I find it interesting that Mr Comfort thinks that one who believes that life is constantly evolving must be an atheist. All the facts and geological evidence as well as the constantly evolving and mutating diseases support the evolving world we live on. Humans have become involved with the forcing of genetics to develop many new varieties of crops and animals. I certainly hope humanity continues to develop is there is obviously considerable room for improvement.
The bible as we know it, has gone through many interpretations and translations by everyone from the Catholic Church to the "New American translations" I am willing to beleive all these versions and translations are inspired writings though I question what the inspiration was.
I recently had an opportunity to speak to a church leader who thought the salt deposits and fossils exposed with tectonic movement were incontrovertible evidence of the world flood Noah was riding in the Ark In no way does any of that explain racial and ethnic divisions, fossils, or the fact that while we see many animals facing extinction we are constantly discovering new species. To deny evolution one must deny geology, astronomy, chemistry, mathmetics, physics,animal husbandry, agri-sciences and genetics.
Michael Morrisonof KS3:14PM October 30, 2009
Ray Comfort is incapable of honestly describing the theory of evolution.
He writes, "In Darwin's book, nothing is as God created it. Instead, all of creation miraculously evolved—from the bear's mouth to the giraffe's tail. For some reason, it has all reached the point of maturity during our lifetime and (after millions of years of redundancy) now functions as it was intended."
He scoffs at Richard Dawkins' "intellectual embarrassment" yet Comfort's entire argument is based on a deliberate misrepresentation of the theory. Why this blog gives a venue to this deceit is puzzling.
Rickof MA3:07PM October 30, 2009
His booklet "The Atheist Test" has sold more than a million copies.
So what?
He is the cohost of an award-winning television program (with actor Kirk Cameron),
Only a handful of episodes, award-winning?
blogs daily to hundreds of atheists at Atheist Central,
Had to change the website name to Atheist Central because believers were going to much better sites to have actual discussion
and was a platform speaker at the annual convention of American Atheists Inc. in 2001.
Because Gallagher was busy.
He is a New Zealander
America's got better tax shelters for hucksters.
Anonymousof TX2:54PM October 30, 2009
I find it amusing that the proponents of evolution so often resort to insult and patronization in response to criticism of the theory.
In honest debate there is no need to indulge in personal attacks, unless of course there is an agenda at work that reveals moral presumptions.
Darwin has become the greatest critic of his theories and that from his own writings.
One need not be a religionist nor a creationist to have grave doubts about the theory of evolution. All one needs is a recognition that the evidence is far from conclusive and that science doesn't always have all of the answers.
tomof GA2:25PM October 30, 2009
First - I don't understand Ray's repetitive connection between evolution and atheism. I guess what he is saying is either you believe in Christianity's version of creation or you are an atheist - what a simplistic view of things; so many other options exist. I am a strong non-atheist and a strong proponent of evolution.
Second, I have gathered and read many creationism publishings and they are all consistent with Ray's writings - plenty of arguments and complaints, but not one piece of physical evidence to support creationism or ID. I suspect if they any evidence, we'd hear about it.
Bradof TX2:12PM October 30, 2009
Um... who said that life was "so simple"?
And you know what? If science did replicate a cell complete with DNA and the ability to reproduce itself you and all the other theists would sniff "Oh sure, but let's see you make a monkey that turns into a human!"
For the entire history of evolution's study that's what religion has been doing, shoving the goal posts further down the field at each breakthrough with an ignorant audacity that makes it quite clear that religion doesn't want to know the truth; they want the truth to be what makes them feel good and secure.
You need your god(s) so you'll bury your head as deep as it will go so you won't lose them.
salvage2:01PM October 30, 2009
What is the point of this debate? Explaining evolution and natural selection to ignorant creationists is like trying to explain to your cat how a light switch works. The scientists are playing chess, the creationists are playing hopscotch. The real problem is that the creationist argument is simple and gives you a warm feeling in your tummy. This is eerily similar to the Santa Claus explanation for toddlers.
But the truth (evolution and natural selection) is insanely complex and requires a great deal of background education to properly absorb. There is no way any of the creationists who regularly read the religion section of U.S. News have that type of background, or are likely to seek it. Therefore, the pointlessness of this debate is most glaring.
Creationists will poke tiny holes using "intermediate fossils" and "irreducible complexity" in an effort to disprove evolution, and they will elicit applause with platitudes. But until they dig into (almost literally) evolution's complexity, they will NEVER hear the other side of the debate.
Darwin, in his writings, was vexed by the lack of fossil record and he felt this lack of evidence was the weak link of his theory. He was also troubled over the idea that cell structure might be more complicted than his limited ability to discern.
Thanks to the electron microscope we can now see the enormous complexity of a single cell, the mind boggling structure of DNA, and the details of how our organs work. Each layer of complexity that we uncover mitigates against random forces or chance in the development of these organisms. Where there is a design there is a designer.
My question to evolutionists is: where are the formulai to depict and predict evolution; show me the actual experiments that create evolution; cite the scientific journal that reports that life has been created in a test tube?
If life is so simple why can't scientists replicate it? When Einstein wrote E=MC squared other scientists turned the theory into demonstrative reality (the A-Bomb being the biggest). Where are the formulas that are the basis for any theory. In short where is the science?
If I explained how water is created by the same standards that evolutionists use to describe their theory I would be a laughing stock, and with good reason. At best evolution is a very weak hypothesis but not worthy of being described as theory.
I disbelieve Darwin because, by his own standard, his theory fails to convince.
tomof GA1:39PM October 30, 2009
Ray Comfort can look at a sequence like Hyracotherium - Orohippus - Epihippus - Mesohippus - Miohippus - Parahippus - Merychippus - Dinohippus - Equus and claim "There are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record. None"? Wow. You can lead a creationist to evidence, but ....
Reader Comments
Back to blog
Michael Morrison of KS 3:14PM October 30, 2009
Rick of MA 3:07PM October 30, 2009
Anonymous of TX 2:54PM October 30, 2009
tom of GA 2:25PM October 30, 2009
Brad of TX 2:12PM October 30, 2009
salvage 2:01PM October 30, 2009
Jeremy of OR 2:00PM October 30, 2009
chris of TX 1:57PM October 30, 2009
tom of GA 1:39PM October 30, 2009
Scott of MI 1:34PM October 30, 2009