A Rebuttal Video to Ray Comfort’s Evolution Vs. God

A week ago, Ray Comfort posted to YouTube his latest “documentary” Evolution Vs. God:

It’s full of selective editing and bad science… as you would expect.

Jaclyn Glenn watched the movie — *shudder* — and responded to all of his points in an excellent video of her own. It’s a much better alternative (and only in part because I liked the way she says “God”):

By the way, Ray Comfort has agreed to do an interview for this site. Got questions? Leave them in the comments. I’ll send his people the list Thursday night!

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.

  • TheG

    Suuuuuuuure. I’ll come up with some questions.
    One sticking point, though. I want to edit the video before it is posted.

  • Dave Murphy

    Seriously Ray, Your in this for the money right? your taking advantage of people who havent been exposed to the science/information or people who are indoctrinated from a young age? So my question is, How do you sleep at night? No NO but really Ray.. we wont tell anyone (wink wink) your making a shed load of cash for this jibberish right!?! – really im happy for just the last question to be posed to him : )

  • LesterBallard

    Two things Comfort has lied about (two of many); last year he told Aron Ra “I rarely talk about evolution”. And he said he doesn’t have a six figure salary; according to the 2011 Living Waters tax returns, he made just over 102,000. Just ask him why he lied about those things.

    • Travis Myers

      To be fair, maybe he’s just terrible at math.

      13 billion = 6000

      102,000 = ?

      • LesterBallard

        Well, Ray is terrible at so many things. He’s a real negative Renaissance Man.

    • allein

      He writes it as “$102K.” See? Only 3 figures. Why, he’s downright taken a vow of poverty!

    • Guest

      Ask him if he know what Jesus said about wealth, rich men and hoarding money…

  • Dave Murphy

    Hey lester, i wonder would that be just the wage paid to him by living waters, Not the profits from the companies he owns/is a director of and eventually will liquidate at a profit? who knows how many ministies pay him 100k PA

    • LesterBallard

      I don’t know. That’s just what is on the return. I don’t really care, except that he lies about it.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      He actually makes much more than that, since Living Waters certainly has the burden of almost all of his expenses.

  • Mackinz

    When you do the interview, make sure to selectively edit everything in his “honor” since he’s done it so much to us.

    • Frazzah

      He requires no selective editing. Everything he says is so idiotic to begin with.

  • Hellioning

    Ray, do you ever think you’re going to live the banana thing down?

  • http://www.last.fm/user/m6wg4bxw m6wg4bxw

    Question for Ray: Why do you question people on the street (laymen) about evolution instead of professionals? I’m not suggesting that your questions require experts, but your presentations often seem more like you’re playing gotcha, and less like you have sincere interest in the answers.

    EDIT: I changed my mind. I’d rather know why Ray treats evolution as if it’s a fundamental component of atheism. Evolution played no part in me becoming an atheist, and is irrelevant regarding the persistence of my atheism.

    • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

      I am a regular viewer of The Atheist Experience from Austin, Texas. Many fundamentalists seem to believe that if they can disprove evolution that they therefore prove that god must exist. That’s how it’s been set up for them in their churches. Never mind that there are millions of Christians who accept evolution and more significantly that if some procedure other than natural selection were demonstrated to be a better explanation that would not change anything about the god question.

    • Michael Kimsal

      It’s because anything that disagrees with a 100% literal interpretation of the bible causes the whole belief system to fall apart. evolution disagrees with genesis 1, and therefore must be destroyed.

  • Jokyo Karillion

    Dear Ray Comfort: what are your responses to Jaclyn’s points? :D

    • viddy_well

      He actually posted it on his Facebook page with this response:

      “Here’s an atheist who does a very interesting point-by-point review of “Evolution vs. God,” saying that it made her depressed. I can understand why.

      A number of times she says that there’s “tons” and “mountains” of evidence, but all she offers as her best observable evidence for Darwinian evolution is birds changing into birds and salamanders changing in salamanders. She moves on to the “nothing made every because nothing is something” silliness (which she says she doesn’t understand but she still believes—has faith that it’s true).

      She compares observable aging changes in human beings (70 years) with evolution’s 60,000,000 years, without batting an eyelid. She also has insider-information that we parted with chimps 6,000,000 years ago, adding that there is “a very tiny number of differences” in chimp and human genes—her very tiny number amounts to several hundred million bases. But it really gets bad when she talks about a fossil being found in the wrong place. Watch for that one.

      Of course, she begins by saying that man modified the shape of the banana—which isn’t true. The guy that started that belief used a picture of a modern banana to show the shape of bananas 5,000 years ago (it must have surprised him that nobody mentioned that they didn’t have cameras 5,000 years ago).

      Feel free to “like” this video. I did. It’s a great promo for the movie (she even preaches the gospel and quotes Scripture. God bless her).”

      • phantomreader42

        So, Ray lied again. No surprise at all. That’s what he is.

  • Claws

    @Ray: Have you ever read one of the books on evolution such as “the greatest show on earth” and invested time in attempting to understand why others may hold the point of view they hold? If so, what were the reasons for you dismissing them?

    • Sweetredtele

      In response to your last question- $$$$$$$$$$

  • Grotoff

    I really don’t think that there’s a way to get through to a guy like Comfort. He has already decided that a literal reading of Genesis is necessary to make sense of his other faith premises. He’s not entirely wrong either, given the way that Jesus and the rest of the New Testament characters seem to be taking Genesis very literally. Given that decision, no evidence could possibly dissuade him from his belief. Everything will be twisted, no matter how improbably, to fit his position.

    I’ve even heard committed Christians try and dance around how multiple 100 mile wide craters could exist on our planet (aka giant meteorites that hit within the last 6,000 years) and there still be any life on Earth. It’s a futile effort.

  • McFidget

    Here’s some questions: What is a “kind”? How many “kinds” were on the arc? How did the “kinds” on the arc develop into all the varieties we see today? How did they get distributed across the globe from where the arc came to ground? How did all of this occur in the supposed 4000 years since the deluge? And the bonus question: Did you just pull the answers to these questions out of your arse?

    • McFidget

      Personally I’m hoping he comes out with something as entertaining as that “theory” that animals got to Australia by being fired out of volcanoes

  • Crutnacker

    Here’s a question. If the words are the bible are so important, why do Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, and others like them spend so much time breaking the Ninth Commandment, bearing false witness by misrepresenting the words of others, taking them out of context, selectively editing them, and otherwise twisting their words for his own gain?

