More Recent Comments

Thursday, March 05, 2009

Ray Comfort Teaches Us about Evolution and Atheism

Ray Comfort wrote a book. He's not very happy because the book isn't doing so good. This is because of an atheist conspiracy [Atheists strategize against book on God].

Ray knows there must be a conspiracy because the case for God is overwhelming.
Comfort said the strong opposition easily is explained.

"I simply expose atheistic evolution for the unscientific fairy tale that it is, and I do it with common logic. I ask questions about where the female came from for each species. Every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. Evolution has no explanation for the female for every species in creation," he said.
When I read something like this I'm (temporarily) speechless. PZ Myers has a short explanation of how evolution really works for those of you who might be confused [It's a conspiracy!].

Meanwhile, just for fun, let's think about how many females were around when Cain and Abel got the urge to reproduce ...
"I also show that the 'God' issue is moral rather than intellectual."
Truer words were never spoken. Ray Comfort has, indeed, proven that his arguments aren't intellectual.
"No one needs to prove that God exists. Creation is clear evidence for any sane person that there's a Creator. But if I can convince myself that there is no God, it means I am not morally accountable, and evolution opens the door to a whole lot of sinful delicacies such as pornography, fornication, lying, theft, and of course writing bad reviews for a book I haven't read," he continued.
Thinking of Cain and Abel reminds me that we shouldn't forget about delicacies like incest and murder.

And you wonder why we call them IDiots?

There's a serious point here. There must be some semi-intelligent Intelligent Design Creationists out there somewhere. Why aren't they speaking out against the idiotic rantings of Ray Comfort and his ilk?


  1. I posted a review on Amazon today. His arrogance is remarkable, writing books and speaking as though he knows anything about the subjects he addresses. If he'd only do a little research even on one subject he pontificates about (e.g. bananas). But no, he says in the book he's going to critique evolution...and then starts talking about the big bang!

    As a Christian, all I can do is apologize and hope that in spite of Comfort it may still be possible to believe that we're not all idiots (or should that be IDiots?).

  2. Ever notice how the very title of his book is an insult and the contents go downhill, yet even still he doesn't get tarred as a militant?

    It's a wonder how he can attack atheists for a lack of intellectual rigour and yet come right out and say that it isn't an intellectual argument. He should have called the book "You Can Lead an Atheist to Water but you can't Make Him Swallow My Emotional Appeals." Subtitle: "Please, someone, anyone, swallow my emotional appeals!" Gulp.

  3. I'm struck by the substitle:

    "Answers to questions from angry skeptics"

    (My emphasis.)

    I've into this several times recently. Creationsts making out that statements in opposition to their claims are questions. It's very bizarre. Part of me wonders if they are trying to "make out" that the oppositions' points are questionable by sleight of hand. Or that they are trying to make out that they are more learned, superior, and "the others" are "forced" to ask from their "superior knowledge", when in practice the others are making statements they know to more accuracy reflect truth.

    (I am involved in a very bizarre "conversation", if you can call it that, on Thinking Matters Talk ( - there is also an earlier thread, which for some unexplained reason the original poster restarted). He has taken up the "New Scientist" Darwin was wrong theme in horribly screwed-up fashion. In this "conversation", several times the original writer has made statements out to be questions in the bizarre fashion seen in this subtitle.)

  4. So there was "... an atheist conspiracy" and I never got my invitation to the meeting. Damn! I better check my junk mail to see where it got misplaced.

  5. The very fact that people like Ray Comfort exist, publish books and are taken seriously by at least some (and they aren't few unfortunately), means that there is really no hope for this world. What is incomprehensible to me isn't "God's greatness", it's these people's stupidity. I've always wondered what is it to be one of them and I just can't imagine it, it seems absolutely impossible.

    It takes an enormous amount of effort to educate a human being not to be an idiot (with or without the first two letter capitalized) and apparently the current educational system we have isn't doing much in this direction.

  6. "means that there is really no hope for this world."

    Hope is but the first step on the road to disappointment. It matters not. As long as the mad, the delusional, the foolish and the stupid are few in numbers they can safely be ignored and swept aside.

    The problem isn't the prevalence of these beliefs, but the fact they are mainstream. Eliminate that and they are no more a problem than the new agers.

    "It takes an enormous amount of effort to educate a human being not to be an idiot (with or without the first two letter capitalized) and apparently the current educational system we have isn't doing much in this direction."

    Whatever made you think our education system was about education?

  7. There must be some semi-intelligent Intelligent Design Creationists out there somewhere.

    Talk about conclusions based on no evidence!

  8. Yes there are semi-intelligent IDiots out there (e.g. Michael Behe) but they choose to play the game and not rock the boat (i.e. they play along with Philip Johnsons' big tent strategy).

  9. "Creation is clear evidence for any sane person that there's a Creator"

    This is such a bizarre argument. Every time someone uses that sort of 'look around you, look at the beauty of life, there must be a God' I think of world war 2 and the holocaust, babies being born severely disabled, child molestation, etc. What kind of an evil pervert would this creator be? Not someone I'd like to spend eternity with thank you very much!

  10. McGrath: I posted a review on Amazon today.

    Did you actually read the book? If so, ouch, and thank you for suffering that that others won't have to. I don't post reviews unless I've actually read a book.

  11. Weaknesses of World Of Warcraft Gold the client-server model used by World of Warcraft have been wow power levelingexploited in order to crash the cluster of servers that aoc goldmake up a realm. Exploits also include characters being able to instantly Cheapest Wow Goldchange location or teleport. The situationbecame worse cheap wow goldwhen trying to coordinate activities across a number of playersor guilds on the same realm.World of Warcraft Lead Producer, stated that new realms would be introduced to warhammer goldrelieve the burden on existing ones. Existing realms would be upgraded.

    Although the game wow gold follows a similar model to others in the genreand was noted for having wow gold cheapmany familiar concepts from roleplaying games, the new approaches gold4powerto reduce pauses between game encounters was well liked. At various times, World of Warcraft players have experienced problems with connecting to and logging in to wow gold for sale the game. Sudden server crashes that would force realms offline also occurred.

  12. Ray Comfort wrote a book. He's not very happy because the book isn't doing so good.

    "... so WELL."

    I asked the question on YouTube: "What enabled and motivated an organism that was reproducing quite nicely through asexual reproduction to turn to sexual reproduction, with all its necessary and integrated features in separate sexes?"

    A very nice person responded: "The animals which didn't have this feature could recreate themselves but not drastically increase the traits of the offspring with the effect being that they were going to lack in survivability."

    Asexual reproduction, which is an exquisite and complex process, worked just fine. Sexual reproduction, which is equally exquisite and complex, could not arise in one swift evolutionary mutation or two swift evolutionary mutations or even fifty swift evolutionary mutations. The response I received is simply hand waiving. It does not address the heart of my question, which requires complex code to magically appear in an asexually producing organism so that it can reproduce in a totally different and complex way.