Ray Comfort’s New Anti-Evolution Movie Is Now Online

Creationist (and banana-man) Ray Comfort‘s latest propaganda film Evolution vs. God is now available on YouTube:

It’s selective editing from the get-go.

PZ Myers, who was interviewed for the film, explained how Comfort took his responses and cut out all the nuanced explanations:

That’s not what respectable video producers do. An honest presentation of our interview would say that PZ Myers presented evidence for evolution, but in Ray Comfort’s opinion, it was not adequate… not, “all these scientists were unable to present evidence for evolution!”

If you watch it, you also realize that Comfort has no idea how evolution actually works. He’s a graduate of the Ken Ham School of Ignorance, so that’s to be expected, but it comes through loud and clear.

And somehow, deceiving viewers about the nature of evolution is supposed to make us all believe in Jesus by the end of the film.

In case you didn’t see it before, YouTube-r potholer54 exposed Comfort’s deception techniques a while back. You should watch that if you haven’t already.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • JohnnieCanuck

    Now this is a man that sold his soul to the devil. He has learned how to make a living out of lying and there’s no way he’s going to be talked out of it when people show him the truth.

    • Donatello

      Exactly. Comfort knows perfectly well that his version of evolution and the real theory of evolution have nothing in common, don’t forget that he was lectured in several discussions, for example on the Atheist Experience.

      Comfort is nothing but a lazy lying POS who’s figured out that he can keep the cash flowing in by doing nothing more than producing slight variations of the same old garbage again and again.

      • storm

        That last sentence, I think, describes a lot of the Christian apologetics scene. Seriously, when’s the last time you heard an original argument for the existence of God?

        • aedgeworth

          I take it then you’ve heard them all. You just made a choice not to believe them. Eternity is a long time to be wrong. A creationist can’t lose either way. If he or she is wrong, so what? An atheistic evolutionist is the only one that stands to lose anything if they are wrong, of which they have a 50-50 chance.

          • averydashwood

            You’re saying there is a 50% chance God does not exist. Sound pretty wishy-washy to me.

            • aedgeworth

              When there are only two options, 50-50 is usually the chances given for being right, even though I am 100% sure He exists, you are possibly 100% sure He doesn’t, somehow that equals out to us each having a 50% chance of being right. The difference is, if I am wrong I have nothing to lose.

              • averydashwood

                Will it snow in Las Vegas tomorrow? It will or it will not. Therefore, there is a 50% chance it will. Your math skills rival your scientific understanding. And by the way, Pascal’s Wager has been thoroughly demolished.

                • aedgeworth

                  Good point about snowing in Las Vegas tomorrow. I would say the chances are probably not 50-50 on that though, I think you would agree. Judging by the amount of design observable in the world around us, I would have to say the chances are not 50-50 there would be a God either. I am assuming the remark about science understanding is the same old tired nonsense that if someone doesn’t believe in evolution, they just don’t understand how it works. In your philosophical mindset you probably won’t allow yourself to accept the possibility that someone actually could understand how evolution works, and still reject it as being good science.

                • phantomreader42

                  Since it’s obvious you’re laughably ignorant about probability (among MANY other things), maybe you should stop babbling nonsense and actually LEARN something. But, of course, you’d never allow yourself to learn anything, as that would interfere with your precious willful ignorance.

                • aedgeworth


          • phantomreader42

            Pascal’s Wager is a worthless load of shit. By using it you’re admitting that there’s actually no good reason to believe your cult’s idiotic dogma, you just pretend to believe it because you’re afraid of the boogeyman. It also implies that your god is incredibly stupid, narcissistic, cruel, and in general wholly unworthy of worship even if it actually existed (which isn’t likely, since by resorting to threats you admit that you don’t have any actual evidence). Your argument is the argument of a stupid, lazy, self-centered, willfully ignorant terrorist. In short, your argument is garbage, and so are you.

            • aedgeworth

              What did you say? “resorting to threats you admit that you don’t have any actual evidence…”? Hmmmm.

          • baal

            You may be a person or a flying baboon with purple wings and a glowing halo of death. The odds at 50-50 since we only have those two choices….(I’m betting on the later since you do a piss-poor job on the former).

            • aedgeworth

              Baal, if you don’t have anything intelligent to add to the conversation, why not give others a chance?

              • baal

                Aedgeworth, you’re an intentional disinformation expert and a model for how not to be a decent person nor a model on fair discourse. You could give your self a chance and stop replying.

                • aedgeworth

                  You are not a very good testimony for the “Friendly” Atheist are you? Just because you refuse to believe the truth, doesn’t make it untrue, except in your mind. But you have been told a lie for so long it is probably hard for you to recognize truth when you hear it. Take care baal. Good bye, and have a nice eternity.

                • baal

                  oh yes. That horrible lie.
                  1 objective reality free from supernatural influences
                  1 short life and then you don’t exist in any way
                  1+1 = 2.
                  Your truth is coming up short AEdgey.

                  [also, your points are so freaking bizarre. Do you really expect the comments placed on a blog to mirror your interpretation of the blog host's moniker? Should all the comments on the sillyrabbitblog say quack? Shouldn't you be answering my questions instead of thinking they are excessive rhetorical flourishes? (hmmm, who else does that...could it be....Sat aedgeworth?)]

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            You’re terrible enough at this to invoke the laughable Pascal’s Wager AND misrepresent the ramifications of it, and yet you surely wonder why you aren’t being taken seriously.

            (The reason for that rhymes with “You say these things despite having Google.”)

            • aedgeworth

              I don’t wonder at all C.L., it is because you have a pre-conceived philosophical naturalistic worldview, and you can’t help viewing things the way you do. I have a worldview also.
              Philosophy, science, and religion are all searching for absolute truth. If they all eventually discover that truth, it will be the same truth.
              You could be correct in your worldview, in which case it will mean nothing to me in eternity ahead. If I am correct, I hope you one day discover that truth for yourself before it is eternally too late. I mean that sincerely. I hope only the best for you. Take care.

      • Jim

        ” he can keep the cash flowing in by doing nothing more than producing slight variations of the same old garbage”

        Hey, that method has been working for as long as there’s been religion, so why change things?

    • epeeist

      He has learned how to make a living out of lying

      Ah, but breaking the ninth commandment doesn’t count when you are Lying for Jesus.

      • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

        That’s a great phrase, “Lying for Jesus”.

        • epeeist

          That’s a great phrase, “Lying for Jesus”.

          It is by no means original.

          Should be eighth commandment for Catholics of course.

          • Jim Jones

            There are legions of liars for Jesus.

        • epeeist

          I learnt today that Jonathan West was also banned from Strange Notions. You have to seriously question whether debate was actually wanted on the site or just acquiescence to authority.

          And to bring it back to “Lying for Jesus”, it seems that we fled the site rather than being banned or leaving in disgust at the behaviour of the moderators.

          Having a glance at the site now it would seem to be an echo chamber for a few remaining diehards.

          • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

            It’s not what it used to be, that’s for sure. Last article was a strange emotional plea echoing Augustine’s invocation “our hearts are restless until they rest in thee.” Sort of a “are you missing something, deep down? Everybody is… God can complete you…just try him out”. A technique not unlike the one at the end of Comfort’s video (or the technique of a drug user).

            I’ve been sticking around in part because I’ve fairly recently left the Catholic Church and was looking for a better idea of what I was leaving, and also because I was hopeful to show why Lawrence Krauss’s presentation of “Universe from Nothing” isn’t such a crazy idea.

            It was a terrible decision for Vogt to ban you. I didn’t think he banned West (I thought I read a comment by West where he said he was leaving out of protest for your being banned).

            In conclusion, I don’t know how much longer I’m going to spend on the forum, or whether it even matters. If content and discussion don’t significantly improve soon, I don’t think the project will survive for long.

            Do you think you’d go back if Brandon apologized and asked you to?

            • epeeist

              I didn’t think he banned West (I thought I read a comment by West where he said he was leaving out of protest for your being banned).

              No longer on the Disqus feed, so yes he has been banned.

              Do you think you’d go back if Brandon apologized and asked you to?

              No, I don’t think so, I think the the site is effectively dead. It certainly didn’t live up to its stated purpose and I can’t see how it can given that Brandon selects the articles, moderates and comments as well.

              • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                A better setup, if the Strange Notions were reloaded, or if someone else tried a project like this, would be to get two or more serious thinkers from both sides of the issue to choose articles and lead discussion.

          • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

            My response to that comment about you having fled the site: http://www.strangenotions.com/nightclub-fires/#comment-995399358

  • Mario Strada

    Do I want to watch this or should I take a half dozen Xanax first? Maybe I should steal my wife’s blood pressure meds?

    • allein

      Youtube blocked at work: Blessing or Curse?

    • thfc1987

      The Xanax should do. Half dozen and you may be lucky enough to pass out before you finish the movie.

    • wombat

      Grab a bottle of whiskey too. It’s multi-purpose – you can drink it or use it as fuel for burning anything you feel appropriate, such as whatever screen Ray Comfort’s drivel is coming out of.

  • EvolutionKills

    Good old potholer54, a staple of my YouTube diet!

  • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

    Seems like ray got 300 or so of his buddies to upvote the video. but for now the comments are still open.

  • Joshua_Kelly

    What contemptible twaddle. We anti-theist authors hardly have to work anymore — the opposition is constantly giving us prime material.

    • aedgeworth

      Careful, you are letting your “passion for science” guard down. To some that is all it is: “anti-theism.” Thanks for being honest.

  • Guest

    What contemptible twaddle. We anti-theist authors hardly have to work anymore: the opposition is continuously supplying us with prime material.

  • EvolutionKills

    I’m curious why PZ Meyers, after ‘Expelled’, would consent to be interviewed for something that he KNEW was going to be bastardized. Unless it was part of a purposeful plan to show them up, because at least PZ will go after them for their bullshit editing of his own material? I mean really, having a creationist interview PZ seems like entrapment the more that I think of it… :P

    • David Pearce

      PZ pretty much tracked the whole experience on Pharyngula. Ray even sent him some sort of gift basket for participating! But PZ called him out right from the start for the dishonesty involved and accurately predicted how this would play out, even before Comfort put up his promo.

      Yet again I cringe that Comfort claims to by my countryman – sorry world!

    • pictor

      I don’t know. Don’t shy away form having your say. Yes your say will be chopped up in the editing room, but that makes the movie’s producers the bad guy, not PZ. If Ray is going to try and spread his message, the best defense is for people to stay educated and articulate back at him.

  • EvolutionKills

    I have a better title for the movie…

    EVOLUTION VS RAY – Shaking the Foundations of His Nonexistent Credibility

  • Jeff Simons

    YAY! Comments are actually enabled. I can lose faith in humanity again.

    • thfc1987

      I’ve had to slowly wean myself off of internet comment sections to not bash my own head in. Hemant’s is one of the few sections I can still tolerate.

  • Addressingtheherd

    Hemant Attacks Fundamentalism, Part 5,678.

    • Spazticus

      Correction: More like “Fundamentalists attack reason and good science with blatant lies, misdirection, utter nonsense and Olympic-level mental gymnastics, with a false equivalency chaser, in an effort to make their unreasoned arguments seem legitimate to the non-indoctrinated… Part ad infinitum.”

      …But do go on about how Fundamentalists are being persecuted for trying to indoctrinate others into believing that religious dogma = science.

      • addressingtheherd

        “But do go on about how Fundamentalists are being persecuted for trying to indoctrinate others into believing that religious dogma = science.”

        Right. Because I said all those things.

    • Spuddie

      There is a lot to attack and for good reason.

      • Addressingtheherd

        Agreed. But scientific illiteracy is everywhere, cutting across class, occupation, religious orientation, and so on. The problem is much bigger and more deadly than we’re letting on if we turn defending science into a fundie-bashing ritual, as fun as that ritual may be. I consider it “bashing” when we single out a demographic for a brand of stupidity widely scattered throughout the electorate.

        • Spuddie

          Creationism is not scientific illiteracy, its just much worse. Its an all out assault on science. An attempt to force ignorance. A goal which is far more reprehensible and worthy of attack.

          If fundies weren’t so anti-science, then they wouldn’t be bashed on such subjects. They deserve as much ridicule as allowed. They are not simply uninformed and illiterate, they vehemently deny such things and attack those who educate others on the subject.

          You may consider it bashing, I consider it justified criticism for bad behavior.

          • Addressingtheherd

            I’d congratulate you for dodging my main point, but I suspect it simply didn’t register. At any rate, I’m well aware of the fact that most Americans reject Darwin. But I would need some solid evidence that huge no.’s of Americans literally prescribe to the pseudoscience of creationism. Frankly, I doubt most people have the first idea what c. is. I think we’re dealing with one of those vast and unsupported leaps of logic so characteristic of your side. To wit, most Americans (or it half? whatever) reject Darwin in favor of the Bible account. Therefore, most people are creationists. Except that creationism isn’t in the Bible, as such–rather, it’s a perverse take on actual science whose details are snatched from, among other things, an ancient creation myth–namely, the one in the Bible, since that’s the unlucky document being used by the f’ing idiots in question.

            In much the same way, even though most Americans believe in some vague possibility that we’re being visited by flying saucers from wherever (Pluto?), this doesn’t make us a nation of UFOlogoy goons. You guys are way too invested in sides, by which I mean you assume one hell of a lot based on a person’s stance. I suppose it’s part of the disease of blatantly stereotyping others sans nuance or any realization that amazing amounts of diversity exist within any grouping you can name. Case in point: I attended a Navy buddy’s church service, where a congregation of 30 to 40 people go. This was in East Texas, and my buddy’s a Southern Baptist minister. (My brand of liberal Christianity isn’t even Christianity in his book.) Turns out his congregation is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, so he refrains from adding politics to his preaching. And it turns out that, at any rate, he gives very traditional, be-a-good-person type sermons. Oddly enough, I’ve heard UMC sermons that were ten times more fire and brimstone (in tone and volume, that is, not content).

            And so I think twice whenever I encounter the evangelical/fundie=Republican stereotype. Then again, maybe folks in East Texas are unusually progressive as a general rule, though that certainly wasn’t my impression during my visit.

            • Spuddie

              “Most Americans reject Darwin” is fiction. You are trying to conflate the notions of a small vocal subset of Fundamentalist Christianity with the entire faith. Even then it is questionable because Creationism in of itself is dishonest bullcrap. No creationist actually believes what they say.

              If Fundamentalist Christians don’t want to be associated with Creationists, they should try to distance themselves from them once in a while. There may be fundamentalists who do not share such beliefs, but nobody ever sees them. Their silence is easily taken as assent to anyone not in their circle. I never see it happening

    • Sven2547

      If the defense of science is an “attack on fundamentalism”, then that’s fundamentalism’s fault.

      • Addressingtheherd

        Now that you bring it up, there are serious issues with relentlessly attacking fundie idiots in defense of science. Why? Because scientific illiteracy is a nationwide disorder and hardly confined to class, religious orientation, and all that demographic stuff. There are plenty of New Age idiots who are progressive AND anti-science, for instance. I know socially progressive people who use “alternative” medicine. Meanwhile, surely there are conservatives who have the damned sense to go to an MD. Many MDs, in fact, are Republicans.

        Anyway, thanks for bringing up this issue. By putting all the blame for scientific illiteracy on the dumb-shittest (made that up) believers, we ignore the reality that science dumbness infects all levels of our pop culture.

        • TCC

          This is also false. You can find a lot of articles on here about non-religious woo such as Jenny McCarthy’s anti-vaccine views. I suspect that you haven’t been reading Hemant’s writing for very long and don’t have a very equitable view of the diversity of issues that he (and his other co-bloggers) write about.

          • Addressingtheherd

            Okay, okay–I walked into that one. I should have written “most of the blame,” not “all of the blame.” The lion’s share. How about that?

            The primary focus here seems to be on literal, conservative Christianity, which we’re apparently supposed to regard as the authentic kind thereof. But I’m not surprised that “non-religious woo” (thank you) is picked on, too, since that was the way of the once-great CSICOP group, whatever it’s called these days (I forgot). I gave up on their journal c. 1993, as the faith-bashing was becoming too frequent a feature. But what a brilliant group back then. I’ve gotten a whiff of the new breed, courtesy of CFI’s blogs, and I can only weep at the sad decline in, for instance, intellect. Painful to see Klass, Randi, et al. replaced by such utter lightweights.

    • RobMcCune

      And the point is what exactly?

      • Addressingtheherd

        My point is, for someone who believes ALL religion is harmful horse-hockey, Mehta should expand his attack range beyond idiot fundamentalism, since there’s hardly any sport in attacking said idiots. No, I take that back–there’s NO sport in it. It’s like attacking Fox News for lacking in TV- journalistic ethics. You know, instead of making a bold case for progressive values. Which I, as a progressive, prefer to do. My tactic is to, for ex., fearlessly state that I believe we should take care of one another, devote our efforts to peace instead of war-for-Ohio, and so on. I don’t spend my soapbox time belaboring the fact that right-wingers are on the wrong side. For one thing, they already know that we think so.

        “Fundies Mistaken About Evolution” has all the freshness of, “Violence in the Middle East.” At some point, it ceases to be news.

        Why doesn’t Mehta go after, say, the many Christians who don’t believe this kind of idiocy? Because believers who don’t fit the anti-science stereotype are harder to ridicule? Because love-your-neighbor Christianity is risky to attack, since it makes the attacker appear to be at odds with that sentiment?

        I’m curious as to why so many on-line atheists insist that religion is bad, bad, bad, with no exceptions, yet focus all their efforts on a demographic proven by a recent PRRI study to be a minority, and a smaller one than one would have suspected. If ALL religion is bad, attack ALL religion instead of putting the lion’s share of focus on these retards.

        • Addressingtheherd

          “War for Ohio”!!! Was that a Freudian slip on my part? One of my best lines, anyway. But I meant “war-for-oil,” not “war-for-Ohio,” though I’m going to hang on to that one.

        • TCC

          Why doesn’t Mehta go after, say, the many Christians who don’t believe this kind of idiocy?

          Because the idiocy is the problem, not Christians? And you would be wrong to suggest that moderate and liberal Christianity are not also criticized.

          Also, just because “fundies bein’ fundies” isn’t exactly a novel development doesn’t mean that we don’t want to know about it. Ignoring fundies fuels complacency and leaves us in the dark about the real harm done by anti-science attitudes like this.

          • Addressingtheherd

            I meant that Mehta specifically goes after the sort of Christians who believe such shit, because those C.’s are fish in a barrel. It’s hard to maintain a faith vs. science shtick with believers who love and support science. For example. And it would be hard to pull the “Why isn’t God’s holy word perfect in every detail?” bit with people who realize the Bible was written by humans.

            That’s the gist of my post–that he sticks to the easy marks. There’s also the problem that the Christians-are-Troglodytes media meme (which Mehta serves, and serves up) doesn’t work unless it’s applied to Christians who are Troglodytes. Right?

            • TCC

              I’m not sure if you missed my first point or ignored it, but to restate, if the problem is anti-science attitudes (or anti-LGBT, anti-sex, etc.) and the type of Christians you’re talking about don’t hold those attitudes, why would Hemant go after them? You see this as Christian-bashing, but it’s just attacking a certain position, so you really don’t have any grounds on which to complain that only this certain stance is attacked.

              I reiterate what I have said earlier: You are way too sensitive here, so much so that you are mischaracterizing Hemant’s blogging in general. I can empathize; I was once a moderate-liberal Christian who resented having the voices of the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells representing Christianity writ large. I got over it, and eventually, I got over Christianity. Even if you don’t do the latter, you can easily do the former.

              • Addressingtheherd

                Sorry, but fundie religiosity enjoys center stage because the media gives it center stage. And folks like Hemant are simply parroting that practice.

                My very simple point about Hemant remains. If you choose again to ignore it, consider this trhead done. I’ll state it again: since Hemant’s basic beef is with Christianity across the board, he should be attacking it across the board. His constant focus on fundie-ism suggests he’s taking the easiest, most traditional target. If I’m a secular, and my beef is with faith, period, then why would I devote most of my ridiculing efforts to one facet/phase/class thereof? I would not.