    More importantly, if his argument is so strong, why does he knowingly do all of these things? Does he know his argument is weak? Or worse, does he completely understand evolution and simply do this to gain attention and money for himself?

    • John Small Berries

      Those are pretty much exactly the questions I intended to suggest.

      As to the second paragraph, while those questions definitely should be posed to him, he has had it explained to him, multiple times (including by PZ Myers in the interview he gave for the movie) that the version of evolution he rails against has very little to do with evolution as it is understood by scientists in the 21st century, yet he persists in asserting that, say, since ducks don’t evolve into crocodiles, or vice-versa, evolution is false.

      So either he has a genuine profound learning disability which prevents him from understanding that he’s arguing against a straw man version of evolution, or he knows damn well he’s being intellectually dishonest and has no plans to change it.

      • mike

        Upvote for the Red Lectroid from Planet 10

    • Mike H

      I would ask that you bring solid proof to bear that Kirk and Ray have broken the ninth commandment. Let us all see the comparative quotes.
      Thanks

  • http://www.summerseale.com/ Summer Seale

    I’m a little torn on whether or not to post questions for Ray. One reason is that I think that Ray should be ignored and, when lucky enough to be acknowledged, simply laughed at in a very public and humiliating way (which would include finger pointing and walking away).

    Ray is an idiot who won’t shut the fuck up to listen to answers when he does his “interviews”. He simply cuts people off before they can answer and throws more bullshit their way, and keeps doing that over and over again until they don’t know where the hell to start responding. He’s a fucking ignorant asshole who thinks that he knows more than scientists who spend literally decades of their lives studying the minutia of the world around them to try to understand how it all works. Ray, by contrast, picks up his book of mythology, written in the iron age of Judea, and thinks that it somehow trumps everything that scientists have been able to discover. Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, and all of the rest of their ilk are hypocritical bastards who deserve to rot in a stone age cave with all the diseases of the world which science has been able to counter for the crime of rejecting it. They are the filth and muck of the inquisition and the jihad rolled into one. They are absolutely loathsome in every respect and I abhor them completely. I mean that quite literally.

    And, quite frankly, Ray Comfort needs to literally hear the words during an interview, in front of a large crowd of people: “Ray, you’re a *fucking* idiot.” Ray needs a sledgehammer of sense upside the head to understand just how stupid we think he is. That’s exactly what I would have told him if he had interviewed me for his “documentary”. And if it wasn’t illegal to do so, I’d have spat in his face for good measure.

    Now, as to what questions you should ask Ray Comfort during your upcoming interview with him, I’d ask him to cite the mitochondrial DNA evidence for evolution and then, in the same breath, state that if he can’t, he should shut the fuck up about evolution because he clearly doesn’t understand what the hell he’s talking about and should go back to fucking school.

    P.S./Edit: I’m glad I censored myself for my post and didn’t tell you all how I *really* feel about that asshole.

    • Wojtek Krzyzosiak

      I’d personally target his biblical exegesis, which is just as wrongheaded and might do more damage to his credibility among christians.

      • http://www.summerseale.com/ Summer Seale

        That’s good too.

        I just had to vent.

        • Wojtek Krzyzosiak

          Fair enough. Just thinking that if we’re going to tell him he’s a fucking idiot, we should hit him where it hurts most.

        • Alessandro

          It was a good vent. I enjoyed it.

          • http://www.summerseale.com/ Summer Seale

            Thanks.

            And people think I’m hard on Islam….

        • Know

          I enjoyed it too, I think you said, very well, what most of us feel so good job!

    • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

      He needs to be countered because all over the country there are children being raised in churches and in home school environments in which the Comfort/Hamm/Hovind message is the only one being taught. Everything they put out must be countered online using evidence and reason so that anyone with internet access can find the truth. I realize it’s frustrating to keep countering the same long-disproven arguments, but it does matter.

    • K. C. Sunbeam

      Yet none of you have given even ONE example of one kind of life form changing into another like Ray asked.
      Instead, ad hominem attacks abound. The real motivation being the unwillingness to renounce your sin as Ray pointed out?
      My website http://shockedbytruth.jimdo.com delves into these issues further.

      • chasman

        An example of one “kind” (whatever that is) of life form “changing into” (whatever that means) another would be an example of pseudoscientific magic such as creationism NOT an example of evolution. Idiot.

      • ElRay

        Are Apes, Chimps, Monkeys, Humans and their predecessors all the same kind or not? If they are, you’ve got some ‘splaining to do, because that would contradict Creationist claims. If they’re not the same kind, there’s you evidence of one pseudo-science “kind” evolving into another pseudo-science “kind”.

        Also, the majority of comments are not ad hominem attacks. Pointing out that somebody is an idiot because they continually say idiotic things is a statement of fact, not an ad hominem attack.

      • http://www.summerseale.com/ Summer Seale

        What *is* it with you fucking *morons*? How many times do people have to explain that this isn’t how evolution works? How many times do we have to shout it in your slack-jawed yokel fucking faces that evolution isn’t about one form instantly turning into another like magic? We’re not the ones who believe in magic – you are. If you think that this somehow disproves evolution, then you’re absolute *idiots* in the extreme. You’ve learned nothing.

        And yes, I’m personally insulting you. It’s an ad hominem attack. I don’t give a damn. You deserve it, and so does Ray Comfort. You’re either deliberately lying, which makes you a fucking liar, or you’re a complete and utter moron.

        Every single one of your stupid religious fallacies has been addressed by scientists and atheists millions of times over, and you just don’t want to fucking listen.

