof. (a common tactic among evolutionists). Thanks anyways.

"[A]rbitrary opinions with no evidence to support"?? And you're an evidence-driven kinda guy, is that it, Bob?

Then tell me--Why aren't 7 common ERV insertion sites at corresponding points in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees evidence of common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees?

Also, where do you believe the first woman came from--and cite your evidence. You're a guy that demands evidence, so let's see yours: Where did the first woman come from, give specific details of the process, and outline the evidence that convinced you of it.

Let's see just how evidence-driven you really are!; November 17, 2009 4:27 AM
Buckyball said...: Steven J wrote:

"Stephen Pinker notes the death rates from interpersonal violence in stone-age hunter-gatherer societies today: twenty to sixty percent of all males in such societies were killed by other hunter-gatherers."

And how would he actually know this? What are his sources?

Steven J wrote:

"Or you can look at typical punishments: the Romans crucified thousands of people, many of them for offenses that today would carry only a few years imprisonment. Look at the Assyrians, pulling off cute stunts like flaying thousands of captives alive and using their skins to cover walls, while their heads were stacked in giant piles. World War 2 had greater total numbers: more countries involved with much higher populations, but if you view the slaughter as a percentage of people available to be slaughtered, it was less violent than, say, the Thirty Years War, or the Roman suppression of the Judean Rebellion, etc."

Hmmm. Ever seen pictures of the piles and piles of shoes, suitcases, clothing, toothbrushes, etc. that the Nazis stacked up as the hoarded people into their camps? What percentage of Jews worldwide were brought in there?

I'm surprised you didn't list the genocide in Rwanda back in the mid-90's or, going back a little further, what Mao, or Stalin, or Pol Pot did.; November 17, 2009 4:26 AM
Buckyball said...: Steven J wrote:

"Yes, although strictly speaking, what would be evolving would be human brains, and their tendency to learn certain sorts of rules, feel and express certain sorts of tendencies, and make certain sorts of intuitive judgments. Note that "strongest" here would mean "most likely to increase the individual's chance of leaving copies of his genes (whether in his children's bodies, or those of nephews and nieces) in future generations. Morality isn't, itself, a physical thing; it is decisions made and actions taken by physical things."

So are you saying that morality can be completely contained within the brain? What about the various glands throughout the body (adrenal, male/female organs, etc.)?

By my understanding of your points, morality is indeed a physical thing at its lowest levels (chemistry, stored memories, firing synapses, etc.). A decision is indeed a physical process by your description, much like a computer executing an IF-THEN statement. Somewhere, deep in the processor chip, transistors fire, electrons flow, etc. How is that not a purely physical process by your definitions?; November 17, 2009 4:17 AM
Buckyball said...: Steven J wrote:

"I thought that I implicitly answered your questions: our brains do our thinking, and our brains are physical entities, operating through the rules of chemistry and physics, built through chemical processes influenced by genes. None of this should imply that our moral decisions are decided purely by internal brain chemistry, with no input from the external world."

Where did I limit the question to "internal brain chemistry"? I said "chemical reactions". That could involve inhaled substances, food, etc. What I asked is whether you thought all morality could be reduced to nothing more than these processes...including internal and external chemicals.; November 17, 2009 4:12 AM
Adrian Moore said...: Starbuck said...

"That would be nice, but mutations seem to be horribly harmful. Has any benificial mutations been recorded? One that was actually passed down generation to generation? After all evolutionists have had 150 years to try to capture it.

I'm just curious.."

****

Look up on Google the phrase

"V. Pérez-Mellado and C. Corti, Dietary adaptations and herbivory in lacertid lizards of the genus Podarcis from western Mediterranean islands"

That might be too long a phrase to put into a search, but that's a start for your quest to knowledge.

Further than that, most mutations are completely innocuous, so to claim that they're all harmful is laughable.; November 17, 2009 3:14 AM
Buckyball said...: I replied to Steven J:

Your "windows" passage made frequent use of the word "like". Wouldn't that make them similes also?

Steven J replied:

Looking at those passages again, I see nothing said about anything being "like" windows in the sky; the author simply refers to windows, or floodgates, in the sky or heavens. Those might be metaphors; they are not similes.

I stand corrected; I meant to refer you back to your Isaiah passage:

"Isaiah 40:22 has been much cited and argued over on this blog: "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." The picture of the sky as a dome or tent over the flat, circular Earth is quite clear."

It's funny how you claim to spot similes in the Bible, but then write an elaborate essay about how the word "circle" clearly implies the author thought the planet was a giant, flattened disc, and how this passage implies a domed stadium-type sky.; November 17, 2009 4:04 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 204 Newer› Newest»

Atheist Central -- Ray Comfort’s Blog

Saturday, November 14, 2009

204 comments:

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