    • TCC

      Are you a bit sensitive about fundamentalism? If you’re not a fundie, you’re not being criticized. Actually, in this case, if you’re not Ray Comfort, you’re not being criticized.

      • Addressingtheherd

        I’m sensitive about fundamentalism being pretty much THE target of self-titled defenders of science. Not all of the villains are concentrated in that demographic.

    • FaithIsGlorifiedDelusion

      Still trollin’. Still failin’.

      • Addressingtheherd

        The point of my comment: Hehmat does the same thing over and over. It gets boring. Just my opinion. No right or wrong to it. I guess what I’m suggesting is that he vary the menu. Variety is good. Like diversity, it’s the stuff of God’s creation.

  • http://confessionsfromthepeanutgallery.blogspot.com/ YankeeCynic

    Ah, the joy of being called out by the Banana Man. It’s kind of like sitting down for dinner then hearing a loud farthing sound, the realizing somebody from the kids table put a woopie cushion on your chair.

    While the adults continue their conversation the kid runs around laughing, ignored by the adults and lauded by his juvenile compatriots.

    • the_doctor

      That’s probably the best explanation of Ray Comfort I have ever seen.

  • gander

    Wow. Talk about putting your head over the plate and taking one for the team. I mean, anyone that actually could get through that whole POS video.

  • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

    Hemant Mehta, you got me to waste 30 perfectly good minutes of my life watching that trash.

    The entire documentary might as well have been 1 minute of Ray Comfort asking “Have you observed cats becoming dogs?” followed by a random guy saying “Ummm….”, looped 30 times.

    • pictor

      Well, that’s half of it. The last half seems to be him preaching to everyone to hurry up and repent. Here I was thinking it was an evolution vs God video.

    • Pablo

      The point is that those who claim to have observable evidence have none. They hold to evolution do so by faith.

      • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

        Does Ray Comfort really believe this?

        If he does, why not ask them for the evidence, and then show their responses in full, instead of cutting away before they get a chance to answer? Why cut them off?

        He gives the impression that he’s afraid of what viewers will hear from the people he interviews.

        • Pablo

          Ray exposed the mirage of evolution. If what you are saying is true clear it up now. Give me some proof. No edit.

          • Spuddie

            Pablo, you don’t believe Evolution is flawed at all. You have no informed opinion on the subject nor the credentials to have your criticism on the subject taken seriously.

            You just want people to take your religious belief as seriously as people take scientific proof.

            No Creationist believes what they say. They are all liars. Creationism is the denial of faith. All Creationists are guided by faith. So they lie to the public in the name of their religion.

          • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

            No proof. This is an empirical science. It’s not math.

            Science and evidence work like this:

            1. Make up an explanation for what you see in nature.

            2. Determine what else you would see in nature, but haven’t found yet, if your explanation were true.

            3. If you find it, that’s evidence.

            There are explanations out there that predict everything. Anything you could possibly see can be explained by creationism, for example. These theories explain every possible observation, and so they explain no actual observation. They make no real predictions.

            As for the evidence, this is a good list.


            I’m not a biologist, so if you have detailed questions, I may not be able to adequately answer them. I’ll do my best to point you to an answer to your questions, if I don’t know.

      • WingedBeast

        There’s a load of observable evidence. He’s just asking for something that A. evolution doesn’t predict would happen and B. even if it did, the rate of change would take longer than humans have been observing in order to produce.
        One might as well request that the heliocentric model of the solar system be only possibly evidenced by a leather belt stretching from the earth to the sun.

        • Pablo

          It other words you have not seen the change. It takes too long according to the theory. You have a faith commitment to the theory.

          • Spuddie

            Actually it is observed but not in the timeframes used by those who are ignorant of scientific study. Historical analysis is observation as well. Reconstruction based on evidence is observation. Just not of the type which satisfies people who wish to Lie for the Lord.

          • WingedBeast

            No, there’s other evidence to observe with.

            Radiometric dating indicating an old earth, as well as indicating old fossils.

            Genetic similarity, up to and including that we are 98.5% identical to bonobos.

            Oh, and in terms of real-time observed speciation, we have housefly speciation induced through selective breeding. Here’s the link http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

            It’s bullet-pointed, so look for 5.4.

          • baal

            “It other words you have not seen the change. It takes too long according to the theory.”
            Oh noes, drat! The one question no scientist can answer, “were you there?” ~eyebrow wiggly wiggle.

            So Pablo, did you see jesus rise from the tomb? Did anyone (or was it no one or was it two people?)? Did you see the writers of the bible write it? Did you smell god while he was having the bible authors write the bible out over hundreds of years? What I have written here was FSM inspired and as such, it’s Truth and so It’s True you cannot contest the validity of my now holy post.

            So tell me again about a faith committment?

            • psalms4us

              the problem, BAAL, is that you don’t want to look at the fallacies in your own theory, and instead waste your time sniping at someone else’s theory or religion. What does that do for you? sure, you get the simpatico heads wagging in agreement, but you won’t accomplish anything of intrinsic, lasting value.

              after the last thirty years of scientific discovery, computer analysis, and incredible technological gains, shouldn’t we have completely changed the landscape of human thinking, and brought everyone over to atheism, darwinism, and evolution?

              the new york times op ed recently opined that science has not drawn more followers, but has lost some.

              If you, BAAL, could strengthen your arguments with observable evidence, even of minor genetic mutation that is beneficial, I’d be willing to examine your evidence.

              But, origins science-tology and evolution is based on fatally flawed reasoning, such as beneficial genetic mutation, and the ability of living things to grow new adaptive structures, shed old ones, then recreate those changes in generations following using corrected genomic information.

              Don’t worry about my problems. Fix your own first.

              • baal

                Well, you’ve showed me you’re ignorant of the actual science of evolution. If you were to pick up a biology 101 text book from any accredited college, it’s there. If you want that science applied to your appalling world view, here you go http://www.talkorigins.org/. So I assert on the basis of the two sources of knowledge I’ve listed, I’m totally fixed and A-ok. Please note the experiments and tests and discarding the failed tests in both source sets. My side doesn’t require ‘faith’. We actually have good reason to ‘know’.

                Since you needed to see my NAME in ALL CAPS, please let me allow you to see your name in all caps as well PSALMS4US.

                Oddly enough, convincing people of actual facts and teaching them science is pretty hard to do. This is doubly so when your side is indoctrinating kids from very early ages. Of course, your converts of adults who had no faith or from other faith groups tends to be less than replacement rate for those who die or leave your religions. I.e. you have at least as hard a job as we do with adults.

        • Pablo

          Give just one observable evidence beast.

          • WingedBeast

            Of the process of evolution? Any domesticated animal or plant breeding is verification of the process of descent with modification and selection.
            Fossil evidence is observable evidence of biological history. Genetic similarity is observable evidence of common ancestry.
            There, done.

          • Tom

            The Peppered Moth. Why is this so hard to understand?

  • Travis Myers

    Best line in the movie, 32:50:
    “I generally don’t engage creationists. It’s not good for my blood pressure.”

    • dawkwin

      frustration…I’m sure

  • J.R. Robbins

    I wanna pull out my frickin’ hair every time he calls someone a liar and a thief! His little trick questions ultimately prove only that he is an asshole.

    • pictor

      Yeah, one of my fondest wishes is for him to start throwing me those questions. I want the whole conversation, not just the 3 seconds that make it to video.

      • storm

        I actually had someone ask me those questions. The guy wasn’t aware I had heard it all before.

  • Georgina

    I am astonished that the replies to his stupid questions were so polite – or did he edit out the “urgh that’s gross’ after atating that his god tortured – imoral scapegoat justice indeed.
    How about the inevitable “you must be joking” and “you don’t even know what a ‘change in type’ actually means, do you?”
    I would love to hear their real responses.

  • http://skepticink.com/dangeroustalk Dangerous Talk

    I watched it so you don’t have to. Here is my review: http://www.exm.nr/15zcSQA

  • cipher

    The comments on YouTube, presumably posted by Ray’s sycophants, illustrate our desperate need of testing for intelligence, sanity and developmental level as a prerequisite for voting.

  • Matthew Baker

    Who knew Man on the Street interviews and dishonest editing could disprove evolution? One of the most vetted ideas in the history of man taken down in a half hour by a mountebank–seems legit.

  • A3Kr0n

    You would think PZ would have learned from his interview with Ben Stein that creationists don’t play fair.

    • Anathema

      I suspect that PZ knew that Ray would engage in some creative editing, but just didn’t care. Ray Comfort could not make a coherent argument if his life depended on it. The only people who are going to come away from this movie thinking that it proved anything are going to be people who were already hardcore creationists.

      • A3Kr0n

        I’ll have to check out Pharyngula to see how PZ rips Ray to shreds.

  • DougI

    Worth every penny I paid to watch it. Come to think of it, I overpaid.

  • EvolutionKills

    Ray has a consistent history of lying for Jesus, so am I a bad skeptic if I save myself the trouble and don’t give his video my page hit by actually watching it? My urge to fight my own confirmation bias is torn by my hate of incessant bullshit…

  • Art_Vandelay

    Alright, I made it 23 minutes and 12 seconds…what do I win?

    • Gus Snarp

      Nothing. You lose…. 23 minutes and 12 seconds.

  • Gus Snarp

    I wonder if it would be possible to beat this game. Since Comfort’s follow up questions shouldn’t really be a surprise to anyone, and we all know it’s going to be dishonestly edited, would it be possible to craft responses in advance and be prepared for every question with single line answers that just utterly shot him down? Obviously that interview would never make it to the final product, unless they were compiled into some kind of “look how mean to me” they were montage, but it might be fun to find a way to give him none of what he wants.

  • viaten

    Evidence seems to be so important Ray when it come to evolution, and he thinks “belief” in it is unjustified, but I suspect he would have no problem with the faith of a person who says, “I think there’s no evidence for God, but I strongly believe anyway.” Would he think such a person has a “true” faith?

  • viaten

    Ray always has to throw in the “Do you think you’re a good person?” schtick. What does that have to do with evolution being true or false?

  • ElRay

    I usually don’t go this route, but this video needs to be downvoted to oblivion. 763 Upvotes to less than 200 down? Sadly disappointing.

  • storm

    “If you watch it, you also realize that Comfort has no idea how evolution actually works”

    Watch anything about evolution by Comfort and you’ll come to that conclusion.

    • Spuddie

      I am not sure Comfort has no idea how anything actually works. I bet he thinks his toaster is run on “God heating juice”

  • L.Long

    Did not watch it as I don’t have to.

    He said….

    Blah-blah blah-BS-BS-BS-more BS. you are wrong and i am right!!!!

    followed by more

    Blah-blah blah-BS-BS-BS-more BS. you are wrong and i am right!!!!
    That’s about all any of them say.
    Let me know when any of them presents any independently verifiable EVIDENCE for anything!!!

  • ragarth

    I’m sure he cut out anything that might actually have some grip to it, but to questions like ‘got any observable evidence’ I usually trot out Tiktaalik. Through a combination of geological and evolutionary theory, we predicted that a fossil with those exact features would be found in that particular lake bed at that particular depth. The chances of that are astronomical, and is good evidence that evolution and geology are getting things right. We predicted, we went out, we observed. Show me where creationism can do that.

  • Mitch

    Well, the first twenty seconds or so were worth my time. The rest, not so much.

  • Mira

    The worst part of nonsense like this is that they use these movies to help brainwash kids in Christian schools. I know: I was one of them. They gave us an incredibly biased, completely inaccurate, propaganda “creationism” film in science class and made us think that “no true scientist” believes in evolution. It’s heartbreaking for me to look back and realise how far back in my education that film set me. I’m still learning things about science that any eight grader should have known. I’m excited as hell about it, and I love it, but I’m devastated that I’m learning so late in life and wondering how different my life could have been if I could have found this passion for science early enough to make a difference in my degree and career choices.

    • storm

      So according to them, 99% of scientists aren’t “real scientists”

      • allein

        Just the ones named Steve.

      • aedgeworth

        They are real scientists who just do not understand what constitutes “real science.”

        • phantomreader42

          So, YOU, aedgeworth, and YOU ALONE, have appointed yourself the sole authority in deciding what constitutes “real science”? Or are you claiming that office has been bestowed upon you by your imaginary friend? Do you have any idea how incredibly arrogant you are?

          The truth is, you don’t know the first fucking thing about science, and you’d rather die than learn. You’re just a lying sack of shit desperate to pretend there’s something to support your hallucinations besides the testimony of the voices in your head.

          • aedgeworth

            Resorting to foul language is no excuse for not having a logical answer, it just speaks of your character.

            • Spuddie

              Who needs a logical answer when the questions are dishonest bile spewing?

              You don’t provide a logical or rational argument. You should not expect one in return.

              • aedgeworth


                • Spuddie

                  I can’t help it if you got caught lying. You dug that hole all by yourself.

                • aedgeworth

                  Are those quotes on that site or not?

                • Spuddie

                  Not presented as you did. That site presented the quotes in full context and how people like yourself lie as to their actual meaning.

                  It is akin to quoting Winston Churchill’s famous line about government saying “Democracy is the worst form of government” and omitting the punchline “besides all other forms tried before”. Your tactic is called quote mining. Which is a polite term for lying about what famous people were saying.

                  No use in trying to polish that turd. You made 2 misrepresentations and got caught. The first was claiming the scientists quoted were refuting evolutionary theory when they did not. The second was lying that you found said quotes on an anti-creationist website, when in fact you did not.

                  What makes you even more dishonest is the site you claimed you pulled the quotes from has them in a section devoted to refuting people like yourself who misrepresent what is said.

                • aedgeworth

                  First, you are misrepresenting me by stating I was saying those evolutionists were trying to refute evolution. When Gould said: “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution,” I stated Gould did not doubt evolution happened, so how is that saying he was refuting evolution? I clearly stated he wasn’t trying to refute evolution, he just believed there were giant leaps of evolution that left no evidence behind. How exactly is that taking anything out of context?

                  Secondly you are misrepresenting me by stating I didn’t get any of my quotes from the anti-creation site. I indicated I have been collecting quotes for over 16 years I have been on hundreds of websites in the last 10 years or so, including the anti-creation site. I did not document which site I found each quote on, as they came from a great many sources. As someone here posted, even Wikipedia has a list of these quotes. How can you state I did not get any of those quotes from the anti-creation site, when I don’t even know which site I took each one from? At the very least it is possible both myself and the anti-creation site may have gotten some of them from the same creation site. So what?

                  In Natural History Gould stated: “The extreme rarity of
                  transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology, the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” Once again he wasn’t trying to refute evolution, nobody is saying that. As far as I know he died believing in evolution. He and Eldridge both made similar statements about the lack of fossil evidence for slow change in the fossil record in order to promote their belief in “punctuated equilibrium.”
                  How do you misrepresent those statements if you are not saying they are trying to refute evolution? If you try to say Gould and Eldridge were not saying there was a lack of fossil evidence for slow change in the fossil record, that is not just taking their quotes out of context, it is not being completely honest about what they said.

                • Spuddie

                  You are full of shit. You were trying to use the quote to show that even Evolution scientists don’t really have the evidence to support their position. You are not fooling anyone here.

                  Please stop insulting my intelligence and that of everyone here. The full quotes and their context were in my links. They have nothing to do with any kind of assertion that evolution is fatally flawed or that there is no evidence to support it.

                  You can’t even stay consistent with your own argument. At first you state that you weren’t trying to use the quotes to refute evolution, then you ask “How are not saying they are trying to refute evolution?” It has become plainly obvious you will say any kind of lie to support your position.

                  I don’t have to debate you here. The evidence of your dishonesty and those who try the same tactics are already documented in the sources I gave direct access to. Anyone can click and read them. I don’t need to repeat it. You don’t deserve the effort.

                  All it took was a web search to deflate your self-important lying spiel.

                • aedgeworth

                  How evolutionists operate:

                  1. It was taken out of context.

                  2. Start attacking a straw man.

                  3. State the one who made the quote believes in evolution

                  4. They resort to name calling.

                  5. Less gifted immediately use name calling.

                • Spuddie

                  You are pathetic.

                  Simple web searches rendered your well worn quote mining spiel utterly useless. LMAO!

                  Creationists have been pulling these kinds of lies so often and for so long that TalkOrigins.org has a database of typical misquotes.

                  I call you the name which is appropriate. When someone repeatedly makes bald-faced lies and compounds it with even more lies to excuse their behavior, they deserve to be called liars. You have done everything in your power to earn the title.

                  You are gifted only in the sense of being the online poster with the least awareness of the internet in general. That kind of ignorance is a talent unto itself!

                  Here is a little pointer on internet discussion etiquette. Unless barred by the website, giving a block quote and text citation without a link to the source is a general sign someone is full of shit. That they are cutting and pasting from a website which is less than credible.

                  To quote Poet Laureate Mr. Vincent Neil, ”
                  Don’t go away mad, just go away.”

                • aedgeworth
                • Spuddie

                  So you quoted the people who were already considered hoaxes and frauds. Of course THEY will not admit to lying. I can see why you didn’t bother linking to these sites before. If you did, everyone would know what a joke you are and wouldn’t even bother taking your arguments at face value.

                  Let me put it to you this way, If a Holocaust denier puts up a bunch of links to support their point, does it make their claims any more credible? No. Because all it takes is one rebuttal from actual experts to deflate their numerous attempts at lying. Quantity does not mean quality.

                  Do you have anything from actual scientific websites or is it just more circle jerks by lying Bible thumpers like yourself?

                  Maybe a recognized academic scientific journal article or 10? Ones generally accepted in the entire field by Biologists? No, you won’t. Because people actually familiar with scientific research would never take your misrepresentations, distortions and fictions seriously.

                  Its telling that when Creationists had a chance to explain their view in a public forum involving producing evidence to support their views, they fumbled, stumbled and came up empty.

                  I hate to put in a block citation but it is appropriate.
                  From Kitzmiller v. Dover (the full text is available on numerous sites)

                  we initially note that an overwhelming number of
                  scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ expert in biology, Dr.Miller, a widely-recognized biology professor at Brown University who has written university-level and high- school biology textbooks used prominently throughout the nation, provided unrebutted testimony that evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is “overwhelmingly accepted” by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees.

                  … “evolution is more than a theory of origin in
                  the context of science. To the contrary, evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin accepted by the
                  majority of scientists.” Despite the scientific community’s overwhelming support for evolution, Defendants and ID proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence. Plaintiffs’ science experts, Drs. Miller and Padian, clearly explained how
                  ID proponents generally and specifically, distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making their anti-evolution argument.

                • aedgeworth

                  Are you saying that evolutionary biologists reject creationists’ challenges to evolution? Why, I am shocked! Who would have thought that? Are you serious that all major (evolutionary) scientific communities accept evolution? I am shocked again.

                  When you say: “evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin accepted by the majority of scientists,” are the majority of scientists you speak of all evolutionists?

                  I’ve heard this statement before: “All reputable scientists believe in evolution.” When they are challenged on the “All” part they just say: “If anyone doesn’t believe in evolution, then they aren’t a reputable scientist.” Kind of a heads I win, tails you lose proposition.

                  One good thing I have gotten out of posts by Spuddie, he calls all creationists liars. So when he calls me a liar I don’t take it personally, I just consider the source.

                  When evolutionary textbooks say: “Bird feathers evolved from the same scales that protected the dinosaurs so well,” Holt Biology – 1998, chapter 11, p. 208

                  (I didn’t quote mine that one, I took it right from the textbook.)

                  An expert on bird feathers disagrees: “At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different. Clearly, feathers provide a unique and outstanding example of an evolutionary novelty.” Brush, A. H., “On the Origin of Feathers,”
                  Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9 (1996), p. 140

                  It doesn’t sound like they evolved from scales does it? Feathers and scales develop in fundamentally different ways. Why do some evolutionary textbooks insist they evolved from the same structure? Are they lying, or just make statements about things they really don’t know much about?