        • ryry

          Yelling, screaming, and cursing didn’t used to be considered a logical argument until the public school system fell apart. Atheists do believe in magic. Hawkings believes in “spontaneous creation” i.e. everything that exists just started existing with no cause. Evolution is based upon conjecture and over-extrapolating data. It’s a form of the “slippery slope” fallacy. What we have observed is remains of animals that don’t exist anymore and the fact that the DNA of all life is falling apart through mutations causing cancer and other diseases. A model is then put together which radically over-extrapolates from these observable facts to make statements that are not observable or testable about everything coming from nothing after long time magic ugh.. Another problem with the atheist worldview is ethics. In the magical worldview of atheism everything is ultimately meaningless. Our sun will eventually die and all life on this planet will cease and at that time it won’t matter what happened on this earth or what anyone did or didn’t do. Atheists will acknowledge this and then they will go on to contend for their worldview. One might ask “who cares?”, why does the atheist care about anything? Delusion, delusion, delusion. The atheist worldview says that ultimately (once the sun dies) nothing will matter, and then they believe in a delusion about meaning to get through this life. Tell your friends and parents that their lives are meaningless and when they die it will not matter what they did because their lives are worth no more than the life of a cockroach. Then I will believe that you really do believe your religion of magic. Tell your friends that molesting children is not ‘evil’, rather it’s just a social convention that it shouldn’t be done, comparable to stopping at a red light. Just something most of us have agreed works. A person molesting a child is no different than a person going through a stop sign: they broke a social convention. The child has no more value than a cockroach. These are the logical conclusions of magical atheism and yet atheists DO believe in objective morals and the value of human life (most of them that I have met). So why do atheists intentionally delude themselves that human life matters? The theistic model predicts that human life has more value than a cockroach but the atheist model does not. The model that doesn’t accurately predict/model reality (ethics is a part of reality) needs to be discarded or at least seriously looked at and revised. Lastly, do you accept that the conclusion of your worldview is that you have no more value than a cockroach, Summer Seale? Or do you delude yourself that you have value? Do you accept that in your worldview your family and friends have no more value than a cockroach? Or do you delude yourself?

          • islandbrewer

            On the right side of your keyboard (probably) is a key. It will put your cursor on the next line. If you press it twice, there will be a space in between the lines of text, like this:

            Also, we typically separate ideas in our text into something called “paragraphs.” It is a demonstration of cogency in our thinking.

            Further, your assumption of the ethical implications of a Universe without a giant invisible man in the sky is, sadly, predictably, bullocks, as is your characterization of Stephen Hawking’s postulation of the creation of matter as “magic.” It involves no supernatural entities or any violation of his currently presented models of physics, and is thus not “magic,” like Jesus is.

            Oh, and your objection to the tone of Summer Seale’s post is noted.

            • ryry

              Pretentiousness noted. I see no objective scientific argument that refuted my statement that human life has no more value than the life of a cockroach according to the magical worldview.

              • islandbrewer

                Not pretentiousness, asswipe, Your wall o’ text causes eyestrain.

                So, you’re saying that you desperately cling to the belief that a giant invisible man in the sky said you were a special precious little snowflake, because without said belief, you feel that you’re worth nothing?

                If I were you, I’d seek therapy.

                • ryry

                  You still have no argument to explain why your life has more value than a cockroach.

                  You can curse at me all you want, but according to your own belief system there are no objective values and so your opinions can never reach outside the walls of your skull and touch objective reality. You have no more value than a cockroach according to your worldview. You can pretend that you have value and believe in a fairy tale that human life matters, but it is not an objective reality in your worldview.

                  I don’t share your worldview. I believe that human life has objective and intrinsic value. Human life is more valuable than the life of a cockroach. Don’t delude yourself that you have no more value than a cockroach. Don’t delude yourself that if you were brutally killed tomorrow it wouldn’t have any ultimate significance. Don’t delude yourself that a child molester is just another product of evolution and is therefore no better or worse than you.

                  I broke it into paragraphs this time so as not to strain your eyes. Why? Because people should be kind and loving to one another and that is an objective reality and not just a social convention.

                • RobMcCune

                  Don’t delude yourself that a child molester is just another product of evolution special creation by God and is therefore no better or worse than you.

                • ryry

                  You are confused about the theistic worldview. Sin is not a creation of God, it is a spiritual disease introduced into reality by the enemy of God. It is philosophically impossible for God to sin because sin is defined in the theistic worldview as that which is against God. And yet you never answered the question I posed. You merely showed that you don’t understand the theistic worldview. Is a child molester a product of evolution?

                • RobMcCune

                  Sin is not a creation of God, it is a spiritual disease introduced into reality by the enemy of God.

                  Who God created, knowing full well the consequences of his actions.

                  It is philosophically impossible for God to sin because sin is defined in the theistic worldview as that which is against God.

                  I.E. It is arbitrary. God simply makes it up as he goes along.

                • ryry

                  I see that you don’t want to answer my question: Is a child molester a product of evolution?

                  You acknowledge that sin is not from God so the point you made earlier is invalid.

                  Morals are not arbitrary unless God is defined as being variable. God is defined as eternal (outside of time/change) and so morals are in no way arbitrary they reflect his own character and are eternal as is he.

                  I have refuted your points, now please answer my question and stop delaying.

                • RobMcCune

                  God is defined as eternal (outside of time/change) and so morals are in no way arbitrary they reflect his own character and are eternal as is he.

                  That doesn’t make God’s morals non-arbitrary, only unchanging.

                  I have refuted your points, now please answer my question and stop delaying.

                  Your question is irrelevant, whether or not evolution produces moral things has bearing on whether or not it’s true.

                • Brian Westley

                  That doesn’t make God’s morals non-arbitrary, only unchanging.

                  Which would also mean that e.g. slavery is moral.

                • ryry

                  Is slavery right or wrong? What is the objective absolute unchanging scientific laboratory tested standard by which an atheist can make a statement about anything being right or wrong.

                  Philosophy is not taught to children anymore. This is good for the status quo worldview which thrives on accepting the “consensus” of the “experts” and memorizing lists of “facts” in order to spit them out on a test so that you can get your degree which is then objective scientific proof that you are right about everything (or at least that you can regurgitate what was fed to you without questioning anything or thinking for yourself).

                  I find it amusing how often atheists cite the “consensus” of the “experts” as valid evidence as if truth is a popularity contest. All the great minds in history have stood against the consensus of the experts. Evolution IS the popular dogma and status quo in the scientific community, that’s why it’s not challenged and real thought has died.

                • Spuddie

                  If you were a believer that the Bible/God dictates morality, you could not answer your own question. God seemed pretty OK with it. Certainly all state sponsored and mainstream Christianity thought so up until the 19th century.

                  Of course if you had any notion of empathy and understanding of other human beings, you would understand that treating them as chattel property would be a bad thing.

                  I find it amusing how you seem to glorify behavior which would be deemed psychopathic in your efforts to define morality. Somehow nothing is moral unless it is dictated to you.

                  If you cannot understand how empathy innate to all sane human beings forms a basis for moral conduct then it tells me you probably need to be put under careful observation.

                  Evolution is not dogma because it doesn’t matter what your religious beliefs are. If you think Christianity and evolution are opposing beliefs you are too stupid to understand either of them.