                  How about whale evolution? Here is a textbook statement:
                  “Whales are thought to have evolved from an ancestral line of four-legged mammals, which are represented
                  here by their fossils and artistic reconstructions showing what scientists think they may have looked like.” Holt,
                  Rinehart and Winston – 2006, pg. 284-285
                  (I took this right from the textbook also, and not out of context.)

                  Notice it says they are “thought to have evolved,” I glad they at least didn’t state it as a fact. Notice the use of “their fossils and artistic reconstructions showing what scientists think they may have looked like.” There were just a few bones of three supposed ancestors of whales. They had to use “artistic reconstructions” because there wasn’t much evidence to go with. They mostly used their imaginations of what they thought they “may” have looked like. From the small amount of bones they had to work with, they may end up being “pig” bones or something else when more bones are discovered.

                  Notice a few more statements from Biology textbooks: “For example, the whales of today lack hind limbs, but some have small vestigial hipbones probably derived from their four-footed ancestors described earlier.” Prentice Hall Biology 2006. (I have this textbook also.)

                  “The whale retains pelvic and leg bones as useless vestages.” Biology – Curtis and Barnes 1989 p. 969

                  “Modern whales have… hind limbs, which have been reduced to only a few tiny internal hind-limb bones that
                  have no function.” Holt Biology, 2001 p. 285
                  (This is why I love to read Biology textbooks, you can learn so much from them.)

                  Is this true? Are those hind limb bones useless and do they serve no function? Let’s see what scientists say:

                  “In modern whales, the remnant pelvic bones anchor the reproductive organs.” Gingerich (U of M) Science, July 1990

                  Does that sound like they are useless and serve no function? Dr. Carl Wieland said this: “Some modern whales have a pair of bones embedded in their tissues, each of which strengthens the pelvic wall and acts as an organ anchor.” “…these strips of bone have a known function, differ in males and females, and are not even attached to the vertebral column.”

                  Everhard Johannes Slijper (1907–1968) was professor of
                  general zoology at Amsterdam University, Netherlands. He was the world’s leading authority on whales. Chapter 2 of his classic work is entitled ‘Evolution and External Appearance.’ In it, he talks about a bone in whales that he calls the ‘pelvic bone,’ which is some 30 centimetres (12 inches) long, ‘but unlike the pelvis of normal mammals it is not attached to the vertebral column.’ This bone serves as an anchorage for the male reproductive organs.

                  But look what Talk Origins says: “A few species of whales still possess a vestigial pelvis, and some have greatly reduced and nonfunctional hindlimbs.” “The vestigial features of whales tell us two things. They tell us that whales, like so many other organisms, have features that make no sense from a design perspective – they have no current function, they require energy to produce and maintain, and they may be deleterious to the organism. They also tell us that whales carry a piece of their evolutionary past with them, highlighting a history of a terrestrial ancestry.”

                  They make no sense from a design perspective? They don’t consider it important for the whales to be able to reproduce?

                  When Talk Origins says those bones are “non-functional” and “they have no current function,” are they intentionally lying, or do they just not know much about whale anatomy? I’ll let you decide that for yourself, and not claim to know they are intentionally lying like some who post here.

                • Spuddie

                  You’re still here?

                  Haven’t you been embarrassed enough already?

                  Are you saying that evolutionary biologists reject creationists’ challenges to evolution?

                  No, because THERE ARE NO scientific challenges to evolution made by Creationists! They make plenty of challenges, all of them either political. legal, rhetorical, based on strawmen, fictions or just religious based whining. Not one of them can be classified as scientific.

                  ” are the majority of scientists you speak of all evolutionists?”

                  There are no “Evolutionists”. There are scientists and there is prevailing scientific theory. Science is not like Christianity. Theories in science don’t get accepted on dogma, faith or by coercion.

                  There are Creationists, but that is because it is a politicial/religious belief. One which does not require rational support for its acceptance.

                  What scientific journals are they published in? NONE

                  The entire worldwide scientific community from a professional viewpoint not only rejects Creationism, they are making jokes about it. The Steve Project is one of the most famous exampled of the one fingered salute the scientific community has given Creationists.

                  As I said before Creationists are liars by nature and conceptually. So it would cast aspersion on the reputation of a scientist in accepting it. Creationism requires acceptance of lying by its nature. It requires people to lie about the basis of their religious faith and to pretend they have scientific know-how.

                  Creationism cheapens and attacks religion through lying. Creationists deny faith as part of their religious belief. The reality is their religious beliefs are solely based in faith. So such denials are dishonest in of themselves.

                  I am not going to pretend you know a damn thing about Evolution. You are just a whiny cut and paste junkie who is desperate for attention. .

                  What makes your crap even funnier is every argument you have made has been considered those that Creationists are being told not to use anymore by their own

                  Don’t bother with quotes unless you have the links to back them up. I caught you lying about them before. No reason to consider you haven’t continued to do so. Its telling you only included the Talkorigins link but not the one to your argument.

                  All of your unattributed quotes when copied and pasted into a search engine come up with Creationist sites. Meaning they are all taken out of context and distorted as quote mines. You continue to be a lying sack of shit.

                  Of course if you bothered to have read the Talkorigins article you would know that quotes concerning whale palentology prior to the mid 90′s would have been supplanted by new evidence.

                  Unlike Creationists who believe all knowledge was set in stone thousands of years ago and ignore evidence to supplement their faith, scientists revise their ideas with new evidence. It is not dishonest to revise an idea when new evidence is discovered. It is expected of a scientist.

                  So again, you have continued to demonstrate how dishonest Creationists can be.

                • aedgeworth

                  I know you state that all creationists are liars, even though you of course don’t know all creationists. But I have just one simple question, which you have intentionally avoided so far: Are those hind limb bones in whales vestigial, useless, and serve no purpose or function?

                • baal

                  I can say that all magicians use misdirection without seeing every single magician in existance or from the past. It’s inherant in putting on a magic show. Turns out that creationism is similar. After a while, you can’t earnestly argue for it without also lying (or as you might say it, keeping in mind the importance of geting folks to follow a higher truth).

                • aedgeworth

                  Evolution is a lie, that doesn’t make all evolutionists liars. Probably with most it is unintentional, they are just brainwashed, and with that you will probably say: At least they have a brain, to which I would reply: We all have one, some just are not using theirs very much, and the cycle continues.
                  As I have stated in the past, philosophy, science, and religion are all ways of searching for absolute truth. If all three one day arrive at that truth, it will be the same truth.
                  Strange, I have not found many “friendly atheists” on this site. You might want to have them think about changing the name.

                • baal

                  “Evolution is a lie, that doesn’t make all evolutionists liars.”
                  Unfortunately for you, evolution is as true as gravity. I don’t have much hope you’ll learn actual science and be able to understand the evidence for both.
                  If you’re seeking ‘absolute truth’ about something called reality, then you need to check with reality (empiricism) to know what is true and what is not true. Philosophy and religion won’t get you there.

                • aedgeworth

                  I agree with you to a certain extent, that evolution is like gravity. If you are only speaking of change within a species, then of course they are similar. But even if you are speaking about change beyond the species level (macro-evolution), that should be able to be observed and tested also.

                  If I were to ask you if micro-evolution has been going on for 600 million years, I’m sure you would answer yes. If I were to ask you if macro-evolution has been going on for 600 million years, I’m sure your answer would still be yes. The one test you will not allow yourself to accept is that we should be able to look around us and observe something that is in transition to something else.

                  Some have tried to argue that we just don’t know what it is changing into. That would be true, but the only thing we need to observe is it changing into something it has not been in the past. Variation within a species does not qualify as macro-evolution. Even if two types of finches can no longer reproduce with one another because of changes within their DNA, they are still considered finches.

                  Every life form looks exactly as it has in the past, except for changes within their particular species, from bacteria all the way to humans. Nothing can be observed in the process of changing into a different life form, which should be the case if evolution is still happening. Some have recognized this fact and have tried to say for some reason evolution appears to have stopped for the time being. Why then can we still observe small changes within species still going on? That begs the question: Why does micro no longer result in macro? Which then begs the question: Did it ever?

                  There of course is much debate over whether the fossil record is proof that evolution happened. Some see thousands of clear transitional fossils, others say there are no clear transitional fossils. Were there feathered reptiles in the past? The evidence is debatable. If there were, would that prove they evolved into birds? Absolutely not.

                  There is much debate over catastrophism and gradualism concerning the geologic column itself. A growing number of geologists are starting to favor catastrophism. But were there thousands of small castastrophies, or one large one? If the top 80% of the earth’s crust are sedimentary layers, mostly laid down by water, is that proof of a world-wide flood? Those layers do look just like layers produced in laboratory experiments using soil and water (hydrologic sorting). Polystrate fossils of trees running through many layers of rock (sometimes upside down) would seem to better fit catastrophism, although arguments have been made against it, which may be plausible.

                  Is the fact that just about every life form from insects to humans have a digestive system proof of common descent, or would it be better proof of common design? That depends on your philosophical worldview, be it natural or supernatural. Each part of the digestive system evolving individually would seem impossible, as each part would serve no purpose without the other parts. The whole system evolving as a whole system through the mechanisms of evolution takes quite a bit of imagination, to say the least. This also is a matter of debate.

                  If evolution is true, theists have to decide whether to become theistic evolutionists, or abandon their beliefs entirely. If creation is true, atheists realize they must make a decision regarding their accountability to a creator God. If either side uses honest open-mindedness concerning these issues, it can usually be seen by the amount of anger they display when discussing them.

                  I hate what I perceive to be the lie of evolution. I do not hate the evolutionist. I hate atheism, I do not hate the atheist. The opposite can usually not be said of evolutionists or atheists. If evolution is not true, I hope every evolutionist or atheist realizes they are a sinner in need of a Savior.

                  I at one time considered the possibility of evolution being true.

                  Before I was saved, most people thought I was a pretty good person. In fact, when I told one of my relatives that I had gotten saved, she said, “Saved? Saved from what? You never did anything!” But those people didn’t know my heart. Most of them didn’t know the language I used
                  at work, or the books I used to look at, or the problems I had with my temper. But even with all of that, I still thought I was as good as the next guy. I still thought my good works outweighed my bad.

                  In 1967 my wife and I had started going to church and I had resisted the gospel many times. But on August 2, 1968, while lying on my back in bed about one o’clock in the morning, I had these words come into my mind, “You don’t have any assurance that you will wake up in the morning.” At that moment in my life, I knew I was a
                  sinner in need of a Savior. If I had died that night, I knew exactly where I was going, and it wasn’t heaven. I said, “Oh God, I don’t want to go to sleep tonight without knowing for sure that I’m saved.” And God answered my prayer.

                  From that point on my life began to change. I didn’t say anything to anyone at first because I thought I might fail. I had tried to live better before. But I started reading the Bible. I remembered someone saying that a new Christian should start reading the book of John first, so I did. After a few days, I began to be so filled with the love of Christ and what He had done for me that I had to start telling people about it. In over 45 years since, I have failed Jesus many times, but He has never failed me. The most important decision I have ever made was when I asked Jesus to be my Savior. Everything I am or have, I owe to Him.

                • baal

                  Giant wall of text used for a derail…again. Go read Leviticus. Also, your mental health issues are not a reason for me to join your cult.

                • aedgeworth

                  I’ve read Leviticus many times. Not sure what your point is. The testimony I gave of my religious conversion is similar to the majority of fundamental Christians worldwide. It is not unlike conversions given in the Bible either. I didn’t think you would have an answer for the evidence I submitted. This probably indicates you don’t know enough about evolution theory or science to discuss it intelligently. Keep the faith baal.

                • Spuddie

                  Arguments Creationists Should Avoid
                  2. Microevolution is true but not macroevolution.
                  12. There are no transitional forms.

                  Hmm. The leading Creationists are saying these are crap arguments, yet you continue to use them. Did you get the memo? You are always on their sites. You must have seen it. Doesn’t do much for your credibility, does it.

                  From that point on my life began to change. I didn’t say anything to anyone at first because I thought I might fail. I had tried to live better before….

                  I began to be so filled with the love of Christ and what He had done for me that I had to start telling people about it.

                  So you are a shitty Christian.

                  You choose to deny and ignore your faith in favor of spinning lies to others. As you admitted, your belief in God as admitted is based on faith, not alleged evidence. In essence, you deny Creationism in your attempt to spew its tenets. You bear false witness for Jesus.

                  Its an admission that you will say anything to support your faith and have no real care for providing a rational factually supportable argument.

                  Whatever love you have for Christianity is a “stalker’s love”. One willing to go to obsessive counterproductive extremes which show no real understanding of it.

                • aedgeworth

                  As I said previously I am seldom on other Creation sites, why you keep insisting I am I’m not sure, but you don’t seem to be too interested in what is the truth. Continuing to state this doesn’t do a lot for your credibility. If you can’t be honest about that, why believe other things you say. I’m not the one bearing false witness, you are. You can’t intelligently discuss the issues so you cuss, attack people’s character, and make up stuff. You are the one that does not understand Christianity or Creation and you choose for some reason to misrepresent it.
                  AIG is not representative of many other creation organizations, they kind of have their own agenda. I understand why you would want to quote them though. They are your favorite Creation site, not mine.
                  In spite of all you say against Christianity, and in doing so, against Jesus Christ Himself, Jesus has already paid the debt for all your sins, past, present, and future, with the exception of one. The only sin not forgiven, nor can it be, is rejection of Him. That is the unpardonable sin, unless repented of.

                • Spuddie

                  As I said previously I am seldom on other Creation sites

                  And that would be bullshit as I said since your quotes and arguments come up in such sites verbatim. You are not even trying to make efforts at making your claims credible.

                  If you don’t like my language, then you should have taken a more honest tone. If you are offended, good. Please take as much offense as you can. A person who glorifies dishonest behavior doesn’t deserve basic respect and polite treatment.

                  The only truthful thing you have said is that your belief in God has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with faith. You rejected Creationism’s public position and told me outright that there is no plethora of evidence in support of the existence of God. That belief required faith.

                  Your pathological need to engage in dishonest theatrics on behalf of Christianity shows a complete and total lack of understanding of its meaning. If you really felt Christianity was worth believing in, you would not have felt the need to lie on its behalf.

                  I am not attacking Christianity. I am attacking your bullshit version of it. Your version which is so weak and infantile it requires building elaborate fictions to maintain its structure. A Creationist is someone who feels the need to undermine religion and science because they understand neither.

                • baal

                  You know Aedgeworth that you could give up your obsession with evolution and sort of just never speak of it again and maybe find a less overtly hostile church to be a part of.

                  I recommend also reading up on the concept of “social signalling” and the use of costly social signals as a means of creating and defining group identity. Since I believe in transparency, I believe that if you understand your social group’s control techniques (via strong signaling – i.e. bizarre and irrational hate of evolution), you’ll be better able to move to a saner and healthier religious group.

                • aedgeworth

                  I’m not sure if that was meant to be humor, but it brought a smile to my face anyway. Consider that your good deed for the day. Since atheism and humanism have both been declared to be a religion by the Supreme Court, keep the faith baal.
                  By the way, do you have a strong hatred for Christianity and Creation. You might want to consider a healthier religious group yourself.

                • baal

                  Deadly serious.

                  And don’t confuse my emotion over your personal perfidy with how I view christianity as a whole (creation doesn’t exist, there is only reality).

                • baal

                  see also
                  The second video answers all your concerns Aedgeworth. It’s also entertaining :). Please enjoy.

                • Spuddie

                  You are so interested in absolute truth, yet you lie so often and so blatantly.

                  You have no love of truth and deny your own religious faith. You are under the mistaken opinion that the laws governing Christian moral conduct don’t apply when acting in support of your faith. You are living proof that apes read philosophy, they just don’t understand it.

                • aedgeworth

                  Atheism and humanism have both been declared to be a religion by the Supreme Court, so keep the faith Spuddie.

                • Spuddie

                  Bwahahahah. LMAO!

                  Atheism and humanism is not necessary for acceptance of evolutionary theory. All it takes is honest reference to scientific works for the last century.

                  It certainly had nothing to do with the Catholic Church doing so.
                  “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth”

                  Creationism REQUIRES belief in Fundamentalist Christianity. It requires that you lie in public about the unimportance of faith. It requires you make dishonest claims as to the evidence which exists to support it.

                  If there was evidence of Creationism, why didn’t its proponents, people qualified as expert witnesses in the field come forward to rebut it in open court? Because they had nothing. To lie about such evidence in court would have brought perjury charges.

                • Spuddie

                  I don’t have to know you personally to know you are a liar. You proved that all by yourself in your postings.

                  It bears repeating.

                  All Creationists are liars because it requires lies to sustain such a “belief”. Conceptually it is dishonest claptrap not even believed by its own proponents. It forces you to deny your own deeply held faith in public ironically to support your deeply held faith in private. That is dishonesty at its core.

                  When a Creationist is saying they believe in God based on the evidence discovered, they are lying. Their belief predated the evidence they sought. Their “evidence” is so ridiculous and lacking in credibility that nobody takes it seriously. Nobody is so stupid as to consider this to be enough proof to warrant adoption of a whole religious worldview.

                  The willingness of Creationists to throw so many arguments out there, despite being contradictory, completely untrue, ignorant or downright ridiculous shows that they are motivated by something other than a desire for objective information.


                  Creationism is all about the denial of faith. About trying to pretend faith is unnecessary to Christianity. That pretending involves lying in public. Bearing false witness. The kind of thing which is expressly forbidden of Christians.

                  So not only are Creationists liars, but they are a shitty Christians as well. =)

                • Spuddie

                  Are those hind limb bones in whales vestigial, useless, and serve no purpose or function

                  Hey lying dipshit! Read the TalkOrigins article you linked to. It explains it perfectly well based on current information. You were able to cut and paste from it, but somehow reading the whole article had eluded you.

                  No creationist claim has ever held up to objective scrutiny. If it did, they would not have come up so empty the last time Creationists were taken to court. (See my Kitzmiller quote 2 responses back). Not one Creationist can show their ideas have any acceptance in the scientific community as a valid theory or of any kind of meritorious scientific objection to evolution. The events speak for themselves.

                  I am never going to take any assertion “you” make
                  of a scientific nature seriously because all you are doing is cutting and pasting verbatim from Creationist sites which dishonestly quote real scientists out of context. You are not a scientist. Your opinions on a scientific subject aren’t worth a pile of dog shit.

                • aedgeworth

                  You still won’t answer just that one simple question will you? That speaks volumes. The fact that you won’t attempt to answer that says it all.

                  First of all, your statements about Creationists and Christians prove you know very little about either. Your refusal to answer my previous question indicates you know very little about evolution or science, or you are just being dishonest. I don’t know why anyone would put much stock in anything you say if you can’t even answer that question, and do so honestly. The answer is obvious anyway, especially since you avoid answering it.

                  I’ll help you out a little about Christianity. Faith is absolutely necessary to becoming a Christian. But someone could believe in Creation without being a Christian. Believing in creation is not limited entirely to faith, the laws of science, the fossil record, the design in nature and many other observable evidences support a supernatural worldview. But faith definitely comes first.

                  When you state: “When a Creationist is saying they believe in God based on the evidence discovered, they are lying. Their belief predated the evidence they sought,” that indicates you don’t understand the scientific method. A Christian doesn’t place their faith in God because of the abundance of evidence proving God’s existence or His Creation. But after they are saved, the evidence clearly supports their faith. By stating Christians say they believe in God based on the evidence discovered you are attempting the common evolutionist trick of inventing a “straw man” that doesn’t exist. But, then again, maybe you mistakenly believe that.

                  When a scientist puts forth an hypothesis, he might believe that it will be supported by the evidence, once he finds it, but his believe predated the actual evidence supporting his belief. Charles Darwin was taught evolution theory by his grandfather Erasmus Darwin long before he took his voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle. He also read Lyell’s first volume of Principles of Geology, then Lyell sent him the other two volumes while on the voyage.

                  Once a scientist or anyone else considers facts through a preconceived filter, the true quest for knowledge stops. The mistake is assuming your hypothesis to be true, and looking at all the evidence in that light. When that occurs, it fails to be science.

                  If a Creationist is also a true believer, he doesn’t deny his faith in any way. Just saying the evidence supports his belief, doesn’t mean he is operating by sight, and not by faith.

                  However, I have heard testimonies by scientists who say they became a Christian and a Creationist because of the evidence. So the opposite I guess could also be true. An honest evaluation of the observable evidence could lead one to place their faith in a Creator God. So when you state: “Nobody is so stupid as to consider this to be enough proof to warrant adoption of a whole religious worldview,” that would not be a true statement based on the testimonies of those who have done so.

                  The reason why Creationists throw so many arguments out there is because of the abundance of scientific arguments that exist.

                  When you state: “Creationism is all about the denial of faith. About trying to pretend faith is unnecessary to Christianity,” that proves you know very little about Christianity, or really understand Creationism either. I have read the science textbooks, I understand the processes given for evolution theory, I just find their explanations wanting. You on the other hand, have probably read very little Christian literature or Creationist literature, so the thing you have wrongfully accused me of, you would then be guilty of yourself, if that be the case.
                  I’m sure this won’t stop you from wrongfully presenting what Christians or Creationists really believe, or what they do, but your statements aren’t based in reality.

                • Spuddie

                  Asked and answered. I already told you the assumption made by your question was flawed and based on out of date information.

                  If you read the TalkOrigins article you linked to, you would have known that and ceased. I don’t cite things without giving the reader direct access to the full work. Because that’s what people who don’t lie or quote mine do. You don’t ever provide links to support your position because you are a lying sack of shit. Here it is again. Feel free to read it.

                  If you have any issues with the science involved, get a doctorate in biology perform a study and publish an article with your findings. I don’t care how many books you have claimed to read. Whatever you think scientists do is immaterial. You are not one. You have no clue what you are talking about.

                  You are a shitty Christian because you deliberately deny the role of faith in your religious belief and lie about it in public. The entire premise of Creationism is to say to those outside of Fundamentalist Christianity, that they must accept such belief because here is the objective proof of it. That is a rejection of belief based on faith. The fact that you are consistently lying in service of your faith is even more loathsome and Unchristlike. Jesus doesn’t need people to lie for him. Even if he did, you are not up for the task.

                  All Christians accept faith as the basis of their belief. Creationists however lie in public about this. They don’t actually believe anything they say in public as their “evidence” they just will adopt anything which could support their faith. No matter how ridiculous. When the pretension of science is dropped all Creationists fall back on the faith they previously denied in public. Their lies become that much more apparent.

                  However, I have heard testimonies by scientists who say they became a Christian and a Creationist because of the evidence.”

                  And that would be bullshit as well. Nobody adopts creationism based on its own evidence. They base it on their pre-existing religious belief.

                  A Christian doesn’t place their faith in God because of the abundance of evidence proving God’s existence or His Creation.

                  And there is your admission that Creationism is bullshit. If there is not an abundance of evidence proving God’s existence, then there is no scientific proof of Creationism.
                  This means you are lying when you claim there is.

                  Thanks for playing, you shot yourself in the foot. Aim a little higher and hit your head next time. Save us all the trouble. Bye Bye.

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              Evading the question and whining about tone only shows that you know you lost, and displays your actually foul character as opposed to his, which you can’t malign based on that comment without committing libel. Didn’t Jesus have words about lying about people?

              • aedgeworth

                Could you give me a quote? When you find it, consider taking your own advice.

    • Spazticus

      I consider that if some religious people had their way, higher education would be limited purely to religious education, and women would be shunned (or worse) for even suggesting that they desire a higher education. As an example of this line of thought, Pastor Steven Anderson.

      An informed person is much more difficult to manipulate, and that’s why they use this sort of propaganda. They want sheep here, not informed believers who might question what they’re told.

      • aedgeworth

        “…if some religious people had their way, higher education would be limited purely to religious education …” is a good definition for most of what is being passed off in the public schools today as education. It is actually indoctrination, and a lost of religions do that.

    • aedgeworth

      Mira, what an eye is, what it does, and how we treat it for disease, is true science. How we got an eye is a philosophical worldview question which does not constitute real science. I hope you one day regain your passion for “real” science.

      • baal

        I hope I never run into someone like you in person. My non-violence is being strained.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Your desire that an abuse victim return to being abused is noted, you foul man.

        • baal

          Exactly, cruelty like that is one of the few things that tempt me to do actual violence.

        • aedgeworth

          What in the world are you blabbering about C.L.?

  • storm

    I hurt my head from facepalming whenever I hear some idiot creationists bring out the “kinds” argument or “that’s not evolution. That’s adaptation.” Seriously, how is it possible to be this ignorant?

    • allein


      • JohnnieCanuck

        I need more upvotes for this. It plays out so well in my head.

  • NathansExplosions

    Ray Comfort thanks you for the attention.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Creationists profit by not being exposed and confronted. That’s how they gained power in the first place.

      • NathansExplosions

        Ray Comfort thanks you for the continued attention.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          Repeating it doesn’t make it true. Ray Comfort and his ilk pitch shitfits over being accurately quoted because they don’t like being exposed. Cultists never do.

          • NathansExplosions

            Ray Comfort is a troll. Attention is what trolls need to survive. He would be a nobody known only to a few it he were ignored. See: Westboro Baptist Church

            Westboro Baptist Church wouldn’t be around if people ignored them. But people don’t ignore them and instead they engage them and the WBC knows the law better than most, so when these engagements go sideways (as they tend to do) WBC sues everyone and wins. Now they have more money to use in their trolling efforts. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

  • ElRay

    Hehehehehehe. I tried to watch it, but I got, “An error occurred. Please try again later. _Learn_More_”

  • C.L. Honeycutt

    I have nothing to offer here, except that everyone needs to look up Ray Comfort on Rational Wiki and enjoy the dancing banana for a while.

  • Brian

    Funny….ray-ray is demanding proof of evolution, something that does not require faith. Oh the irony…

  • FaithIsGlorifiedDelusion

    “If you watch it, you also realize that Comfort has no idea how evolution actually works”

    Wrong. Ray PRETENDS that he has no idea how evolution actually works.

    • aedgeworth

      That is the standard reply that I have heard hundreds of times. If someone doesn’t believe in evolution it is because they just don’t understand how evolution really works. Kind of smacks of intellectualism.

      • Spuddie

        Its a standard reply because it is true. “Smacks of intellectualism” sounds like an appeal to ignorance.

        If someone is denying evolution in favor of creationism, they are either ignorant of over a century of scientific study, willfully ignoring it out of psychological convenience or just plain lying for the Lord.
        Claiming you have a good faith argument against evolution is not the same as having one.

        • aedgeworth

          Right. Would you admit it if I did?

          • Spuddie

            You have shown nothing but dishonesty do far. No reason to expect a sudden burst of honest discourse from you now.

            I don’t have to admit to anything. All I have to do is point to the longstanding and universal use and application of Evolution to the field of biology and its convergence with other disciplines.

            It speaks for itself and has done so for a long time. The burden of proof would be on people looking for a suitable replacement. None have come up with one so far.

            Creationism certainly doesn’t count. It is a philosophical idea. Neither religion nor science. One which is at its core rooted in rhetoric and dishonest discourse.

      • RobMcCune

        If someone gave a reason for not believing in evolution that showed actual understanding of the concept, they wouldn’t hear that reply.

        • aedgeworth

          Yes, I know. It doesn’t matter how many textbooks we’ve read, or courses we’ve taken, or even degrees we have earned from major universities, if we don’t believe in evolution we just don’t understand it.

          • RobMcCune

            The fact you didn’t understand my comment doesn’t help your case

            • aedgeworth

              I think perhaps you don’t grasp my reply to your comment.

              • RobMcCune

                I complete understand your comment, it’s a rehash of the comment I responded to. Your response had nothing to do with my point.

                • aedgeworth

                  Your comment is the same thing you keep saying over and over that has absolutely no merit.

                • RobMcCune

                  No, you’re thinking of aedgeworth.

                • aedgeworth

                  You could be correct. If you are, it will mean nothing to me in eternity. If I am correct, I sincerely hope you discover the truth before it is eternally too late. Take care.

          • baal

            You keep throwing hammers through windows and telling me you understand completely how to be a glazier. After a while it gets very hard to believe a word you say. Throw your dishonest quote mining and use of standard set bullshitting techniques and I’ve given up hope that you’re merely misguided. You must know that you’re working to disinform people. Were I religious, I would even call you Satanic in your efforts.

            • aedgeworth

              I guess we are both glad you’re not religious then. But you know “baal” is a religious name, correct?

              • C.L. Honeycutt

                You do know that the days of the week and the months are mostly based on pagan deities, and yet you don’t worship Janus or Woden?

                • aedgeworth

                  I don’t worship months or days either.

              • baal

                Depends on how well you know your middle eastern languages. Not every baal (lord or master) is Baal the God of the Caananites (aka the chosen people of the lord before some viscious liars re-wrote the history books, do you sleep well not knowing if you’re onto the right god or not?). Sometime names apply differently in different places and times?

                Every muhammed is Mohammad? It’s possible you have blinders on since you’re probably the only aedgeworth in existance.

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            “It doesn’t matter how many Enchanted World series books I read, archaeologists keep telling me that Atlantis was a myth! #wtfscientists”

            • aedgeworth

              C.L., interesting statement. Do you believe Atlantis was a myth?

      • phantomreader42

        Creationists such as yourself constantly babble moronic nonsense that shows their willful ignorance of evolutionary science. Either they don’t know what they’re talking about, or they’re lying through their teeth. So which are you, an idiot or a lying sack of shit?

        • aedgeworth

          Are you deliberately lying about creationists not understanding evolution, or have you been so brainwashed that you can’t accept that possibility. You clearly don’t understand what is taught in Genesis either, but that doesn’t stop you from commenting about something you have little knowledge of. I’ve read hundreds of textbooks about evolution, how many commentaries on Genesis have you read or tried to understand? Would zero be correct?
          There are at least hundreds of scientists with at least a Ph.D. in their field from reputable universities that have rejected the theory of evolution on scientific grounds. Do they not understand it either?

          • Spuddie

            You certainly don’t understand evolution or religious belief so you seek to cheapen them both.

            Your religious beliefs are not based on anything scientific or objective analysis. They are based on faith. Creationism seeks to deny faith. You cheapen religion by ignoring faith as the main component of your belief.

            You cheapen science with your delusional chatterings, misrepresentations and plainly strawman arguments and rhetorical fallacy.

            “There are at least hundreds of scientists with at least a Ph.D. in their field from reputable universities that have rejected the theory of evolution on scientific grounds.”

            No there aren’t. That is another lie on your part. At best 1 or 2 odd biologists who managed to sneak a paper into a journal before getting caught and a bunch of amateurs, theocrats and honorary doctorates chiming in. You have done nothing but lie here.

            • aedgeworth

              Spuddie, I have not intentionally lied about anything. I have a passion for truth. I understand evolution, if you say otherwise you are lying. I have been a Christian for 45 years with a college degree, although my doctorate is honorary based on my many years of study, plus publishing a number of books. I have developed a college course and taught it as well.
              I understand religion, if you say otherwise you are lying. I don’t know why you choose to lie about it, but you shouldn’t talk about something yourself you have little knowledge about. Have you studied evolution from over 100 science textbooks as I have? What exactly qualifies you as having more knowledge on the subject than I have?
              My religious beliefs are based on faith, but also on experience. Scientists exercise faith all the time, if only on the natural laws continuing to behave as in the past. They exercise faith in the understood mechanisms of evolution, whether they are interpreted properly or not.
              I doubt that I shall ever be able to cheapen religion as much as you have. You also cheapen real science, although probably not intentionally.
              Amusing that you would speak of no creation scientists being published, and at the same time admit they would have to try to sneak a paper in before being caught. Kind of explains a few things doesn’t it?

              • Spuddie

                Bullshit. You blatantly quote mined and lied about where you got the quotes from. That is dishonest behavior. You did so intentionally. Now you are engaging in further dishonesty by silly denial.

                Your understanding of religion is suspect since you chose to support it through dishonesty and through the rejection of faith. Creationism denies faith it claims it is unnecessary for the support of belief in God. Christianity depends on faith. If your are a Creationist you are either the denying fundamentals of Christianity or lying about your Creationism. Either way you are being dishonest with us.

                As for your claims about reading science textbooks, it brings up the quote from the film A Fish Called Wanda
                “Apes read philosophy, they just don’t understand it”

                “What exactly qualifies you as having more knowledge on the subject than I have?”

                I didn’t lie to try and prove my point. You did. =)

                “Scientists exercise faith all the time”

                But they do not rely on it as the support for their ideas. They leave it at the door and rely on what they can observe and prove.

                Its why their work must be published and subjected to peer review. Science is not Bible study. The methods of getting to an answer are many times more important than the answer itself. You prove that you will use any methods, preferably dishonest ones, fallacy and just plain obstinency to get to the answer you are looking for.

          • baal

            Which genesis and have you noticed they don’t agree with each other? Have you made people out of mud using your similarity (same image) as god? How many ribs do I have vs my wife? Could you point up the talking actual snakes? I want a hummer from satan, please summon him for me right now.

      • Ben

        Kind of smacks of “intellectualism”? Isn’t the intellect a *good* thing?

        And if you believe you understand evolution, how, then, would you define it?

        • aedgeworth

          The intellect is a good thing; intellectualism tends at times to put a wrong emphasis on the intellect and can cause someone to have an “I’m smart and they’re dumb” type of attitude toward those who would disagree with them. I have to be careful of that myself. Humans tend to have a problem with that.

          Thank you for asking for my definition of evolution. I understand that mutations can cause changes in the DNA sequences that make up genes, and this can be passed from one generation to the next. I also understand the concept that if a random mutation should happen to be beneficial in some way, that life form would be more likely to survive in its environment. I know this causes hereditary variations.

          I understand that genetic drift affects the frequency in which these changes will occur in a population. Gene flow being the exchange of genes between populations. I’ve seen the illustrations given in the textbooks. I do not disagree with that.

          Forgive me for using the terms microevolution and macroevolution. I know evolutionary biologists view macro as micro on a broader scale and basically view them as one and the same process, and I certainly understand that reasoning, although I disagree with it. Micro being those changes that result in genetic variation within a population group or species, and macro being greater changes over time that result in new species or higher than the species level.

          I understand that micro would be easily seen because of it taking place in a shorter time period. But let me share with you my concerns on a scientific level. First, the things that cause mutations. The nature of mutagens such as radiation, heat, harmful chemicals, errors in replication, etc. would normally result in doing harm to the life form and tend to damage or break apart DNA. This causes beneficial mutations to be extremely rare, if at all. Then you take in the amount of beneficial mutations that would be needed for the type of changes needed, and the mathematical probabilities.

          Life forms have repair mechanisms that fix changes in the DNA, and thus would be just as likely to repair a change that might be beneficial, making them even more rare. Plus, mutations do not add genetic information, which is really a must for any evolutionary mechanism to go from simple to complex life forms. No explanation has been given for where DNA came from. Name one other source of information that did not include a sender.

          I’ve given this statement before: “Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist; it
          cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs.” Parasitology, 6th ed. Lea & Febiger, p. 516.
          The real problem I have with common descent, other than the biblical objections of course, is the extreme differences between life forms that supposedly evolved from one to the other. I’ve already posted here about the extreme differences between birds and reptiles. But what about humans and apes? The human jaw is rounder. The human pelvis is cup-shaped, compared with the flatter ape pelvis. The human spine is S-shaped, compared with the single curve of the ape spine. The human foot has short, aligned toes, compared with the longer, grasping toes and the opposable big toe of the ape. Human ribs are barrel-like, ape ribs are conical shaped. Just to name a few differences. It almost looks like they were designed for what they do. Sorry, I know I’m not supposed to think that way.
          In case you think I got these differences from a creationist website, I got the wording from MODERN BIOLOGY – Holt, Rinehart & Winston 1999 – p. 321.
          Some of the dishonesty I’ve read in textbooks have added to my rejection of evolution theory. I’ll give you one example. In the majority of Biology books they will give an example of vestigial structures as clues to evolutionary origins. Almost without fail they will give the whale’s pelvis as an example of this. They make statements like: “The whale’s pelvis is evidence of its evolution from four-legged land-dwelling mammals.” Then they will show a diagram of the whale and say: “Whales have a vestigial pelvis that serves no apparent function.” Is that true?
          Those bones are deeply embedded in muscle tissue, and serve as an organ anchor with muscle groups attached to it, and the whale cannot reproduce without them. There has no evidence been found they were ever attached to the vertebral column. The lame excuse often given is that they serve a less important function today. More important than being able to reproduce? My offspring would probably tend to disagree with you. So do I.
          Then some of the idiotic statements that are made to prove evolution. For example the lion changing the color of its coat so it would blend in with its surroundings and be able to hide from its prey. Can a leopard change its spots? The answer is supposed to be: “No.” Can a lion change the color of its coat? The hilarious thing about this, later on it states that the lion is color-blind. Hello!
          Sometimes from the idiotic statements being made you would think the real mechanism for evolution is the power of positive thinking. “If my coat were only brown.” What color did it used to be? Any evidence for that?
          I know, I know; “You just don’t understand how evolution works.” Yes, that must be it. Maybe I just don’t have a good enough imagination to fill in what’s missing. I just believe what is required of supposedly random, chance happenings are mathematically, and scientifically impossible. And yes, I also have my own worldview and tend to see things through those tinted worldview glasses. If you think you don’t, you are at least not being honest with yourself.

          • baal

            Lovely, now can you show us the boundary layer between micro and macro or between your ‘kinds’? Not just your hand wave of well the chicken on my table doesn’t look like a crocodile but something like a frog isn’t a toad and neither is confusable for the other.

            • aedgeworth

              I don’t believe birds are reptiles, but if your biology teacher thinks it is, he is welcome to his own opinion. Doesn’t make it so. But evolutionists set the rules on what things should be called and what they prove or don’t prove. The majority isn’t always right, as you will find out someday.

              • RobMcCune

                The majority isn’t always right, as you will find out someday.

                It’s obvious now, the majority of people are creationists.

                • aedgeworth

                  I won’t even ask you to explain your abstract thinking on that one.

                • RobMcCune

                  Probably for the the best, abstract thinking doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.

  • WingedBeast

    So, by observable evidence of macro evolution, he’s looking for actual examples observed in real time over a period of time far shorter than the period of time in which we have been observing.

    That would be like saying that no 5 year study has ever observed an infant becoming an octogenarian. It’s only observed newborns becoming 5 year olds, 5 year olds becoming 10 year olds, 10 year olds becoming 15 year olds, 15 year olds becoming 20 year olds, 20 year old becoming 25 year olds, 25 year olds becoming 30 year olds, 30 year olds becoming 35 year olds, 35 year olds becoming 40 year olds, 40 year olds becoming 45 year olds, 45 year olds becoming 50 year olds, 50 year olds becoming 55 year olds, 55 year olds becoming 60 year olds, 60 year olds becoming 65 year olds, 65 year olds becoming 70 year olds, 70 year olds becoming 75 year olds, and 75 year olds becoming 80 year olds.
    But, we have to accept on faith that those 80 year olds were once infants. Because micro aging’s been observed in a 5 year study, but never macro aging.

    • aedgeworth

      I thought the fossil evidence was supposed to be proof of macro-evolution? Doesn’t it cover the whole 600 million years? Guess what? No clear transitional fossils. But don’t take my word for it, here is what the evolutionists say: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology, the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” Stephen J. Gould, Natural History, Vol. 86, pgs 22, 30

      “Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur- though it is a startling fact that, … most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages.”
      Eldredge, Niles, “Progress in Evolution?” New Scientist, vol. 110 (June 5, 1986), p. 55

      Gould also said: “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages
      between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Gould, S. J., in Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, ed. John Maynard Smith, Macmillan, New York, p.140, 1982

      • WingedBeast

        That link there is to a non-exhaustive list of transitional fossils found. Considering that approximately 1% of species get fossil representations, it’s pretty good that we have this much.

        • aedgeworth

          Wow, Wikipedia, what a great science website! It must be true if it is on there.