                  If you are a scientist, you accept evolution because it works for the purposes intended. Interpretation of scientific research and observations. If you are a religious fanatic looking to validate your faith through dishonest discourse you would not care about such purposes and look for an excuse to attack the credibility of science in general.

                • ryry

                  Slavery needs to be defined rigorously. In certain cases it is acceptable: to pay off debts, prisoners of war, etc. American slavery was different.

                  What you need to do now is explain WHY it’s immoral or anything for that matter.

                • Spuddie

                  If you don’t understand the definition of slavery, then you are incapable of carrying on a conversation about its morality.

                  Ownership of human beings as chattel property work for you? Are you done trolling?

                  And now a quote from Futurama:

                  Fry: Do you know what is the worst thing about being a slave? They work you like crazy and don’t pay you.

                  Leela: Fry, that is the only thing about being a slave.

                • ryry

                  Owning another person and taking away their freedom is right and acceptable in certain cases, that is my point. Or are you against the prison system? If someone kills 30 children we put that person in prison and then he is the property of the state and his freedom is taken away. You are against that? Or, you admit that the statement “taking a person’s freedom away is wrong” is overly simplistic. The refutation of your poor argument is now complete.

                  My overall argument however is that you accept that objective morality is a part of reality as do I. However, your model of reality (atheism) fails to account for the existence of an objective morality. So, your model of reality fails to explain reality. At that point you should junk it. If a model fails to explain the phenomena it is useless. The theistic model accounts for the existence of objective morality. In your worldview empathy is not eternal because empathy requires consciousness and consciousness is not eternal in your world, only energy or matter depending on the flavor of atheism. In the theistic model consciousness is eternal (God is eternal consciousness), so empathy is an eternal part of reality. The 3 persons of the trinity have shown love and empathy toward each other eternally.

                • Spuddie

                  You are not done trolling. You are now relying on shitty analogy to carry the day. A prisoner is not a slave. They are not property. Not of the state or of a warden. Your analogy would work if you can legally make convicts fight to the death for your amusement or make them personal concubines. =)

                  I do not accept your take on morality at all. It is sociopathic and dishonest in nature. Throwing around “reality” and “objective” into nonsense sentences does not make you sound profound. It means you are crawling up your own behind and trying to invite me along for the trip.

                  You are trying to characterize my argument to use a canned response without actually addressing it in any fashion. You are not bothering to define your own position. So it will be anything you wish it to be to keep an argument going forward.

                  Ultimately you are dancing around the idea that God defines all moral conduct but doing nothing to actually support such a view. You fail to address the glaring deficiency in such a view. That is whether you can do immoral acts if it is in God’s name. To you, nothing is immoral unless God deems it so. You deny any connection to fellow human beings or how empathy plays a role. If you have to be taught deliberately harming other people is wrong, you do not understand what it is to be a person.

                • ryry

                  “You fail to address the glaring deficiency in such a view. That is whether you can do immoral acts if it is in God’s name.”

                  Very easy question. God will never command anyone to do anything immoral or evil, period. Someone may do something evil in the name of God, yes that’s true, just like someone can buy something with my credit card. However, that is really not commissioned by God. God’s laws are found in his word, just as man’s laws are found in man’s word (legal documents).

                  We can doubt whether the bible comes from God, that is true. But I can just as easily doubt the source of any document used to create laws or build beliefs in our society. Why use the constitution? Do you know anyone that was personally there and witnessed its creation? How can we be certain that its alleged source is the real source? Oh, we must trust those who have told us and see if the evidence helps verify it. That’s the way everything works in reality bud. Everything is based upon trust (faith) unless you were there personally. Even your beliefs in evolution are based upon trust/faith unless you personally have done all the research yourself. You have faith in the word of the scientists. Their published papers, articles, etc. make claims and you have faith in what they say. You have faith that they were written by the people they claim to be written by. You swim in an ocean of faith.

                • Spuddie

                  “God will never command anyone to do anything immoral or evil, period.”

                  Except human sacrifice, genocide, sectarian hatred, ostracizing people for petty reasons, lying (as you do constantly), incest, rape, environmental despoilation….

                • ryry

                  Hey, dino-brain, it’s just your opinion that anything in the bible is immoral. Just your opinion, your opinion, opinion. By what objective standard do you judge other people? By what objective standard do you judge people from a different time and culture? I realize that you hate people in third-world countries because they hold more traditional values. I realize that as a eurocentric westerner you believe that your values are superior to every other culture. I realize that because of your arrogance as a eurocentric westerner you believe that every other culture should bow down before you and submit to your moral standards. Did you appeal to a standard outside of yourself? No, the standard is you and your opinions. I guess you believe yourself to be a god then.

                  There have been more intelligent atheists than you that have figured out that if there is no god there is no ultimate absolute morality.

                • Spuddie

                  Denial will get you nowhere. Maybe you should crack open your Bible instead of trying to use it as a blunt instrument to smack others upside the head.

                • ryry

                  By what objective standard standard do you judge me? Why are you so judgmental?

                • Spuddie

                  QED God exists because you are too lazy to think anything through for yourself.

                • ryry

                  Let’s just assume theism is false for the sake of argument. I’ll reject it and now I want to embrace atheism. However, I don’t see how there can be an objective standard in atheism. Show me how.

                • bizeditor84

                  Time did not allow me to read them all, but your posts, ryry, laudably stayed right on topic and on target. Few people on the opposing side of the discussion seem able to do that, but from the many of your posts I saw, you did. And you were able to steer clear of the opponents’ baiting, insults, invective and distractions. Well done!!

                • RobMcCune

                  Evolution Heliocentrism IS the popular dogma and status quo in the scientific community, that’s why it’s not challenged and real thought has died.

                  Do you believe in geocentrism and the flat earth science hipster?

                • ryry

                  You gotta be kidding me? You are a flat earth myth believer? The idea that people believed in a flat earth is a myth. Do a google search for “flat earth myth”.

                  Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth in 200 B.C. He also calculated the tilt of the earth’s axis and possibly the distance of the earth from the sun.

                  Heliocentrism was proposed thousands of years ago but the scientific models of the middle ages were geocentric, you are correct. However, that had nothing to do with religion, it was the SCIENTIFIC view of the time based upon the assumptions and interpretation of the observable evidence at the time. The paradigm shift was stalled because people hold onto models even if the evidence is contrary.