          Archaeopteryx has proven to not be a transitional fossil, and some attempts have been fraudulent. Dr. Stuart Burgess, Ph.D. in Engineering Design (Professor of Combustion Theory) said: “Birds are so different from other creatures that there would have been hundreds of thousands of intermediate forms between birds and land animals if birds had evolved.”
          The so-called Ape to Man transitional fossils listed have proven to be: (1) completely ape, no relation to humans, or (2) completely human, no relation to apes, or (3) deliberate frauds or hoaxes. But I wouldn’t expect Wikipedia to keep on top of that.

          • Spuddie

            So a person with no background in paleontology or biology says something having nothing to do with his own field and it is expected to be taken at face value as scientific proof.

            Do you understand why such things would not be considered credible on its face?

            “But I wouldn’t expect Wikipedia to keep on top of that.”

            Because nothing you said is remotely true. It would violate editorial standards.

          • WingedBeast

            I’m curious as to this proof. Does the proof include more Engineers speaking on behalf of Biologists without the education thereof?

            • RobMcCune

              If he’s “right” about archaeopteryx, it’s because the discovery of more fossils that show traits of both dinosaurs and birds were discovered as contemporaries and or predecessors, i.e. more evidence for evolution.

            • aedgeworth

              Tell me about your religious background and your years of study with creationists so I will know if any statements you make about them can be trusted. We shouldn’t speak about something we don’t know much about, right? How many creationist’s books have you read with an open mind toward science?

              • WingedBeast

                I’m not claiming myself as an authoritative voice on religion. You are claiming that this Engineer is authoritative enough on the subject of biology that his statement that an archaeopteryx cannot have been an ancestor of modern day birds because the archaeopteryx is so different from modern birds.

                Therefore, his credentials come into play.

                Also, the fact that he’s essentially claiming that evolution couldn’t have happened there because it would have required evolution is a case of assuming the conclusion.

                • aedgeworth

                  He is not just an Engineer, he is a professor of engineering design and has done research in Bio-inspired design and optimisation of engineering systems. Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina did say this: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a
                  bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’
                  is going to change that.” Cited in V. Morell, “Archaeopteryx:
                  Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms,” Science 259(5096):764–65, 5 February, 1993.
                  If archaeopteryx were a feathered dinosaur that wouldn’t begin to explain how random chance mutations can change a reptile with tough skin and no glands into a bird with tender skin and a complex glandular system. You really have to have a great imagination to picture those type of changes without any evidence to support it except for the fact that birds exist, which in some minds is enough I guess.

                • WingedBeast

                  First thing you have to understand is that dinosaurs aren’t all reptiles The next thing is that evolution is a gradual process, so when we find one ancestor, we have one step and not the whole process. The next thing is that we don’t have know everything in order to know anything.
                  This is part of the problem we face in communicating with Creationists. Partly, you’re working with the idea that Evolution is the Theory of Not God. It isn’t. It is the theory of changes in characteristics in a breeding population over the course of generations through descent (inherited traits) modification (no offspring is a perfect copy of is parent(s)) and selection (within certain conditions, only some changes are going to be beneficial).
                  That means that 1. even were you to manage to falsify evolution, that wouldn’t be a win for Creationism but also 2. that even “God” becomes the answer for every how question you might ask, evolution doesn’t have to have all the answers as quickly.
                  Scientists learn a small bit, remove that which the evidence shows to have been an error, and moves on. Not all questions are immediately answered, even fewer by a leman on the internet or a student subjected to a leading and dishonestly posed questions on a video.
                  My advice is to stop learning about evolution from creationists and start learning about it from actual biologists. Take some classes, learn how it works, learn how radiometric dating works. Learn how science works.
                  Then, with an accurate understanding, you can attempt to disprove evolution in a manner that would actually, you know, disprove evolution, rather than troll boards on the internet.

                • aedgeworth

                  I’ve found quite a few science websites that would disagree with you about all dinosaurs being reptiles. Of course they try to say birds are reptiles also, all based on the supposed bird evolution of course.
                  I took biology in school, have read about evolution from hundreds of science textbooks and have probably read more on this subject than you have. I rarely ever go on a creationist website, and spend quite a bit of time on biology websites.
                  But still your standard answer is that I need to take some classes so I will understand how science works. You are like a broken record. You just can’t allow yourself to accept that someone can actually understand evolution and how science works, and still reject evolution. I used the scientific method for about 7 years in problem solving in relation to my job. It involved hypothesis forming, making predictions, performing tests, evaluating the results, and the answers we got were often not what we thought the answer would be. But we had a 100% success rate.
                  One day maybe you will realize the answer to accepting evolution theory is not just related to more knowledge on the subject, then maybe you can proceed with an accurate understanding of the issues. I won’t hold my breath for that to happen.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  Your quote mines are taken directly from Creationist texts.

                  YOUR PERSONAL WEBSITE is a YEC page that you pretend is a science page.

                  It’s funny how you claim that others have a philosophical motivation to accept Evolutionary Theory, when your page is about selling seminars, CDs, and books full of anti-science propaganda.

                  Does Jesus love that you lie to cover up your deceit?

                • aedgeworth

                  Since I have been gathering my quotes for the last 16 years, and creationists use a lot of the same quotes, and I’ve researched hundreds of websites that are creationist and evolutionist, I could not tell you where each of them came from. I know many of them are used on evolution websites as well, if only trying to refute creation. Evolutionists gather quotes from creationist sites, why is it not wrong for them also, is a double standard involved?
                  As my website says: Truth and Science. I cover many topics, most of them science related. This site is an atheist website isn’t it? Does it have articles about science? Another double standard, they can do it but I’m lying if I do. Correct?
                  I have no anti-science propaganda, that is your opinion, which borders closely to being a lie. I do know one thing, Jesus does not love that you lie about what I am doing or what my intentions are.

                • Spuddie

                  ” I rarely ever go on a creationist website”

                  And that would be a lie. Especially since you cut and pasted from one to engage in quote-mining and then further compounded it by claiming you found them on a science website. Despite the fact that said science website included the quotes in context and how they are used dishonestly by creationists.

                  Considering your willingness to lie so obviously, there is no reason for anyone to believe you either understand science, evolution or anything else you claim.

                  “You just can’t allow yourself to accept that someone can actually understand evolution and how science works, and still reject evolution. ”

                  Because you have not demonstrated anything to that effect in any appreciable fashion.

                  Maybe one day you will realize that everyone here knows your playbook already. You have proffered nothing here that most of us have not seen before.

                  Have you ever stopped lying?

                • aedgeworth

                  You admit the science website had the quotes on it, but you know I didn’t get them from there. I was just on that website, and I saw them there, but where I got all the quotes I have been collecting over the last 16 years, I could not say.
                  I apologize if I gave the impression I got them from that website yesterday, I’ve been on that site before and some may have come from there. I was trying to point out the fact that the quotes are not just on creationist sites, evolution websites have them as well. I could have gotten a bunch from Wikipedia, I know they are on there also. Some of you indicated you go there for information. Sometimes it has been quite helpful.
                  I was not lying when I said I rarely go to creationists’ websites, as you have accused me of. I honestly don’t. I have accumulated so much information I rarely need to.
                  I have explained how evolution works on my posts here, today I believe, if you think I misunderstand part of it, let me know what you think I don’t understand, maybe you can shed some new light to increase my understanding.
                  In my seminars I actually go through evolution theory and quote from textbooks showing how it is taught. My latest textbooks are from 2006 though, so if you have any more recent ones you would like to send to me to keep me up to date, I would gladly receive them. I do look for current information on the web.
                  I’m just curious though, why is my quote mining from creationists’ websites considered dishonest, but evolution sites that do the same thing are not held to the same standard? I hate double standards, how about you?

                • Spuddie

                  When you want to get out of a hole, just stop digging. Lying to cover up your previous lies isn’t helping you one bit.

                  People here are not as stupid as you take them. You were trying to use the quotes to misrepresent the positions of the scientists who said them. It is obvious you copied them from a Creationist site. The scientific websites include the entire context and how they are used by people like yourself in their lies.

                  Of course you don’t need to go to too many Creationist sites, you are an old hand in lying for the Lord. There isn’t much new you can pick up. They have had nothing new to say in over a century, just new ways of presenting their dishonest claptrap. The one thing you haven’t learned in all that time is how new information technology has made it easy to poke holes in your well worn arguments.

                  All it took was a web search to see you were full of crap.

                  “why is my quote mining from creationists’ websites considered dishonest,
                  but evolution sites that do the same thing are not held to the same
                  standard? I hate double standards, how about you?”

                  So now you are admitting you are lying and trying to make an excuse for it. Obviously you did not check out the links I gave. The difference between a Creationist site and the Evolution one was the Evolution one was not trying to misquote the scientists. They were including the context, previous and subsequent passages which showed author intent. The Creationist site merely sought to lie about the author position.

                  Not double standards, a single one. When one quotes somebody you quote it in context, honestly and to show the full intent of the author. More importantly to show an honest intent, you link to the full passage where possible.

                  If you hate double standards and dishonesty, what the hell are you doing here? You have done nothing but show such things.

                • WingedBeast

                  It’s not that you don’t believe that there is an evolutionary history that leads me to say that you do not understand evolution.

                  The nature of your objections include “it’s a completely random accident” which is nowhere in any actual description of evolution and “it’s too improbable to happen” which looks only at specific end results and not at any of the steps and your claims regarding knowledge of certain transitional fossils found.

                  As to your knowledge of the scientific method, that’s great! Then, you know exactly what I’m looking for with regards to your claim that evolution cannot change “kinds”, I’m looking for a clear and precise definition of what constitutes a “kind” and predictions based upon such a barrier that can be tested.

                • aedgeworth

                  In regards to mutations, are they planned or accidental? Are they random or directional? Two simple questions. I would appreciate an answer. As for changes of “kinds,” they are described as changes higher than the species level on biology websites. Since there is no real way to test macro-evolution, not being observable as micro is, we’ll leave it at you believing macro is micro over a longer time, and my believing some extreme differences such as between reptiles and birds would not seem to be realistic predictions.

                • WingedBeast

                  The mutations themselves? Random. But, the conditions that the organisms are in are not random and whether the mutations have positive impact, negative impact, or null impact on reproductive success is not random.
                  That’s important to keep in mind, there is a random element, but that doesn’t mean the entire process is random.

                  And, your last line suggests equal weight to both sides of this conversation. Unfortunately, there is not such an equal weight. There are means of observation beyond real-time naked eye, such as genetic similarity, fossil evidence, etc.

                  But, really, we have no reason to suppose a micro/macro boundary except in order to acknowledge evolution as a process but still find some wiggle room for an inerrantist reading of the bible. So, what we have is evidence for the process of evolution and you claiming that there’s a boundary to how much evolution can happen. And, you have no evidence to support that claim. You have not presented evidence to support that claim.

                  So, no, it’s not equal. It still leaves evolution as a process proven and your additional claim baseless.

                • aedgeworth

                  Have a nice eternity WingedBeast. I honestly hope for the best for you. Gotta go. Have enjoyed the debate. Just remember, eternity is a long time to be wrong. I can’t lose either way.

                • WingedBeast

                  Actually, you can lose. You can lose an entire life that could have been spent making a better world rather than holding it back.

                  You can also lose by picking the wrong god.

                  Of course, if you’ve picked the right god, you can still lose by insulting God by suggesting that he would send people to eternal torment for only the crime of not having guessed the right religion.

                  Or, you can lose by being right about that and spending your eternity either in desperate fear that not being happy enough will get you sent to Hell or by being obliterated by a being that calls that Heaven.

                  You can lose in so many different ways, particularly if you’re talking about a guessing game, which Pascal’s Wager assumes.

                  But, it’s also Pascal’s Wager, which is where you go when you’ve already lost in the arena of actual reason, logic, and evidence.

                • Cake

                  Did this moron with the old geezer avatar just use Pascal’s Wager? That’s hilarious!


                • aedgeworth

                  Pascal’s Wager is a form of “decision theory,” “rational choice theory,” or “game theory.” This is an area of study that is used by mathematicians, statisticians, economists, psychologists, and even biologists, to name a few. It is just the study of preferences, uncertainties, and other issues related to making optimal or rational choices. It is used in biology on the problem of how to predict which characteristics will be favored by natural selection, or to explain why certain characteristics have been so favored.

                  Some assumptions went into Pascal’s Wager, which have been argued, and perhaps rightfully so, placed limitations on the choices given that did not exist. It maybe could have better been stated: “If there is just one true God, and the alternative choice is to believe in no God, or many gods, you have a 50-50 chance of being right.” Even that probably has weaknesses that could be presented.

                  When someone presents a choice of either/or, it is not necessarily presenting Pascal’s Wager, even if it involves the existence or non-existence of God. It is just a form of rational choice theory used by many groups of people today with many applications.

                  Probabilities have been given for the mathematical likelihood of evolution, such as those given by atheist and evolutionist Fred Hoyle. I don’t believe Hoyle factored in natural selection however, which could greatly change the probabilities.

                  Evolutionist Harold Morowitz estimated the probability for chance formation of even the simplest form of living organism at 1/10 to 340,000,000. He estimated the mathematical probability of the simplest form of bacteria to form by a chance arrangement of amino acids to be far less than 1 in 10 to 450 power.

                  Some have estimated that the chance of 5,000 beneficial mutations (needed for one species to evolve into another) to be 1 in 10 to the 15,000 power. 1 in 10 to the 50 power is considered mathematically impossible. Are there flaws in their calculations that could be argued against? Possibly so.

                  Not being a scientist or mathematician myself, I cannot rationalize from a purely mathematical standpoint, I just look at it attempting to use rational thinking factoring in the issues that I know about that would affect probabilities, and estimate what the likelihood is of an event coming to pass. Of course I am probably affected somewhat by my worldview and not as non-biased as I could be, or wish to be. Evolutionists face the same problem.

                  I see six categories of evolution, although I am sure many of you will debate that. Cosmic, stellar and planetary, chemical, organic, micro, and macro. Only one of these have been observed.

                  Sir Arthur Keith said: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is
                  special creation which is unthinkable.” Although you would probably never admit it, that would probably be the case of the majority that comment or post on this website.

                  That is a choice, which I believe when tested according to “decision theory,” “rational choice theory,” or “game theory,” would not prove to be a wise choice, or provide the best possible rewards. Have a nice eternity. I mean that sincerely, not meaning to offend anyone, and apologize if I perhaps have.

                • Cake

                  Dumbass creationist says what?

                • Spuddie

                  Your dishonestly quotemining again. A nice way of saying you are a lying sack of crap

                  From the same article “These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing.”




              • baal

                “How many creationist’s books have you read with an open mind toward science?”
                Your question is irrational. Creationists do not do science. They have even lost court cases on that point.

                • aedgeworth

                  Wow! If it is your opinion, and liberal Supreme Court judges say so, it must be true. We all know they never make a wrong ruling. I also take it from your answer you have not read their books yourself, so are not basing your statements on what you actually know.

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            Seriously, if you aren’t aware that Wikipedia links to its citations and is primarily used as a convenient compilation of such citations, you aren’t equipped to argue this with anyone online.

            • aedgeworth

              Say what? An evolutionist posted a quote from Wikipedia.

              • C.L. Honeycutt

                Which was built on citations. Dismissing the article is dismissing those citations. Your dismissal is equivalent* to claiming that Obama never gave a State of the Union Address because the videos of the speeches were reposted on DailyKOS.

                *Except that we have better evidence that Evolutionary Theory is true than we do that any human has ever given a speech.

                • aedgeworth

                  In your mind C.L.

      • Spuddie

        Do you have a link to the quotes? My guess is that they are taken out of context or fabricated. Creationists are pretty famous for lying to support their point of view. My guess is your cut and paste is not from anything resembling a complete source.

        Feel free to be indignant about my accusations of dishonesty on your part.

        • aedgeworth

          Try the Talk Origins Archive. It has many of the quotes. It is an evolutionary website. I hope you don’t think cutting and pasting quotes from an evolutionist website is dishonest. Just because Gould and Eldridge believed in evolution, doesn’t mean they didn’t make the statements, or they were taken out of context. They were being honest about the fossil record. Of course if I quote them I am being dishonest. Go figure. For the record, I hate dishonesty with a passion in whatever form it is found in. Unlike some creationists, and most evolutionists, I even admit when the other side has made a good point. You should try being honest about that sometime.

          • Spuddie

            Except that website shows how your use of those specific quotes is dishonest. How your use is the product of intentional omission. (See my post above)

            You cut and pasted it from a Creationist site and lied to me claiming you got it from a debunking site. If you “hate dishonesty with a passion”, don’t look in a mirror.

        • Spuddie

          Aedgeworth you are lying piece of crap. You cut and pasted from a Creationist site which quotemined. Attached are links with the full citations and how they are being misrepresented.




        • Pablo

          Did they say those things or not? It does not matter where they were copied from. Typical diversion from the facts.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          Sorry Spuddie, DISQUS has a habit of not showing me an entire thread if I click on recent responses in it and browse through. Clearly you had that well in hand.

          • Spuddie

            No sweat.

            TalkOrigins.org has a quotemine bank now. You can trace the misinterpreted quote with its full context.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        I assume you aren’t aware that you’re quote mining and that instead you just copy-pasted from a Creationist’s arguments, so here here’s the thing: You’re quote mining. Intentionally quote mining is lying. Unintentionally quote mining is ignorance and the gullible propagation of the lies of others.

        I researched those exact quotes four years ago when someone else was quote mining them in a local paper. Gould and Elderege didn’t indicate what you folk want them to have indicated. You’re repeating lies and libel.

        • aedgeworth

          What do you call it when evolutionists quote mine from creationist websites? Getting quotes from others, and not reading the book for myself, is lying? Gould and Eldridge were trying to promote “punctuated equilibrium,” and so they said there was no evidence of slow change in the fossil record, so that proved it happened quickly. I have never said they doubted evolution happened, and to be completely honest, they probably minimized the evidence for slow change to promote their new theory. Instead of receiving the accolades from their peers they expected, instead they were severely criticized. That still doesn’t mean they didn’t make the statements, and nobody says they didn’t. The quotes were not taken out of context, just because they still believed in evolution, nobody said they didn’t.

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            Cherry-picking part of a passage to change the point or omitting context is lying, yes.

            Either you don’t understand what a quote-mine is, in which case you aren’t competent enough to be debating here, or you do understand and are employing deceit here.

            What do you call it when evolutionists quote mine from creationist websites?

            Thanks for admitting with that defense that your ethical system is built around paying forward lies.

            • aedgeworth

              Did you check all the creation sites those quotes were taken from to make sure they weren’t out of context? If not, you are holding to a double standard. Would they be guilty of quote mining if they were out of context? That evolution site gives the quotes but does it give the context? It is pretty impossible to collect hundreds of quotes and find all the original articles to check the context. But some stand by themselves regardless of the context in which it was given. You are right, I should have included a statement about context, as that does rightly define quote mining. Score one for you.

  • Michaela Samuels

    It takes a whole 40 seconds for the first false claim. “Atheism assumes you can disprove the existence of God.”

    If you set up the theory on false pretenses, it sure does make it easy to break.

    • Spazticus

      He is a master at knocking down the straw men he conveniently sets up…

  • WingedBeast

    Dear Ray, Darwinian Evolution is descent with modification and selection. So, no matter how great or small the change, that is an example of Darwinian Evolution.
    Know what you’re asking for!

    • aedgeworth

      Exactly. 14 different kinds of finches proves one of my great grandpas was a bacterium. I don’t know why those creationists can’t get it.

      • WingedBeast

        No, 14 different kinds of finches proves that descent with modification and selection happens. That’s just the proof of the process.

        • aedgeworth

          Nobody disagrees with change within species. How does changes within species prove change beyond the species level? A creationist would predict change within the finch or bird kind. Reptiles change as well, within their kind. But evolutionists are searching desperately for proof that reptiles evolved into birds. Your belief is not based on observable evidence. Your belief came first and now you are searching for evidence to support what you already want to believe.

          • WingedBeast

            Good, we have a shared point. Descent with modification and selection (that is to say, Darwinian Evolution) is something that we both agree happens.