                  Look at plate tectonics, that was a major paradigm shift. Should would mock those scientists who didn’t accept plate tectonics before? Should we mock Einstein because he disagreed with Bohr on quantum mechanics?

                • RobMcCune

                  Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth in 200 B.C. He also calculated the tilt of the earth’s axis and possibly the distance of the earth from the sun.

                  It seems as though you are going with the consensus of “experts”, all great scientific minds have gone against said consensus. Why is that an argument against evolution, but not an argument against notions of the earth’s geometry and position in the universe?

                  Should would mock those scientists who didn’t accept plate tectonics before? Should we mock Einstein because he disagreed with Bohr on quantum mechanics?

                  I will assume you meant “before there was sufficient evidence,” so in that case no. The situation is different for evolution in the 21st century though. As for Einstein, I can see how someone could mock him for being a crank later in life, though that doesn’t diminish his achievements.

                • ryry

                  Define “sufficient evidence” rigorously. Or acknowledge that when and why models are given up is pretty subjective.

                  Do you acknowledge that you said something stupid by referring to the flat earth myth? I admitted to saying something stupid earlier it would be nice if you could do so as well. The flat earth myth was created by evolutionists in the 19th century to try to dishonestly discredit the Jewish scriptures and advance the idea that the Jews have tricked people for thousands of years.

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

                  *snort* That totally explains why Christopher Columbus in 1492 had trouble getting funding for his expedition to India because potential backers thought he’d just sail off the end of the world.

                  Because 19th century evolutionists were anti-Semites, that’s why! Excuse me while I fall out of my chair laughing.

                • ryry
                • RobMcCune

                  What kind of standard is contrarianism

                  All the great minds in history have stood against the consensus of the experts. Evolution IS the popular dogma and status quo in the scientific community, that’s why it’s not challenged and real thought has died.

                  I’m simply asking why you’re not applying that standard consistently? Why are you dodging the question?

                • ryry

                  Rob, you have not answered anything that I have asked you. You are fairly decent at avoiding questions, but you have absolutely no ability to answer them.

                  You said models are given up after “sufficient evidence” — Give a rigorous scientific definition of that nominal phrase. Include any necessary formulas and mathematical equations. Something that erases ALL subjectivity. Or else, admit that “sufficient evidence” just means “when they FEEL like it’s enough”.

                  Your basis for morality is garbage and junk. Let’s try to break it down here: Situation A is put through your moral determination machine which will spit out an answer good/evil. The machine checks the situation to see if there is harm done and bases its answer on that. Define “harm” so the machine knows how to do its work.

                  If I believe that allowing young boys to dress, act, and be identified as girls is “harmful” and another person thinks otherwise, what standard do we appeal to resolve it?

                  One may ask why “harming” others should be the standard in the first place. Is prison “harmful”? If yes, then you don’t believe in prison for murderers. If prison is not harmful then we could imprison anyone at anytime since it would therefore not be immoral.

                  Do you see how your morality is junk? It falls apart under just minimal scrutiny. It’s obvious that you’ve never though about your own views deeply. I’ve spent hours upon hours poring over my own views about things to analyze every piece of them. This is philosophy, welcome.

                • RobMcCune

                  It’s typical that you would fail to answer my questions, you can only make criticism based on your subjective incredulity and have no way to defend your world view.

                • ryry

                  Rob, you’re done. You are exuding the classical signs of someone who realizes that their argument is junk. You are now unresponsive. Now, to be fair, that alone doesn’t mean that your view is false, it merely means that you don’t know how to argue it and haven’t thought very deeply about much. I have engaged with some very intelligent atheists before, in fact I once was one, but you don’t seem to even realize the problems that your worldview faces.

                • ryry

                  Hey Rob, your worldview is the one which needs to be scrutinized, not mine. Your worldview is the one that is the status quo and the accepted mainstream, not mine. Your worldview is the one that gets public funding, not mine. Or are you trying to argue that the consensus of the scientific community is theism? For the sake of argument just assume that theism is wrong. Now, explain the basis of morality in the atheist universe. Give a working definition of “harming others” that I can subject to rigorous testing by applying it to different scenarios and seeing what results we get. I promise you that any arbitrary standard for morality you come up with such as “don’t harm others” will be destroyed as I demonstrate situations that contradict your arbitrary standard. Why am I confident about this? Because I’ve explored all of this 10 years ago when I was on your side of the aisle Bobby boy.

                  Also, the entire earth needs to thank you Rob for giving the ultimate standard of morality to us. You did not appeal to anything outside of yourself (unlike me) in formulating your moral standard. You yourself are the standard I guess. You DO believe in God, and you believe that you yourself are him.

                • Brian Westley

                  Is slavery right or wrong? What is the objective absolute unchanging scientific laboratory tested standard by which an atheist can make a statement about anything being right or wrong.

                  There isn’t one, just as bowling doesn’t support or condemn slavery either.

                  You use butterknives as screwdrivers, don’t you?

                • ryry

                  So, murder, rape, and child molestation are products of evolution.

                  Is the Bible a product of evolution? Is belief in the Bible a product of evolution? Is belief in evolution a product of evolution?

                  I see that you still don’t want to answer my simple question because the implications are too difficult for you to accept.

                  Being the skeptic that I am I have another question: Is child molestation objectively wrong or is it a social convention? Id est, if in a certain time and place a culture accepted it socially would it then be morally right in that time and place or would it still be wrong even though the culture socially accepted it?

                • RobMcCune

                  I see that you still don’t want to answer my simple question because the implications are too difficult for you to accept.

                  The answer has no implications, that is why your question is irrelevant.

                  Is the Bible a product of evolution? Is belief in the Bible a product of evolution? Is belief in evolution a product of evolution?

                  Probably not, why do ask? Still looking for imaginary implications?

                • ryry

                  So in your worldview evolution does not explain humans? Evolution does not explain why we are the way we are? Then it is defunct as an explanation for life.

                  Evolution supposedly explains why all life is the way it is down to the minutiae of social behaviors. But now you are rejecting evolution. I guess the debate is over then.

                • RobMcCune

                  Evolution explains some things, other human traits are not the product of evolution, but environment. You’re committing a false dichotomy.

                  I guess the debate is over then.