            Now, when you say “within their kind”, what you’re proposing is a barrier to the change. Note: the barrier cannot be a time-based barrier, therefore the lack of greater change in the available timeframe cannot be evidence of the existence of said barrier.

            So, what evidence would you show to support what I’m going to call your Kind Barrier Hypothesis?

            What predictions can you make, based upon Kind Barrier Hypothesis, that, if failed, would falsify that hypothesis?

            • aedgeworth

              I don’t agree with changes that go beyond the species level. To clarify, I believe a robin is a species of bird. I don’t believe robins evolved into a different species of bird. But more importantly, I don’t believe a reptile evolved into a bird.

              Here are some of the differences between reptiles and birds, taken from Holt Biology 2006: “Differences between birds and reptiles: wings, body-coverings, bones, metabolism, respiratory system, heart, etc.” p. 784

              A lizard may regulate its body temperature by moving repeatedly between sun and shade. (A bird doesn’t have to do that, they have a system to regulate body heat.) p. 773

              The lungs are extremely different. pgs. 759, 776, 787

              “Unlike their reptilian relatives, birds usually lack teeth and have a tail that is greatly reduced in length.” “Other
              characteristics unique to birds distinguish them from all other animals.” “The most obvious is the presence of feathers and the modification of the forelimbs into wings.” p. 784

              “Unlike reptiles, birds have light hollow bones for flight, and many of the bones are fused together.” p. 785
              (Reptiles have dense heavy bones.)

              Birds have a 4-chambered heart, reptiles 3-chambered. Birds have tube type lungs, reptiles sack type. Their reproductive systems, body coverings, and eye coverings are all different. Feathers come from different genes than do scales, and attach differently to the skin. Birds have the highest metabolic rate on earth, reptiles the lowest. Birds reach a growth limit and stop, reptiles keep growing as long as they live. Birds have tender skin with glands, reptiles have tough skin with no glands. Birds have the muscles necessary for flight, reptiles do not. Birds have hard shelled eggs, reptiles are leathery.

              Do you actually believe reptiles just grew some feathers and took off flying? Birds and reptiles are about as different as two creatures could be. You would have to redesign them from the inside out, and that is what I believe happened.

              Something you need to keep in mind, and I got this from a parasitology book: “Natural selection can act only on those
              biologic properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs.” Parasitology, 6th ed. Lea & Febiger, p. 516.

              W. E. Swinton of the British Museum of Natural History in London said this: “The [evolutionary] origin of bird is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.”

              • WingedBeast

                Sorry for the late reply on this one.

                But, don’t jump ahead of me. I didn’t say we both agreed that these changes result in speciation. I said that we both agree that these changes happen.

                You are claiming that there is some boundary to these changes, that there is a limit to those changes beyond that which is imposed by the rate of change and the time available.

                Therefore, I am asking you to provide some evidence for that boundary. Show me the evidence for the kind boundary. Show me the falsifiable predictions based upon that hypothesis.

                • aedgeworth

                  Show me the opposing statistics proving it possible first.

                • WingedBeast

                  Statistics opposing what, exactly?
                  We’ve agreed that the change happens. You’re proposing something additional, here, a boundary that change comes up to and stops.
                  That this change can only happen within certain boundaries is an additional piece upon what is already known. So, you’re asking me to disprove this boundary before you prove it.

              • Spuddie

                Swinton’s quote was from 1960. 17 years before the seminal work on the subject was published. It is not even close to accepted thinking in the field anymore. Passing it off as evidence is dishonest on your part. More lies for the Lord.


                • aedgeworth

                  You would be the expert on lying Spuddie.

                • Spuddie

                  I guess I am an expert at catching lying sacks of crap now. You have given me so much practice.

                  You got caught lying openly. Best of all, I made it easy for people to cut through your dishonesty with links so they can check it out for themselves.

                  I can’t help it if the internet has made the age old Creationist tactic of quotemining and misrepresentation obsolete.

          • Spuddie

            Except Creationism is a complete and utter lie. There is no Creationist science.

            There is not even good faith Creationist belief. Creationists lie about the nature of their belief and its basis.

            Creationism posits the lie that belief Fundamentalist Christianity is correct because it can be proven so objectively and by observation. No Fundamentalist Christian will ever accept the real consequences of such an idea. The notion their belief can be disproven objectively by the observation.

            They default to saying that their belief is based on faith. Thus negating the premise of Creationism. Meaning they were lying. The reality is Creationism exists purely to browbeat people into acceptance of Fundamentalist Christianity.

            Your attack on Evolution is based on your own ignorance of the subject rather than any legitimate concerns for it.

            • aedgeworth

              Yeah, that must be it. I can’t believe I have collected over 150 science textbooks from 1934 to 2006 and spent so much time reading them and still don’t understand evolution. I even spent several years using the scientific method in the workplace with a 100% success rate and still don’t understand how science works. Evolution is a belief system for people who don’t understand real science, but they don’t care. They just want something to replace God with. The saying comes to mind: “Thinking themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

              • phantomreader42

                The reason you don’t understand evolution is that you would sooner kill and eat your own family that allow yourself to understand it. Your faith is founded on willful ignorance and shameless lying. Just like all creationists.

                • aedgeworth

                  Hey phantomreader42, I understand evolution, but I don’t have philosophical reasons to overlook its weaknesses and failures as you do. When it comes to ignorance and shameless lying, ever heard of Piltdown Man? Reader’s Digest called it “The Great Piltdown Hoax.” It was a deliberate fraud.
                  How about Nebraska Man? An evolutionist found one tooth, and from that tooth was able to help an artist to draw a picture of what Nebraska Man and his wife both looked like. It then turned out to be a pig’s tooth. One man called it the pig that made a monkey of an evolutionist.

                  Dr. Tim White, an anthropologist at the University of California, Berkley, as quoted in New Scientist, April 28, 1983: “A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib… The problem with a
                  lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.”
                  Any creationist that would deliberately misrepresent the facts, shame on them also.

                • Spuddie

                  So which college did you get your doctorate in Biology from? Which journals have you been published in?

                  Its funny but with the hoax thing, if Creationists were such rigorous critics of Evolution, how come they are never the ones to spot the hoaxes? In fact they never do any kind of work on their own that isn’t complete hogwash.

                  Unlike a Creationist, the scientific community rejects, revises and disavows hoaxes. Creationists just continue on as long as nobody has noticed.

                  Shall we discuss such Creationists hoaxes (which are still being cited today) such as the Paluxy “man tracks” or the RATE project.

                • WingedBeast

                  Let’s put your claims of understanding evolution to the test, aedgeworth.
                  What is the theory of evolution?

                  What are the mechanisms of evolution?

                • aedgeworth

                  I already posted that earlier, I’m not repeating all of that.

                • WingedBeast

                  Not in your conversations with me. And, really, it isn’t even “all of that”.

                • aedgeworth

                  Random mutations, survival of the fittest, genetic drift and gene flow, and the assumption of common descent. The general picture.

                • WingedBeast

                  No assumption necessary. I like how you throw that word in there as though sneaking it in will make it true.

                  But, with that in mind, I wonder how it is that you managed to claim, in another line of this thread, that there should be clear cases of animals in transition. Being that you understand that survival of the fittest is in play, I wonder how it is that you thought asking how many non-beneficial mutations can accumulate was a question you couldn’t easily answer yourself?

                  Your questions. Your challenges to evolution. These haven’t been the questions or challenges of someone who knows the very basic concepts that you just listed.

              • Spuddie

                Pretty much. You are a liar.

                I already caught you lying upthread with blatant quotemining. Feel free to be indignant about it.

                I don’t care how much you claim to have studied evolution. Unless you are a biologist with papers published in the field, you are nothing but an amateur with delusions. Like someone who has watched medical dramas for decades but thinks people would take them seriously about the cause of endocrine system dysfunction.

                You will say pretty much anything to pretend your religious belief is somehow proven objectively and by observation. Of course if you were honest in such an idea, you would accept that your religious belief could be disproved the same way. You will never let that happen.

                Of course the truth is your religious belief exists independent of any objective observation. It is based on faith. Creationism is the denial of faith. I am sure you won’t deny faith as an essential part of your religious belief. So your arguments are inherently lies.

                The whole point of your Creationist belief is to beat people over the head with the fictional notion that your religious beliefs must be accepted by all. You have no interest in science except as something which attacks your clearly weak religious belief.

              • baal

                “using the scientific method in the workplace with a 100% success rate”
                As Einstein says, if you haven’t failed then you haven’t tried hard enough. I’d be careful slinging that biblical fools quote around, your liable to hit yourself with it.

                • aedgeworth

                  If you know it is a biblical quote, you probably have read the context and realize that passage is a good description of evolutionists.

          • RobMcCune

            But evolutionists are searching desperately for proof that reptiles evolved into birds.

            Archaeopteryx, which was discovered in the 19th century, along with Scansoriopteryx and Microraptor. Not to mention numerous anatomical similarities between birds and other dinosaurs.

            Your belief came first and now you are searching for evidence to support what you already want to believe.

            No that’s creationism, and try as they might, they can’t find evidence.

            • aedgeworth

              Your main problem in regards to bird evolution is you are looking for a few similarities, yet disregard their are extreme differences between them that are so extreme they would make reptiles evolving into birds a mathematical and scientific impossibility, except in the imagination. I explain these differences on one of my other posts here today if you actually are interested.

              • RobMcCune

                It’s many more than a few a similarities, and those similarities are found between birds and winged, feathered dinosaurs, making the changes far less extreme than you make it out be.

                Do you have any mathematics to back up your statement that it’s mathematically impossible? I’m not going to trust your math looking at the statistics discussion above.

                • aedgeworth

                  Yes, imagine feathers on a small dinosaur and they do look a bit alike. You really consider the unlikelihood of going from tough skin and no glands to tender skin and a glandular system, to be far less extreme than I make it out to be? That is just one difference. Going from a reptile that keeps on growing as long as it lives, but now a bird has a normal growing period like other life forms, and that is not as extreme as I make it out to be? I’ll let you come up with your own mathematical probabilities of those extremes happening through random chance mutations, by accident, for no purpose.

                • RobMcCune

                  First there are fossils of feathered dinosaurs, both with and without wings, it’s not a matter of imagination.

                  You really consider the unlikelihood of going from tough skin and no glands to tender skin and a glandular system, to be far less extreme than I make it out to be?

                  Yes, because it’s important for temperature regulation. Some dinosaurs had traits for thermoregulation similar to birds and mammals.

                  I’ll let you come up with your own mathematical probabilities of those extremes happening through random chance mutations, by accident, for no purpose.

                  In other words you have no proof it’s “mathematically impossible.” This again shows you don’t understand evolution, since beneficial traits help organisms reproduce, beneficial mutations would proliferate through a population.

                • aedgeworth

                  How exactly can you tell from a dinosaur bone or fossil that it had a temperature control system or glandular system? I believe all the feathered dinosaur fossils have been proven to be fakes so far.

                  “The [evolutionary] origin of bird is largely a matter of
                  deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.” W. E. Swinton, British Museum of Natural
                  History, London

                  No, I have no proof it is mathematically impossible. It just takes a little common sense and the ability to come to logical conclusions. Do you have evidence for the type of mutations necessary for these type of changes to occur? Can you show proof it is mathematically possible? Have you actually given any thought at all to how likely these changes would be considering that mutations are rare, and beneficial mutations extremely rare, and occur randomly?

                  It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to think this through to a logical
                  conclusion, but it does require honesty, at least to oneself.

                • baal

                  “It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to think this through to a logical
                  conclusion, but it does require honesty, at least to oneself.”

                  Which is why you creatinist trolls have destroyed every irony meter in the universe and anything that even remotely could be used as one.

                • RobMcCune

                  Dinosaurs had Haversarian canals in their bones like birds and mammal. Their bones and anatomical arrangement show dinosaurs had a much higher rate of blood flow than modern reptiles, indicating a high metabolism found in warm blooded creatures today. But hey, when it goes against your conclusion, just call all of it fake. On that note what’s your explanation to account for the history of life on earth? Why so many extinct species before the creation of humans?

                  Also Swinton died in ’93, evidence for warm blooded and feathered dinosaurs was discovered in the ’80s and ’90s. I wasn’t able to find a source for your quote only a book from 1963.

                  Do you have evidence for the type of mutations necessary for these type of changes to occur?

                  Yes, there is plenty of genetic and developmental evidence for common dissent. Often traits that seem very different are actually very similar, requiring several small changes in how they develop.

                  Have you actually given any thought at all to how likely these changes would be considering that mutations are rare, and beneficial mutations extremely rare, and occur randomly?

                  Each new generation carries dozens of new mutations per individual. So they’re not rare at all, considering the numbers of individuals and generations involved.

                • aedgeworth

                  There were no extinct species before humans were created.
                  I asked for proof of temperature regulation, not whether they were warm-blooded or not, which doesn’t prove anything. I of course wasn’t referring to past mutations, you don’t compare past mutations with supposed beneficial mutations happening now.

                • RobMcCune

                  Really then how do you explain that they are never found together in the same layers?

                • aedgeworth

                  You are assuming the layers were laid down slowly over millions of years, and not quickly by a great flood. Although I know you won’t believe this, but human artifacts have been found in every rock strata, clear down into the Pre-Cambrian.
                  And besides that, haven’t you seen those cavemen movies with them fighting dinosaurs? Hollywood wouldn’t lie to us. Take care.

                • RobMcCune

                  Funny that’s the one bit of science you don’t have quotes to back up.

                • aedgeworth

                  Dr. Gabrera Darquea holding human vertebrae (5th lumbar) found in “cretaceous sediment” in Ocucaja Desert, Ica, Peru.
                  The message of the Engraved Stones of Ica by Dr. Gabrera Darquea p.24

                  W. V. Mr. Newton Anderson found this bell inside a lump of coal in 1944. He still has the bell. (304)-842-5556.

                  Read the book “Forbidden Archeology – The Hidden History of the Human Race” – Michael E. Cremo & Richard L. Thompson They were interviewed on a two hour special on NBC in primetime about 15 years ago. The authors are archeologists. The book documents many human artifacts found in layers where they were not supposed to be. The investigators from NBC went into the basement of a museum where there were bags of human artifacts that were just labeled “anomalies.”

                  Several years ago I was in the area of Corbin, KY and spoke with a man whose family were coal miners. They found a rock with a human carved on it embedded in coal strata. Local scientists refused to believe them and refused to send anyone out the investigate the find, just said they were lying and wouldn’t talk with them. He told me they still had the rock.

                  The use of circular reasoning
                  “The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and
                  fossils to date rocks. The rocks do date the
                  fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately.”
                  O’Rourke, J. E., “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 53

                  Human shoe print with trilobites inside. Found by William Meister of Kearns, Utah June 1, 1968. Dr. H.H. Doelling of Utah’s Geological Survey verified it was not a fake. Photo from Readers Digest – Mysteries of the Unexplained p. 38

                • Spuddie

                  So you refer to an obscure but well documented hoax
                  “The message of the Engraved Stones of Ica by Dr. Gabrera Darquea”

                  An argument even Creationists now consider too stupid to use in discussion (the coal)

                  A book which was written with no expertise on the subject.

                  ANOTHER quotemine
                  (of J. E.O’Rourke,)

                  And capped it off with one of the most famous Creationist hoaxes, the Paluxy “man tracks”

                  The last one is particularly egregious bullshit on your part. I pointed that one out as a hoax the day before.

                  Its amazing how easy it is to show you are full of crap!
                  Are you done lying or should we expect more?

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  human artifacts have been found in every rock strata, clear down into the Pre-Cambrian.

                  Pffffheeheeheehee! Now you’re just bordering on adorable, like a puppy that can’t roll off of its back.

                • aedgeworth

                  Documentation in my reply to Rob

                • Spuddie

                  You mean the hoaxes, quotemining and an argument even fellow Creationists deem too stupid to use anymore. (See my post below for details)

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  The link to “Precambrian Rabbit” already demolished your YEC theory. Why don’t you read?

                • aedgeworth

                  Yeah, I know. I’ve got to quit not trusting what evolutionists say. I think if you do research you will find them being debunked also. Take care.

              • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                That is a claim. Have you evidence to support your claim? Mathematical analysis, either published in peer-reviewed journals or unique to you but with full proofs and data available to be reviewed by us random Internet viewers with some knowledge of statistics?

                • aedgeworth

                  No I don’t. Do you know any evolutionist that would undertake such an endeavor? If you find such a creature, have him just work on two tasks. Figure out the mathematical and scientific probabilities of going from a reptile with tough skin and no glands, to a bird having tender skin and a complex glandular system, through random chance mutations, by accident, for no purpose.
                  And, secondly, figure out the mathematical and scientific probabilities of going from a reptile that keeps growing as long as it lives, to a bird that has a normal growth period such as other life forms, through random chance mutations, by accident, for no purpose.
                  Common sense doesn’t count, we just want statistics. Let me know if you find one who is willing to undertake this endeavor and willing to try to get his findings published. Thanks, and best of luck.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  How about we look at what happened? We can see glandular evolution. We can see dinosaurs growing feathers, starting to develop hollow bones, losing front claws into wings, their pelvises changing shape from walking to hopping, and so forth. Evolution isn’t random per se- genetic drift, mutation, and environmental pressure all shape our genome. You simply cannot claim that something is mathematically impossible without doing the math, nor that it is scientifically impossible unless you can somehow show our current understanding to be wrong. Since you have done neither, I shall dismiss your claim forthwith. After all, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and I even have lots of evidence.

                • aedgeworth

                  Show me the proof.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  All the evidence you will ever need is on the Internet.

          • WingedBeast

            Well, start with the fact that the process happens and with the lack of evidence for any barrier on the amount of change that can happen.
            If you’re claiming that there is some kind of kind-barrier, at which an amount of change that would make a change in what we’ll pretend is a clearly defined classification of “kind”, I’d like to see the evidence to back up that claim.

            • aedgeworth

              Extreme differences and mathematical improbabilities, through random chance mutations, by accident, for no purpose, are the only barriers you need. But consider this, if it were scientifically possible, and mathematically possible (which it isn’t) for common descent to happen, would that prove that it did? I can’t wait to see how you side-step just giving a yes or no answer, as is normally the case.

              • WingedBeast

                Would the bare fact that such a change is possible through the process of evolution prove that such a change did, in fact, happen? No.

                By the way, your understanding of the odds is missing key elements, but that’s just a side point.

                But, as I’ve said elsewhere, there is more evidence than that. That creationists have claimed the fossils to be either 100% man or 100% ape is incorrect. What we have is apes with more humanlike characteristics and humans with more apelike characteristics. That’s evidence.

                But, you’re already agreeing that these mutations are happening and are causing changes. Whether or not there’s a supernatural and completely unconfirmable guiding element is not what we are debating. We are debating that the changes that you already agree do, in fact, happen, have some kind of barrier.

                When you bring up random mutations and accidents and purposelessness, that argument, at best, argues against the changes happening at all. And yet, they do, and you’ve admitted that they do. So, the question is what evidence do you propose to suggest a limit to the amount of change, a kind-barrier to evolution?

                • aedgeworth

                  I’ll try to make this simple, whether or not there is a kind-barrier or not has no bearing on whether it happened or not.
                  Speciation does have limits even within dogs and cats. Talk to breeders, I have. Extreme speciation results in a net loss of genetic information over time and can often cause sterility, and does.
                  Is that a known kind-barrier to consider? Mutations cause a net loss in genetic information over time. Mutations never add new genetic information that never existed before. Is that a kind-barrier to consider?
                  How many non-beneficial mutations causing a loss of information will accumulate before enough beneficial ones show up to make great changes beyond the species level? Would the life form become extinct before it could turn into something else?
                  To prove my point. How many life forms go extinct every year? How many new life forms do we see coming into existence every year?
                  If macro-evolution had been going on for 600 million years, something should be clearly in transition today. And don’t give me the lame argument we just don’t know what it is turning into yet. Is anything turning into something different than what it always has been? No clear evidence of it happening now, and no clear transitional fossils in the fossil record to prove it happened in the past. There should be millions of transitional fossils everywhere we look in the rock layers. The best explanation for the geologic column is still a great flood as scientists in the 18th century believed.