                  Great job putting words in the mouths of others. Since you’re just engaging in empty rhetoric, there never was a debate. If you wish to engage people honestly, you can have one. Sadly I don’t think a debate is why you’re here, I believe you are here to simply declare atheists evil and inferior, and repeat it to make yourself feel confident in your faith

                • ryry

                  The social environment is not the product of evolution? Wow, you are really confused Rob. Evolutionary theory is proposed as an answer to everything about why life is the way it is. It has been summoned to explain adultery, human morality, etc.

                  The environment is itself a product of evolution. EVERYTHING is a result of evolution in the evolutionary worldview.

                  So your point is that if you don’t like a behavior then it isn’t a result of evolution? Great theory, very logical. That would work if evolution was a conscious being who could choose but then you would be a theist, oops.

                • RobMcCune

                  No, only those things that were selected for by evolution are the result of evolution. There is no “evolutionary worldview,” evolution is simply a fact of the world that sticks in your craw because it disagrees with the bible. This fact is also accepted by many christians.

                  Wow, you are really confused Rob.

                  I’m sorry you have no understanding of what I really believe and are baffled that it conflicts with an imaginary nemesis you have sworn to fight.

                  So your point is that if you don’t like a behavior then it isn’t a result of evolution?

                  No, many human traits are were selected for though not all of them. If you can explain how an immoral trait came about through evolution I’ll be happy to consider your explanation.

                  That would work if evolution was a conscious being who could choose but then you would be a theist, oops.

                  So you admit that theists pick and choose their morality? So much for your objectivity, Oops.

                • Spuddie

                  Is child molestation objectively wrong or is it a social convention?”

                  Do you have to be told child molestation is a bad thing to consider it one?

                  Do you have any innate feelings about the act itself?

                  Are you on any kind of statewide watchlists that have to be distributed to your neighbors?

                • ryry

                  You missed my point. My point is not whether it is or isn’t, my point is that in the atheist worldview there is no standard by which to make absolute moral judgments.

                  Of course I believe it is morally wrong, and I have a logical reason for that view. You, however, don’t. And your non-answer and evasion of the question shows that you realize this at some level.

                • Spuddie

                  No I understood your point and thought it was a sign of deep psychosis on your part.

                  Your description of an atheist worldview tells me more about the flaws in your own notions of morality than it does about what atheist’s believe and say.

                  My issue is not whether you believed it was wrong or not, but why you do. Its rhe fact that you completely ignore any kind of consideration of empathy or personal conscience in your moral considerations. This is disturbingly AMORAL.

                  You missed my point entirely. That if you lack any kind of innate empathetic center and require moral notions to be dictated to you, you do not understand the concept of morality at all. You are merely a restrained sociopath.

                  “And your non-answer and evasion of the question shows that you realize this at some level.”

                  When you have already assigned your moral center to others, lying on their behalf is not a problem. There is nothing evasive about my responses.

                • ryry

                  Where did I say empathy is a bad thing? NOWHERE. Morality is all about empathy. But where is its origin? In the dirt? In chemistry? Maybe gravity? Electromagnetism? Your worldview is cold and dry and yet out pops empathy! Empathy is godly, it is truly beautiful and presupposes the existence of God. Thank you for proving my point, it saves me time.

                  You might want to check the other comments, some of your fellow atheists believe that there are no moral absolutes.

                • Spuddie

                  Now you are making a strawman argument and avoiding the question. I am saying you have no empathy, you deny its existence and its effect on one’s conscience and personal moral actions.

                  Where is the origin of empathy? Some say we are hardwired for it. Some say it is a function of normal human relations and interactions? Some just say its just what God gave us. =) Anyway you slice it, it still comes down to morality as a function of our innate human nature as opposed to having to be instructed from the outside.

                  Your approach, that morality exists only because God commands something to be so is extremely reductive, simplistic and sociopathic in nature. Its not moral at all because you deliberately leave out the effects of one’s actions on fellow human beings. You can excuse horrific immoral behavior under your view because you just claim to be doing God’s work. It is a given for many religious people act in such a fashion, on a regular basis.

                • TheRealMcRay

                  I have my own set of morals, self taught/felt … I have a conscience … I have empathy … however, I do not know or believe in your “god” … therefore using “empathy is godly, it is truly beautiful and presupposes the existence of “god”” is not a valid argument … next! …

                • T HE Richard Francis

                  Absolute moral judgments are unnecessary. I can make moral judgments without absolutes. This is what everybody does, whether they like to believe in absolutes or not.

                • RobMcCune

                  Being the skeptic that I am I have another question:

                  You’re simply trying to deflect from the fact your morality is arbitrary and your worldview is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

                  Unless you can prove the objectivity of your world view that is.

                  Being the skeptic that I am I have another question: Is child molestation objectively wrong or is it a social convention?

                  Child molestation is objectively wrong. What is your basis for saying so?

                • ryry

                  What makes child molestation objectively wrong in your worldview?

                  In my worldview it is objectively wrong because it is behaving contrary to God’s own selfless, loving character.

                • Spuddie

                  Seriously, you have to be told that child molestation is a bad thing?

                  You need divine commandment for this?

                  There is nothing innate in your mind on the subject?

                  Your conscience says nothing about it is a bad act because it is destructive to a child?

                  You have no sympathy or understanding that it is inappropriate to harm children or anyone in such a manner?

                  If you have to rely on God’s character for this, it means you have none of your own. Psychotic’s morality.

                • RobMcCune

                  The fact that the child is harmed makes it objectively wrong.

                  What makes God’s character objectively moral?

                • ryry

                  “The fact that the child is harmed makes it objectively wrong.”

                  Why is that the standard? Because you say so? I reject that standard, now how do you go about proving that I’m wrong?

                  If a person shoots a young girl in the head while she sleeps so that she dies instantly and feels nothing is that wrong? The girl was not harmed. Unless your definition of “harmed” is a loaded word that basically means “doing something immoral to another person” in which case you are using a circular argument (philosophy and logic need to be taught again!).

                  “What makes God’s character objectively moral?”

                  I already answered this. Nothing outside of God defines his character. God is the standard for definition for all things. That is what it means to be God. You seem to think that if I can use that argument you can as well, but you can’t because you don’t have a conscious, self-defining being in your worldview. If you do then the debate is over and you’re a theist.

                • RobMcCune

                  If a person shoots a young girl in the head while she sleeps so that she dies instantly and feels nothing is that wrong?

                  Harm includes pain, but extends beyond it. Diminishing someones abilities and potential causes them harm. It’s strange that some who claims god is the source of definitions has such a lack of understanding of them.