                • baal

                  Aedgeworth keeps saying a lot of micro evolution cannot add up to macroevolution or that ‘kinds’ (like god put on Noah’s ark and all) can’t change. When asked for some plausible mechanism he either says, probability! but shows no math or he simply has nothing to offer but cheap rhetorical tricks” To wit:

                  “I’ll try to make this simple, whether or not there is a kind-barrier or not has no bearing on whether it happened or not.”

                  He then tries to prove his point by asking questions instead of presenting information:

                  To prove my point. How many life forms go extinct every year? How many new life forms do we see coming into existence every year?

                  He then sums up his most recent post by saying “duh, the biblical global flood!” (where did all that water go? and 18th century science didn’t have computers or satellites or or or…):

                  The best explanation for the geologic column is still a great flood as scientists in the 18th century believed.

                  All this is fine and well. It shows the creationists are nothing more the bible literalists who are willful liars who want to poison the minds of children with lies. Most adults, especially ones who either think or were actually education, can see through this bullshitting but kids have a harder time of it.

                • aedgeworth

                  Baal, baal, baal, where should I start? You didn’t attempt to answer my questions, but I won’t give my opinion as to why you didn’t, because there are several possibilities.
                  As to where the water went, lower the high mountain ranges (which the Bible indicates were formed towards the end of the flood) and there is enough water to cover the earth to over a mile deep.
                  As far as the fact that most scientists in the 18th century and part of the 19th century believed in a worldwide flood, somehow proves Bible literalists are willful liars, I have no clue about your rationale on that one. Does adding cuss words give you a feeling of power or something? It sure doesn’t make you look more intelligent.

                • baal

                  Bullshit is a techinical term. Anyone can get a fact wrong and anyone can lie. Anyone could even intentionally lie. Bullshit is the next step down the chain. It’s intentional lying + wanting to make your reader (listener) actively mentally broken or to have them rely on your intentional lies.

                  You keep intentionally mistating things and your replies are askew and misrepresent the postion of the person you’re addressing. Constantly.

                  I also don’t usually reply on weekends as I have a life and it consists of visiting fellow perverts who engange in various acts you’d call sinful. It’s a wonderful time and I highly recommend it.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  The best explanation for the geologic column is still a great flood as scientists in the 18th century believed.

                  You may wish to avoid building a personal worldview that can be demolished by one sentence:


                • WingedBeast

                  Whether or not there is this kind-barrier does have a baring on whether or not evolution into different “kinds” (which itself still needs a precise definition) is possible.

                  Would it being possible necessarily prove that it happened? No and I’m not claiming that it does. You are, however, claiming that this cannot happen and I’m asking you to provide evidence.

                  For your talk with breeders, I’m curious as to what you mean by “extreme speciation”.

                  Sure, extreme inbreeding can result in not a loss of “genetic information” but rather an increase in recessive or detrimental genetic characteristics. And, yes, that can eventually result in infertility.

                  Yet, that is not speciation and would only refer to an issue of how tightly one can bottleneck a breeding population and still have it survive.

                  To the question of how many non-beneficial mutations will accumulate, that’s where natural selection comes in. Those mutations get weeded out either quickly or slowly by the fact that they negatively impact the breeding success of those members in the breeding population with those characteristics.

                  Remember the selection, that’s an important part of evolution, either the process or the description of biological history.

                  As to how many new life forms, every new reproduction is, in effect, a new life form. Just very subtlely different from the ones that came before, so subtle a difference that it’s only noticable in extreme cases.

                  To the question of something being clearly in transition. Again, this is one of those points where I don’t think you understand evolution. It doesn’t have a specific lifeform in mind. It only has breeding success in mind. Survive long enough to breed and breed more and that’s more success.

                  So, no, we shouldn’t see anything obviously bred with a future animal in mind. But, in understanding evolution, we understand that every single life form *is* a transitional form.

                  Think of it this way. Your father isn’t just the bridge between your grandparents and yourself. He is a person in his own right. And, yet, in looking to your history and discovering biological link between your paternal grandparents and yourself, he is that link.

                  That doesn’t mean that he’s half-paternal-grandparent and half-you.

                  As to the “clear transitional fossils” I provided you the link. There are multiple lines of clear changes that took millions of years to achieve.

                  As to the millions of transitional fossils everywhere? Remember that only about 1% of species get fossilized. That means that we’re not getting every single generation, so we must get steps along the way but not necessarily everything.

                  As to the geologic column, actual geologists disagree with you on that one.

                • aedgeworth

                  Road-kill does not turn into a fossil on a regular basis, because it takes sudden deep burial. Why are sharks teeth found in people’s back yards 500 miles from the ocean? If fossilization resulted from an volcanic eruption or a mudslide, there shouldn’t be many fossils period. Not trillions of them all over the place. We would not have our current fossil record without a worldwide flood that also gave us our geologic column.

                • WingedBeast

                  Actually, there are a few ways for fossilization to happen. A sudden burial is one way to start the process off.
                  And, every bit of understanding of how fossilization works suggests that it takes thousands to millions of years.
                  And, really, talk to actual geologists they’ll tell you something.

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            Your claim that “microevolution” occurs but “macroevolution does not is exactly equal to claiming that you can eat as many bites of a Snickers bar as you want, but you can never eat an entire Snickers bar. They’re different quantities of the same thing.

            • aedgeworth

              But you can see the whole bar if you take the wrapper off. I know biologists consider micro and macro basically one and the same, and I understand micro is observable because it happens in a short timespan. There is no debate over that. The belief that macro is just micro over a longer timespan, is just that, a belief, not substantiated by evidence, except certain interpretations of evidence, which usually involve an imagination combined with wishful thinking, but that is not a substitute for real evidence.
              If it has been going on for 600 million years, can you explain why we can’t observe any life form in transition today, and please don’t give the lame excuse we just don’t know what it is turning into. Can we observe anything changing into something different than what it has been? Put your belief to the test. Look around you. You don’t see anything like that do you? It is testable, and not just by so-called transitional fossils that are subject to interpretation, and proof that it supposedly happened in the past. Changes within a species are not evidence of macro-evolution.

  • David Solivan

    Worst piece of agenda-driven claptrap I’ve ever seen. Ray Comfort is worse than an idiot. He’s an idiot with a platform and wealthy backers.

  • antdrew

    wow, pisses me off…..

  • WingedBeast

    Note the value of saying “Kinds” without giving a clear definition of what a “kind” is. So, when he asks for observable evidence of changing kinds, along with focusing the only kind of observable evidence being real time changes happening within his observable lifespan, he’s put them in a position of trying to guess not only a change that would fit his definition of changing into another kind, but also one that has happened within a span of only a couple hundred years.
    So, it can never be truly proven within the confines, because effectively there’s nothing to prove, only something that can come closer and closer and closer to evidence but never actually achieve.

    • ZenDruid

      Neurotypical is one ‘kind’, and anencephalic is another. BTW, I suspect that Ray’s cranium is a clever prosthetic.

      • JohnnieCanuck

        Just this moment it occurs to me that I know what element his head is made up of. Cranium. It must have one of the highest known values of specific gravity. Unfortunately having such a high atomic number also implies that it has a very short half-life, making it dangerously radioactive.

        • baal

          Are you implying that Ray is dense?

    • aedgeworth

      Let me help you out, a “dog” is a “dog kind,” a “cat” is a “cat kind.” Have you ever heard the term: “humankind?” I know it gets confusing sometimes when all you have been taught is evolution. By the way, just curious, which do you believe evolved first in life forms, the mouth, the throat, digestive juices, the stomach, or the ability to expel waste? One isn’t much good without the other is it? And to think this all happened through random chance beneficial mutations, and natural selection. A true miracle, considering it is mathematically impossible.

      • WingedBeast

        1. On the taxonomy chart, you noted a genus for dog kind, but a family for cat kind. So, you examples lack for a homogeneous definition.

        2. With even the genus definition of “kind” a real time, naked eye observation is impossible. So, requiring that to be the *only* possible evidence either displays a lack of understanding of how both evolution and evidence works, a deliberate dishonesty, or both.

        3. Presuming that you refer to the ability in multicellular life forms, based on the Cambrian explosion and the relatively simplistic multicellular life forms that happened around that time, I’d make a semi-educated guess to say digestive fluids, as many such relatively simple life forms excrete their digestive fluids onto the ground right away. Of course, they’re so simple that they do the same thing with waste.

        4. It seems improbable, but remember this is a step by step process. Each step has a much higher probability. If you’re saying the end result being us is so improbable, note that there’s no evidence that we were a goal. So, really, while some life form would have to be here at this point in time, any individual ecological form would similarly be very improbable.

        It’s like a raffle with millions upon millions of players, each one only getting one ticket. Sure, each individual winning is unlikely, but somebody has to.

        • aedgeworth

          I said dog and dog kind, and cat and cat kind, how do you get genus and family out of that?
          Digestive fluids came before a mouth and throat, for what purpose if it couldn’t eat anything? If they couldn’t eat anything there would be no waste to expel. Want to try again?
          When you said there was no evidence we were a goal, I would agree with you. If digestive juices evolved first as you suggested, a random chance mutation started forming a mouth? What are the mathematical chances another random mutation happened in the same part of the anatomy? It doesn’t have a throat, stomach, or ability to expel waste, or supply nutrients to the rest of its body, so would any mutation seem to be beneficial at this point? Remember changes can’t be directional with an end goal in mind.
          It would not seem logical that any of these would be of benefit without all of them in place. Would natural selection come into play with any one of these features by themselves? See, these are the things fairy tales are made of. It makes a nice story that makes atheists feel warm and fuzzy but has no bearing on the real world.

          • WingedBeast

            1. Dog kind, canid, is a genus on the taxonomy scale. Cat kind, felid, is a family on the taxonomy scale. Your idea of “kinds” isn’t as strictly defined as you think it is.

            2. Your asking me to give you the entire lineage, step by step, even the as of yet unknown steps. In other words, you’re requesting that I know everything in order to know something.

            I answered your question with the knowledge that we have, extant today and evidenced during the Cambrian Explosion, species that we know to excrete digestive fluid as they move.

            But, as to the question of in which order, I encourage you to ask more open ended questions. Because even you must acknowledge that reality does not share the limits of your imagination.

            3. To the matter of atheism, evolution has nothing to say on the issue of God.

            • aedgeworth

              If the taxonomy scale says a “dog kind” is a genus, but a “cat kind” is a family, I guess it must be true. How they rationalize that I’m not sure. Is a horse kind a genus or a family? I want to make sure I remain true to the current “made up” taxonomy scale.
              Have you noticed the “Cambrian” explosion are life forms that live in the ocean? Next comes life forms that live near the ocean, then on land, until finally birds and human fossils are found mostly in the top layers, but not always.
              Have you noticed the top 80% are sedimentary layers, mostly laid down by water, in mostly straight lines, such as seen in hydrologic sorting in laboratory experiments using different types of soil and water action?
              Have you also noticed the bottom 20% are igneous rock layers, formed by heat and pressure? What you probably hadn’t thought about, the lower you get in the rock strata, the more the layer will be affected by heat and pressure.
              You can’t date sedimentary layers with radioactive dating methods. Most fossils cannot be dated radioactively either. The original organic material is replaced by water seeping into the pores carrying mineral deposits which harden into the original shape of the life form.
              The most common form of dating method being used is relative dating. The rock is dated by the fossil, then the fossil will then in turn be dated by the rock it is found in.
              By your last remark are you allowing for theistic evolution then? Are you also allowing for the possibility that everything was created by God, and the only changes that take place are within species? If evolution has nothing to say about God, then maybe man and ape didn’t evolve from an ape-like common ancestor after all. If it has nothing to say about God, then let’s look at all the evidence in light of the possibility it didn’t evolve at all.
              Actually, real science has nothing to say about God. Evolution is quite a different story. We both have the same evidence. We interpret it differently. All evidence must be interpreted, it doesn’t speak for itself. The evidence is interpreted by your philosophical worldview. If you start with a philosophical naturalistic worldview, that is how you will interpret the evidence. The same goes for a supernatural worldview. If we could take off those philosophical worldview glasses, we might see the evidence for what it really is.

              • WingedBeast

                “By your last remark are you allowing for theistic evolution then? Are you also allowing for the possibility that everything was created by God, and the only changes that take place are within species? ”
                You present a false dichotomy between God existing and the current evolutionary understanding of human beings evolved from shared ancestors with apes.
                I only say that evolution has nothing to say on the matter of God. It refers to, and only to, change in populations over time and our understanding of the history of those changes.

                • aedgeworth

                  You are trying to disprove God created them the way they are. The common ape-like ancestor is still missing. Your belief that he actually existed isn’t based on observable evidence.

                • phantomreader42

                  YOU are the one demanding that people throw away over a century of scientific knowledge because of your cult’s myth about a talking snake. Do you have the slightest speck of evidence to support your sick death cult’s mythology? No, you don’t. You never have, and you never will. Your desperate attempt to lie about science will not magically make your fables true.

                • aedgeworth

                  Is there any evidence that Satan exists? Plenty. Is there evidence he sets about to deceive people? Plenty, you yourself are evidence of that. I’ll close with your own comment: “Your desperate attempt to lie about science will not magically make your fables true.” I couldn’t have said it any better.

                • Spuddie

                  Is there evidence you set about to deceive people? Plenty.

                  Including taking the words of scientists out of context to misrepresent their point.
                  You are Lying for Satan?

                • WingedBeast

                  I’m not trying to disprove anything. I’m trying to show you that the evidence indicates an evolutionary history of earth’s biology. That this contradicts a literalist interpretation of the bible is beside the point.

                • aedgeworth

                  The problem is the evidence doesn’t speak for itself, it has to be interpreted. I know of no evidence that contradicts, or cannot be interpreted as, a literalist interpretation of the Bible. That this contradicts a literalist interpretation of the Bible is your opinion. I noticed you chose not to comment about your belief in a common ape-like ancestor, is not based on observable evidence. I don’t blame you. What can you say? It’s still missing.

                • WingedBeast

                  The fact that humans are 98.5% genetically identical to bonobos, speaks as evidence to a common ancestor.

                  The transitional fossils speak as evidence to a common ancestor.

                  Multiple evidences of an old earth speak to the time necessary for the changes from the descent and modification and selection (that you already know happens) to accumulate to the kinds of changes that are necessary.

                  The fact that housefly speciation has been induced in lab settings through selective breeding speaks as evidence that the differing groups of descendants from a common ancestor can, indeed, be different species.

                  “I know of no evidence that contradicts, or cannot be interpreted as, a literalist interpretation of the Bible.”

                  That is part of the problem. You’re interpreting evidence in light of a non-falsifiable element (that being an omnipotent, omniscient creator) which then makes everything else non-falsifiable. You’re not following where the evidence leads, you’re choosing your interpretation based upon preferred conclusion.

                  You are promoting a young earth model. If you really want anybody to believe you, you can’t just attack evolution, you actually have to make the scientific case in the scientific method. That means that you use your model to produce a hypothesis, use that hypothesis to produce a prediction and devise a test that could prove your hypothesis false on the condition that it is false.

                  This, by the way, is part of why I have, twice now, asked you for some kind of evidence or test of the kind-barrier that you implicitly refer to when you claim that evolution can only happen within kinds.

                • aedgeworth

                  Did you know humans are 85% similar genetically with a mouse? We share 50% of our DNA with a banana. Have you ever considered the fact that genetic similarities are necessary to provide a food chain?

                  There are no transitional fossils between humans and apes or chimps. I thought you understood how evolution works? There is no direct line between apes or chimps and humans because we did not evolve directly, we had an ape-like common ancestor that so far there is no fossil evidence for.

                  All the fossils so far have proven to be completely ape, completely human, or deliberate frauds and hoaxes.

                  The complexity of the human eye should lead one to believe it was designed, but evolutionists do not follow the evidence to where it leads, choosing their interpretation based upon their preferred conclusion.
                  Builders and designers often look to the natural world for ideas for better designs. Bridges, helicopters, cranes, snorkels, etc.
                  There is about five times more evidence for a young earth than there is for an old one.
                  If you would pay attention to my answers you would know my answer to kind-barrier. The extreme differences in similar life forms and the processes involved basically.

                • Spuddie

                  Do you have any links to back up anything you said about fossils and DNA is true. I already caught you lying on 2 separate occasions. There is no reason for anyone to believe anything you say without some kind of definite support.

                  The problem with whipping out your take on the 19th Century teleological argument is that living things are far messier than anything engineered by people. Living things are full of “technical dead ends”, redundancies, inefficiencies and crap. If you respond by saying we do not know God’s blueprints nor can we divine its purpose, then you are conceding your initial statement of drawing a conclusion from interpretation was really bullshit.

                • aedgeworth

                  I didn’t lie about anything. I wish you would quit lying about that.

                • Spuddie

                  You not only lied, but got caught and I showed everyone here what you did.

                  You have given nobody a reason to take you seriously anymore. It is obvious you will say anything in service of your agenda.

                • aedgeworth

                  Spuddie, when I originally said “quote mining” I was just thinking in terms of gathering quotes, I forgot it also means taking them out of context. I try not to do that. Can you give me that link again to the anti-creation site? I would like to read the whole article, I just glanced through it before. Thanks.

                • Spuddie

                  Stop lying already. I am not buying it. Nobody is buying it.

                  You misrepresented scientists with your quotes and lied about where you took them from. You got caught. I provided the evidence of your lying for the community to see. You are arguing against a simple weblink.

                  “Can you give me that link again to the anti-creation site?”
                  Get bent. Its up-thread. Get it yourself.

                • baal

                  ” Have you ever considered the fact that genetic similarities are necessary to provide a food chain?”

                  How does this question even make sense? We humans can eat a range of items regardless of it’s genetic similarity to us. Plants in particular have skewed genomes with regard to % at vs gc pairing. We eat them just fine. Your bizarre and unsupported (unsupportable!) assertion implies we would get better nutrition from things that are more genetically similar. That’s not true. We should eat more plants than other people if we want to be healthy.

                • aedgeworth

                  I found quite a bit of information on the internet regarding the genetic similarities between humans and plant life. There is quite a bit of information on genetically engineered plants and why they are dangerous to us. Quite a bit on similar functions between plants and humans also. I couldn’t find anything directly saying we need these similarities for our bodies to process them, but it did mention the nutrients , etc. they provide for us and other animal life. Are these necessary for a food chain? I think you could deduce that.
                  About eating natural foods though, you are aware that most people die from natural causes. Just kidding.

                • WingedBeast

                  You start off on a bad note. Genetic similarities are not required for a food chain. What is required is useable proteins, vitamins, and minerals. There’s no need for our DNA to match for that to be the case.

                  As to your claim about all the fossils, that’s simply blatantly false. The link I provided gave various lists of transitional fossils with citations showing them neither to be the 100% one or the other that you claim or to be deliberate frauds or hoaxes.

                  As to the complexity of the eye, that does not provide evidence of design. You’re only assuming the conclusion of design in that case.

                  Builders and designers looking to the natural world for better ideas on design does not indicate that the natural world was designed.

                  You have not presented even the slightest bit of evidence for a young earth.

                  As to the answer your giving on the kind barrier, you’re essentially saying that the kind barrier is a barrier of quantity. That’s helpful in that it helps clarify what you’re claiming the kind-barrier to be, but you have yet to provide the slightest evidence thereof.

                • aedgeworth

                  Did you know Jupiter has been losing heat twice as fast as it has been gaining heat from the sun? It should be cold by now but it is very hot.

                  Jupiter’s moon Ganymede has a strong magnetic field. “Magnetic fields are generated by the liquid motion of molten metal inside a body. Yet Ganymede should have cooled solid billions of years ago.”
                  Denver Post Dec. 13, 1996 Jupiter Probe detects mysterious moon dust. By K.C. Cole

                  If you started with a surface temperature of 190 degrees, earth could cool solid in 30 million years.

                  “Several indirect techniques also confirm that the sun is shrinking, although these inferred collapse are only about 1/7th as much.” (The Sun would have been touching the Earth about 158,272,358 years ago.)
                  David W. Dunham, “Observations of a Probable
                  Change in the Solar Radius between 1715 and 1979,” Science, Vol. 210, 12 December 1980, pp. 1243-1245

                  Jupiter spins rapidly – 9 hour and 55 minute days. Winds rage at greater than hurricane force. Saturn spins rapidly – 10 hour and 14 minute days. Winds rage at 1,000 miles per hour. The earth is slowing down in its rotation, it used to be going much faster. “At the rate the earth has been slowing down, just 80,000 years ago the wind speed on earth would have been over 500 miles per hour.” (5,000 mph 1 mya) Greg Smith, BS from San Jose State
                  University – lead forecaster for the National Weather Service

                  The world’s oldest living organism, the bristlecone pine, 4300 years old. (About the time of a great flood.)

                  The Sahara Desert has a prevailing wind pattern. This causes the desert to grow. At the rate it is growing you can account for the whole thing in a little over 4,000 years. (About the time of a great flood.)

                  The earth’s magnetic field is getting weaker. Stronger magnetic field indicates more heat inside the earth’s core.
                  There would have been too much heat for life to exist on earth just 25,000 years ago.

                  Oil wells can have up to 20,000 psi of pressure. The rock can only hold that pressure for 10,000 years or less.
                  Just a few facts to consider.

                • WingedBeast

                  1. Jupiter actually generates more heat than it recieves from the sun. So, it shouldn’t be cold.

                  2. Ganymede actually has A. water under its icy surface, B. a molten metal core under that, and C. a weak magnetic field overcome by Jupiter’s.

                  3. Such an estimate of the cooling of the earth fails to acknowledge both the sun and the heat given by the earth’s mantle.

                  4. The shrinking sun is based on one falacios study. Only one. Other studies have found no signifigant shrinkage.

                  5. Wind is caused by heating and cooling of air, which causes expansion and contraction of the air respectively. The impact of rotation is deflectionary. Even with a speed to create an 18 hour day, (such as would have been the case in the time of the dinosaurs) the impact would not create windspeeds that high.

                  6. The oil well pressure, if it could not be maintained, would have bleed off as it arose in the first place.

                  7. That was an amazingly blatant change in topic. But, it was also an amazingly blatant blast of creationist textbook/website “facts” that shows a limited source of information.

                  The next time you want to present a list of facts like this, Google them. They’re incredibly easy to disprove.

                  So, back to the actual conversation, the proof that evolution cannot create different “kinds” or take one outside of a “kind”. Do you have any? Or was this nonsequitor list of nontruths an admission that you have nothing to back that claim up?

                • baal

                  I suppose pointing you to actual real stuff is too hard. Try the easier level, http://gawker.com/5611867/futurama-debates-evolution-for-you.

              • baal

                Ever notice how you anti science types engage in the Gish Gallop? It’s offensive that you choose to spam bs knowing full well that it’s a PITA to chase down all of your red herrings. You also know they are red herrings but you do it anyway. Really, it’s a sign that your morality is terrible.

                Please google, “tree diagram”. Go look at a few pretty pictures and then click them for the pages that go over the math. Against, some of it is boring but the science and math is well done and ‘old school’ by now.

          • Spuddie

            So you are willing to ignore over a century of accumulated research in the field of biology and other scientific disciplines which have accepted evolution, make spurious rhetorical arguments and fabrications in service of your religious belief.

            • aedgeworth

              I love real science, but if that many atheistic evolutionary scientists say that is the right interpretation of the evidence, I guess it must be true.

              • Spuddie

                I doubt you know “real science” if it came up and bit you. If your religious belief is under attack by science, it means you have a poor grasp of religious belief as well.

                Their opinion on their field of study is more credible than yours will be. They earned the right to say so. Unlike yourself, the scientists have to have their material vetted by peers, their methods exposed to scrutiny and their work open for all to see and subject to criticism.

                If you want to challenge their views, you need to be credentialed and provide work which can stand up to scrutiny in the field. Every scientist wants to be the one to cough up a viable replacement to an existing theory. It means fame, respect and nee immortality. If you think religious belief has anything to do with it, you are delusional.

          • RobMcCune

            I said dog and dog kind, and cat and cat kind, how do you get genus and family out of that?

            By investigating details relevant to categorizing life, It’s sad that you’re basing your view of biology on “Animals A-Z.”

            Digestive fluids came before a mouth and throat, for what purpose if it couldn’t eat anything? If they couldn’t eat anything there would be no waste to expel. Want to try again?

            And apparently you got your view of anatomy from the game “Operation.” He’s talking about small simple life living in the ocean using enzymes to breakdown other organisms. Cells have the ability to absorb nutrients and expel waste, these other organs are only necessary for larger organisms.

            See, these are the things fairy tales are made of.

            When you’ve made it out of Science for ages 5-8 section, then you might actually have some credibility when talking about fairy tales.

            • aedgeworth

              I only read high school or college textbooks. Okay, now we are up to larger organisms. Now explain which came first and why with them.

              • RobMcCune

                From my reading, the gastrovascular cavity came next, Larger organisms need a system to distribute nutrients and developed the cavity to do so.

                • aedgeworth

                  What a lucky break that a random mutation started that, then a series of them finished the job. Random mutations developed that system? Wow! In fact, I can say it backwards. Wow! Kind of blows your mind doesn’t it?

                • RobMcCune

                  Hmm, looks like the song dry bones numerous highschool and college textbooks didn’t prepare you for that answer. All you can respond with is personal incredulity.

                • baal

                  I’m personally incredulous that aedgeworth is willing to be this willfully ignorant in public – especially with a gravitar of an old man.

                • RobMcCune

                  The same thought has crossed my mind.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  “Quick, explain all of Evolutionary Theory and its one hundred and fifty years of expansive ramifications to me in a blog comment or I will declare victory. Buying a book on it would be silly!”

                • aedgeworth

                  This wouldn’t be your first attempt at declaring something you are wrong about, would it?

              • Tjaart Blignaut

                And what a gap there is between mere reading and actual comprehension!

                • aedgeworth

                  Comprehension does not mandate belief in same. You guys really don’t get it. “If they don’t believe it, that proves they don’t understand it.” “They are dumb, and we are smart.” In a sense though I have to agree with you. I find that most of you that read my posts don’t comprehend what is actually being said. Well, maybe you do, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

          • baal

            Could you pick up a college level intro to biology book? Really, this stuff is extremely well known. It’s also not all that hard to look at the diversity of life on the planet and find extant examples of ‘partial evolution’. For example, the planarian has light sensitive spots and a 1 ended digestive system (they poop where they eat). Your ignorance is palpable and pathetic.

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              It’s not even that involved. I kept my nephew’s 10th-grade public science textbook because even it explains these things. I first grabbed it after a Creationist scoffed about how “even a second year medical student would know the definition of a vestigial organ”… and then proceeded to give a definition that wasn’t close to correct.

      • Tjaart Blignaut

        “dog kind” what brilliant taxonomy!

        • aedgeworth

          I know. I wonder why the biologists try to make it more complicated and keep changing their definitions. “Dog kind” works fine for me. I said this tongue in cheek.

  • Innes

    Want observable evidence? Go look at a ” Halibut ” . *rolling eyes* It’s a perfect example of evolution in progress.

    • Addressingtheherd

      Yes, but don’t the anti-Darwinites treat short term evolution as somehow a fundamentally different phenomenon than the slow, progressive type?

      • baal

        “anti-Darwinites”? There aren’t Darwinites to be anti of. Yeah, I know some religious folks are against ‘darwin’s teachings’ or some thing like that but actual science has moved on. Keep in mind that Darwin was pre-car, pre-airplane, pre-cell phone, pre-computer and pre-DNA. The scientific view on evolution is that it goes both fast and slow depending on the selective criteria and underlying type of genetic change.

  • Ray

    I enjoyed reading through these comments.

    • Addressingtheherd

      The comments here are certainly interesting and, as a rule, intelligent. I agree with very few of them, but I like being someplace where the secular-friendly comments and observations aren’t on the low, low level of,say, Huffpo. Or of the ludicrously partition nature of, say, the cesspool called Daily Kos, where the slightest molecule of disagreement is instant grounds for group harassment followed by banishment from the hive. Discussion happens here, and that’s all one can ask for, really.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        It’s worth noting that conservatives run bot report-spammers on DailyKOS and HuffPo, trying to get “liberals” banned as often as possible for no reason at all. That was done to me on HuffPo, and to others I’ve spoken with personally. You don’t see that sort of thing being done to the “other side”.

  • Addressingtheherd

    I just committed a classic typo: “War-for-Ohio,” vice “war-for-oil.” Feel free to use it, as it has great potential as a pun.

    I know–for use during the election season, when the media is relentlessly reducing the nation to What Happens in Ohio. War for Ohio!

    Something like, “We switch our war-for-oil coverage to the War for Ohio.”

    Feel free to employ.

  • GodlessPoutine

    PZ has such an infinite patience with this guy. I would have loved to see his complete interview. Too bad he didn’t have a tape recorder on him.

    • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

      I like his amused expression. It’s like the whole time he’s trying not to laugh.

  • dawkwin

    glad you have a place to congregate since Atheist’s central was closed down.
    I forgot my tithe…

    • Addressingtheherd

      What was Atheist’s central and why was it closed down? Was this on Facebook? (I’m seriously asking; I don’t know.)

      Thanks in advance. And, by the way, and by way of disclosure, I consider Facebook a blight on the Internet and an affront to human dignity and intellect. So I’m sort of hoping it’s them….

  • Pablo

    It is funny how the atheist has to set up straw men to make themselves feel good about their foolish positions.

    • WingedBeast

      Name one straw man atheists have set up in this thread.

      • Pablo

        Ray is not saying that there is no variation within kinds. He is saying that there is no observable evidence that certain kinds of organisms became other kinds of organism. ie There are variations of dogs but they are still dogs.

        • Spuddie

          Ray has no idea what he means by “kinds” and neither will you. It means whatever you will want it to with whomever you talk to.

          Of course it takes a real idiot like Ray to claim that physical differences created by artificial selection is somehow relevant to natural selection. God didn’t make it so dogs such as a Chihuahua and Great Dane can’t physically mate. That was human folly.

        • baal

          Ray is still wrong. It’s a very small step indeed between dog and not-dog. The huge range of morphology in dogs shows what you can do even within the very narrow genetic set called ‘dog’. Absent breeding records, I don’t think we’d classify great danes with little toy poodles or boxers as the same species. The science for this is literally thousands of years old.

        • RobMcCune

          In other words Ray will admit as much variation as he is forced to by evidence, and will make up a grouping called “kind” to say that changes, no matter how extreme, aren’t that important.

          Btw did you call out Kirk Cameron on his Crocoduck strawman?

        • WingedBeast

          None of us have said that he is claiming such a thing as there being no variation. So, that is not a strawman created in this thread.

        • Tjaart Blignaut

          Kind is not a scientific term. It is just a meaningless term that changes definition as Ray sees fit.

  • Brendan

    I’ve done some study of evolution and Ray Comforts video is pretty onto it. Evolution must be believed by faith – there is no good evidence for it.

    • RobMcCune

      Except everything we know about life on this planet.

    • WingedBeast

      Except for the proof of process shown every day in selective breeding of domesticated animals and plants, genetic similarities among life forms, evidence of an old earth, fossil evidence of transitional forms, housefly speciation through selective breeding and bottlenecking of a genetic line, actual studies proving that random mutations and selective positioning giving a colony of bacteria a new metabolic capacity, the rise in bacteria resistant to specific antibiotics and the rise of bacteria now more susceptible to older antibiotics such as sulfa… and this list is still nowhere near exhaustive by the way.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      There’s far more evidence for the process of Evolution than there is for the process of gravity. You’re reading the wrong books and repeating documented lies.

    • Spuddie

      So where did you get your degree in Biology? What journals have you been published in. Such Earth shattering rebuttal of a scientific theory accepted over a century ago, must be noted in the field by now. Where are the articles and the research. It should garner massive kind of praise from the scientific community. They will call it Brendan’s Theory!

      Wait. You don’t have anything like that? You are just hawking a website which offers diversions less amusing and useful than baby sloth and cat videos?

  • Brendan

    I wrote an article about the movie which I’ve mentioned on my blog

    • WingedBeast

      Your article is nothing but cheerleading for the dishonest ways Ray Comfort deals with his questions and the misconceptions about evolution that Ray Comfort assumes with his questions.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      It’s rude to advertise yourself on someone else’s page without permission.

  • Pete

    Enjoyed the movie. Clearly evolution is just the latest myth to infect mankind. All part of the long war against God. Glad that the evolution myth is becoming increasingly exposed and may it soon fall.

    • WingedBeast

      If you understand anything about evolution, you understand that what Ray Comfort attacked wasn’t evolution.

    • Spuddie

      Didn’t you know? Evolution can be reversed.

      They can turn you into a monkey with just a virus or machine. (See the works of G. Grodd of Gorilla City Republic of Congo and Professor Mumm of Ganymede)


    • James

      Your myth is still infecting mankind. You are delusional if you think Ray Comfort has exposed anything but his own ignorance. Try reading a lot of hard books and not just one easy one.

  • Spuddie

    Although originally written for dealing with another set of online liars, this article is particularly telling of tactics used by all purveyors of online effluence


    “1. Creamed Mush with Fog Sauce — Never provide evidence for your
    assertions. In fact, respond to demands for evidence the way Dracula responds to crucifixes. Do anything you can to avoid it. Throw insults. Change the subject. Obfuscate. Laugh derisively. Claim you already gave the evidence or that someone else did. But never provide any evidence yourself (unless you provide an
    incomplete or incomprehensible citation along with it).”

    2. Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose — Demand that all evidence for the [generally accepted facr] be proved genuine (dodging any discussion of what that proof would consist of), and also demand that all your unsubstantiated assertions be proved false. That way, you never bear any burden of proof. (originally posted by Mike Stein)

    3-4 Claim phony expertise in a subject and declare something impossible despite that you are making distorted strawman points having nothing to do with the subject

    5. Sticks and Stones — If you’re being wiped out with evidence and reasoning you cannot refute, you can always take refuge in complaining about the language being used by your adversaries.
    17. Although all of your arguments will be consistently blown to smithereens, just wait a few days or weeks and then re-post them.

    • baal

      #17 is one of my favorite numbers but the technique it lists here is really trying (and gives rise to the Bingo Card running joke). Nyms that use it are entirely risible.

  • Chad

    Why does the atheist even care what the Christian thinks? A true atheist wouldn’t care. Furthermore, the atheist certainly shouldn’t be waisting time arguing because your random chance life is ALL you have… and the clock is ticking

    • James

      If wacked-out fundies kept their opinions to themselves then, yes, we wouldn’t care. Unfortunatly fundies use their strange beliefs to mandate bad science, bad public policy, bad foreign policy, etc. And that’s why we care.

  • Brian Jeremiah

    Yeah because all of you can come up with a single creature that we have an example of that has changed kinds… mocking reality does not diminish reality. The only thing your side has is the sharp tongue of a mocking fool. How about you come at it scientifically and show an example of a creature that changed kinds? Oh, I guess maybe the reason is … it didn’t happen.

  • bemo

    Lol I thought I would get some kind of review here, butt oops. I stumble onto a clearly bias website, calling a film bias. How unexpected.

  • Bryceyboy

    Sigh… Ray Comfort. Sometimes that guy makes being a real Catholic difficult. Although Comfort is not a Catholic, we are guilty by association, somehow…

    Honestly, as far as evolution goes, we know far too little about it to make any absolute statements concerning it. In fact, this is true of much of science. Science (modern usage of the term) does its best to explain the universe. It’s just never good enough. Hence, we have theories that become obsolete and theories that are improved upon.

    I don’t think that anyone can really deny that it is difficult to find real information about evolution. I am not saying that there is no real information, just that it is not readily available. You either get stuck with immediate bias toward something else: creation vs. atheism or whatnot. Usually both sides have tremendous logical fallacies, or that is my conclusion of some of the main sites. Not to make an ad hominem, but that one guy earlier ended a long conversation with “eternity is a long time to be wrong, pal”. Cringe. That’s not an answer to evolution. That’s a cheap one-liner that doesn’t advance science. Is it really so difficult to just do science? On BOTH sides of the coin. Saying evolution disproves God is just as silly a notion as saying evolution is incompatible with God.

    I think back to my evolution books growing up. They weren’t just wrong… they were egregious. They weren’t creationist either, if that’s what you’re thinking. Science changes so much and so often that it’s hard to think that we know much at all. Having said this, is there any wonder why some people are against evolution? No one can deny that the history of evolution has some distinctive lies thrown in with some truths. Darwin’s tree comes to mind…

    Creation is not at odds with evolution. Not even macro evolution. What creation would have odds with is the idea that something non-living somehow “evolved” into something alive by itself. There is no evidence of that. Nor is there evidence that something without intellect now has intellect. Even those who propose that we have a common ancestor with apes or bonobos recognize that while the common ancestor must have intellect, the other species, e.g apes and bonobos did not inherit it. Unless you would like to state that evolution is completely random, which is problematic at best.

    I do not currently accept macro evolution. I am not opposed to it. I just don’t find it very convincing as proposed. As a philosopher, I would ask for more than just “these skeletons demonstrate a special change”. What’s to say that those three skeletons aren’t really three separate types of animal? After all, dna-wise, we are very similar to other living organisms. A human is a mammal, so humans will have much in common with other mammals, and animals have much in common with other animals. I read one of the above recommendations: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html I especially loved – sarcasm – the line where these whalers caught a whale with two legs. They chopped one off and kept the other as a trophy. That is such a whimsical story (kind of like a creationist quoting a Bible, scientist forbid)… Or when they posit that this random dolphin has a leg sticking out of it. That would be considered an abnormality years ago, but not today. Does that dolphin necessarily give birth to a dolphin with two legs? Heck, there might not be any leg on the baby dolphin it gives birth to! If that is so, which is what is evidenced, then I say there is little connection to the idea that macro evolution happens over time. If it did, we’d see the pattern. But all I read about was a comparison of fossils which may or may not be a form of evolution.

    There seems to be no credence to the idea that macro-evolution – if it is valid – happens over a long period of time. If a random “leg” doesn’t ever lead to more “legs” then I would think that macro-evolution would have to take a different route. Namely, it would have to happen all at once. But yet we don’t see that…. ever. I will believe macro evolution when you take that dolphin and it produces an offspring with a leg too. As such, all we see are random animals with abnormalities which are not seen systematically transferred to its offspring. As such, it seems unlikely that it does happen over time. Pointing to skeletons which give us such a minimal amount of information about the animal is not very convincing.

    I can, however, understand why this idea of macro evolution is interesting. But it is just a hypothesis. The article I was linked to earlier did not demonstrate macro evolution, but the supposed possibility of macro evolution because random animals sprouted legs or something else.

    Take this logical fallacy (begging the question) from the aforementioned article:

    “From embryological studies it is known that two bones of a developing reptile eventually form the quadrate and the articular bones in the hinge of the adult reptilian jaw (first reported in 1837 by the German embryologist Karl Reichert). However, in the marsupial mammalian embryo, the same two structures develop, not into parts of the jaw, but into the anvil and hammer of the mammalian ear. This developmental information, coupled with common descent, indicates that the mammalian middle ear bones were derived and modified from the reptilian jaw bones during evolution”

    The article is clearly assuming that evolution is true as if there is no other solution than that the middle ear bones were derived from a reptilian jawbone. Freaking hilarious! I read the diagram and the criticism of some creationist Gish guy. Concluding with the “transitional” hominids where there has never been a conclusive link between them further sinks in the idea that the whole article is taking liberty at drawing similarities between fossils. While there are similarities, there is no evidence that they are the same, or that they were derived from each other. That is an assumption. Call it that.

    I suppose it is asking for too much. As a philosopher I relish proofs and universal truths. Science really offers none. It offers hypotheses and theories which should stand to reason. They don’t always. I am not a regular here, so I’ll probably meander back in twenty years when a new scientific theory has more to say about this. I’m sure there’ll be plenty of bickering and arguing to come.