                  God is the standard for definition for all things. That is what it means to be God.

                  This is circular reasoning as we have already established. Back to freshman philosopy for you.

                  You seem to think that if I can use that argument you can as well,

                  Yes, because you are a hypocrite with inconsistent standards. Not only do you fail to show the objectivity of your world view, but your own actions undermine your point.

                  because you don’t have a conscious, self-defining being in your worldview.

                  Neither of those things make your morality objective.

                • ryry

                  I disagree that circular reasoning is always bad. Every worldview is circular at base. An axiom is circular always. You will have to prove that circularity is always bad even in axioms. I just reject your ill-informed philosophy. Circles aren’t bad, thought is not perfectly linear. Why do you discriminate against and hate circles?

                • RobMcCune

                  What do you have against logic and consistency?

                • ryry

                  I’m sorry Rob, but you’re obviously not as educated as you think you are. Logic is sometimes circular, we call those things axioms. But your worldview is the status quo, not mine. Yours is the one that gets my tax payer funding, not mine. Yours is fed to children in schools, not mine. (Which is why my kids are homeshooled and why my daughter can read Classical Greek at 6 years old).

                  God and the Bible are my axioms. Look up what ‘axiom’ means. Your worldview has axioms which are circular as well. If you can’t understand that, then whatever, we’ll move to something you can.

                  Do rape and child molestation come from nature?

                • R Clayderman

                  ryry, I read many of your posts and want to congratulate you on staying on topic and on the point, notwithstanding the insults, illogic, baiting and distractions from the opposition. Well done!

                • talkingsnake

                  “Why is that the standard? Because you say so?”

                  Followed shortly thereafter by…

                  “Nothing outside of God defines character. God is the standard for definition for all things.”

                  My that is a shiny mirror.

                • Kodie

                  I don’t think what we’re calling child molestation is objectively wrong. As a society, we decided children are too immature to consent, and are vulnerable to the influence of a more mature person. However, I do not know “mature” people to be attracted to children. We have made a legal, arbitrary definition of “child” as anyone below the age of 18, and I don’t know we can be objective here – some people under 18 can give consent, it’s that we legally remove their ability to, and place the blame on the older perpetrator. This is the same effect of other laws that don’t place full blame on minors who commit crimes as they do adults – anyone over the age of 18, even if they are still in high school with 17-year-olds.

                  Now, we don’t think a 5-year-old can give consent, we don’t really think a 12-year-old could possibly be worldly enough to give consent, and we have to draw the line somewhere past the age of sexual curiosity. It’s ok with kids your own age, but an adult is considered a predator, going after a type, and not waiting until the person of their fancy turns 18 – some creepy guys do count it down. I also know that consent is respected more when a person is a minor than when the victim is a man (the idea that men can’t be raped because they automatically want sex anytime with anyone) or a woman if she [insert list of things women have to do so they don't get blamed for causing their own rape]. A 16-17-year-old can have their head on their shoulders and well, it’s not quite seen as a “head-on-your-shoulders” move to carry on a consensual affair with a 35-year-old man. A subordinate at work, an adult, can be pressured and harassed and threatened, also vulnerable to sexual predators and advances. We protect the consent of a child because we know consent means “informed consent”. “Informed” usually means “experience in life,” which young people do not have yet. They can find sex pleasurable rather early in their teens, but have not been on the road enough, so to speak, to consider consequences and navigate the experience of an older person who knows just what to say to charm their pants off.

                  I think it’s disgusting that some people prey on very young children or even prey on sexually awakening teenagers, but I also think some people are regressed mentally, they like to play with children or can’t grow out of high school, and their sexual maturity blends with what might otherwise be a platonic affinity for people of a different physical age. Children also need mentors who aren’t their parents and, as a society, we feel the urgency to protect children from predatory adults who, for whatever reason, feel sexually attracted to them, to avoid setting them in private social situations they don’t have any power in. It’s a social custom that we care about children enough to protect them as we’ve seen what happens to the sexually abused child.

                  Was this always a bad thing? A sexually mature teen woman was considered the property of her father with no rights and married off before she got “too old”, like 20. We’ve learned and understood only recently that child molesters don’t fit the outdated profile of a creepy guy in an alley, the one you look at and instantly shoo your kids back in the car.

                  Child molesters are people you generally trust your child with – a teacher, priest, or coach, the upstanding citizens you don’t question or suspect. There was a whole culture we went through where this all came to light. IN MY LIFETIME. If child molestation was an objective wrong, then why did so many adults ignore that it was going on, and hand their child off to any available adult with a job dealing with children? You know they’re trustworthy because they have a job, they look clean and are very charming, possibly have their own family at home. Why did adults believe the other adult and call the children liars? What about stepfathers, uncles, fathers, brothers, grandfathers, or neighbors? Family friends? Parents don’t want to believe one of their loved ones is a bad person and this is happening in their own house. The cliche of the mother protecting her husband against accusations from the child? None of this ring a bell?

                  I do think it’s social convention that we come up with an age limit, and it’s social convention that we think a 19-17 couple is adorable and a 30-17 couple is gross, but a 45-18 couple is legal so what are you going to do? If the “victim” in this equation was not negatively affected, can we say that the perpetrator was objectively wrong? We say so because it’s the law. We err on the side of 0 minors being negatively affected by making it illegal for an adult to engage in such relationships outright.

                  It would be super if we could translate all these considerations of a person’s inability to consent with the consent of others and punish perpetrators who commit other sexual crimes. Even as we speak, we live in a rape culture where some things aren’t thought to be rape, training boys and girls as early as toddlers to perform analogous transactions that blame the girl and congratulate the boy. If raping someone is objectively wrong, why do rapists get excused and rape victims get death threats? It’s obviously up to the person’s opinion and their culture what they believe is “right”, as in it’s NOT right to deny a young man his future because some girl got too drunk so he could do what he wants to her. It’s really hard to convince people that drunkenness isn’t consent while they also believe that children are liars and homosexuals are the only ones you have to worry about.

                  No, child molestation is not objectively wrong. Oh, and god’s model is an abusive, unbalanced relationship. He’s not selfless, he’s, by all accounts, the most egotistical abusive asshole in the entire universe, You want his love, you want it, and he is so selfless, he has to threaten you to get you to behave. Selfless implies sacrifice, he is doing the opposite of that. He has a mansion you can live in at his whim. He doesn’t really seem to want that much company.

                • Isaac

                  Your so called god is only a product of misunderstanding, ignorance and delusion. That is all.

                • ryry

                  I’m searching for the content of your argument, but I don’t seem to see any. Please try again.

                • Isaac

                  Here is something you need to read. http://www.livescience.com/39038-how-delusions-shape-perception.html. Your arrogance is limiting your ability to understand the concepts explained by other posters here. If you actually had a point in all your blathering, I would construct an argument to your so called questions.

                • ryry

                  Comical, but still no content. When you can formulate an intelligent argument let me know. I will point out that there are other atheists engaging with me here at various levels. At this point you have still not engaged. You are like the guy that keeps saying he wants to fight and that the other guy is a wimp, blah blah blah, but you never throw down. I just let them talk because I’m confident that I can neutralize them fairly quickly if they ever decide to engage. Do I pick those fights? No, but because of my size some guys like to pick fights with me and sometimes I have to step in and correct people who are mistreating others when I see it on the streets. I don’t let people use filthy language when children are around (<–objective morality). Sometimes they need more motivation.

                  So, Isaac, do you believe in "spontaneous creation", i.e. that the universe created itself out of nothing with no cause? Another word for that is magic.

                • T HE Richard Francis

                  filthy language is extremely subjective. It depends on the listener’s understanding of that language as being “filthy”. Nice try, but that’s not objective.

                • RobMcCune

                  You merely showed that you don’t understand the theistic worldview.

                  By not blindly and illogically accepting it.

                • ryry

                  You still haven’t answered my question: Is a child molester a product of evolution?

                  I realize that this is a difficult question because it basically exposes the cold nothingness and vapid morality of the atheist hypothesis.

                • RobMcCune

                  Whether or not a child molester is the product of evolution is irrelevant. You have no objective way to critique the actions of a child molester, since you believe that person was created by God.

                  Unless of course there is objective criteria by which God’s actions can be judged.

                • ryry

                  So child molestation, murder, rape, etc. are products of evolution? You acknowledge that, correct?

                  I have an objective way to critique the actions of a child molester, the eternal law of God which is written on everyone’s heart and is verified by the word of God because sin can distort the law written on our hearts.

                  “Unless of course there is objective criteria by which God’s actions can be judged”

                  This statement is rather confused. The child molester is not God. You are confusing the child molester’s actions with God’s actions. You seem to not understand the idea of a responsible moral agent. Is your argument really that God is responsible for every person’s actions? Come on, really?

                • RobMcCune

                  This statement is rather confused.

                  God created child molesters knowing they would molest children. How can you judge his creations to be good or bad?

                  I have an objective way to critique the actions of a child molester, the eternal law of God which is written on everyone’s heart…sin can distort the law written on our hearts.

                  Well then looking to your heart is not an objective way to determine morality then, is it? As for God’s laws, how do you objectively determine that your religion is correct? Remember you can’t listen to your heart, since it can be distorted.

                  So child molestation, murder, rape, etc. are products of evolution? You acknowledge that, correct?

                  I can’t say one way or the other until you define “product of evolution.”

                • ryry

                  Rob, you fear the meaninglessness of your worldview. If you were brutally killed tomorrow it wouldn’t matter. Disproving creationists doesn’t matter. You have no more value than a pile of fecal matter in your worldview. Evolution teaches that human behaviors are products of evolution and so it teaches that child molestation (a human behavior) is a product of evolution.

                  You are trying to blame God for sin. God hates sin, the Jewish scriptures say that emphatically. The Jewish scriptures are the standard for determining who God is and what he thinks.

                  In every worldview the fundamental axioms are chosen from which everything else is interpreted. The atheist worldview does the same thing. We all (most of us) assume a basic reliability of the human senses without any way to prove it. The proof would be circular because it would rely upon human senses in order to prove it. Philosophy is seriously missing in modern education and these discussions are proof of it.

                  Christ taught that we are to be selfless and are to love others more than ourselves and he demonstrated it by suffering for others. There is no way to associate God with child molestation. God hates child molestation and will exact justice on those who do such things.

                • Kodie

                  He could stop them beforehand? Turn them neon green so we could avoid them? No, just hell. Eternal justice is a fantasy.

                • RobMcCune

                  Rob, you fear the meaninglessness of your worldview.

                  No, just trying to avoid your stupid argument from incredulity game.

                  You are trying to blame God for sin.

                  I’m merely pointing the hypocrisy of claiming that the origin of an immoral thing can be held against a random process, but not a being that made a conscious decision with complete knowledge of the consequences. This is something you are inconsistent on.

                  In every worldview the fundamental axioms are chosen from which everything else is interpreted.

                  And those axioms must be chosen carefully rather than thrown around as a way to shut down argument. Like so:

                  God hates child molestation and will exact justice on those who do such things.

                  You have no basis for saying that other than it is something you wish to be so. What makes this anything other than your opinion, or one of Plato’s noble lies?

                • ryry

                  “You have no basis for saying that other than it is something you wish to be so. What makes this anything other than your opinion, or one of Plato’s noble lies?”

                  The basis is the Jewish scriptures. I’ve already said that. That is my basis. You may not like it. In fact many people hate the Jews because of the scriptures. But my worldview is internally consistent unlike yours.

                  You say that the axioms “must be chosen carefully”. Interesting and philosophically not-very-astute answer. By what standard do you evaluate whether the axioms are “chosen carefully”? That standard then becomes itself the fundamental axiom, and then…. infinite regress.

                • RobMcCune

                  The basis is the Jewish scriptures

                  And why should they be believed? Or right, it’s just so.

                  But my worldview is internally consistent unlike yours.

                  Which is another axiom of your worldview no doubt. Of course since they can be picked willy-nilly, there’s no worries.

                • ryry

                  Rob, why should ANYTHING be believed. You’re skepticism is so militant that you should really not believe or trust anything or anyone, except maybe yourself and I guess that’s the point.

                  The Jewish scriptures have time and time again been proven to be historically accurate. They have changed the course of history. The prophecies contained within them have been fulfilled. The continuing existence of the Jewish culture after countless attempts at extermination to rid the world of their scriptures.

                  Proof is really a subjective thing philosophically. Give me an objective definition of what makes something compelling evidence. The Matrix movies make a great philosophical point that evidence and proof can be entirely subjective.

                • RobMcCune

                  Wait you mean you can’t provide any objective reasons that your morality is objective? Isn’t that the thing you’re actually using to criticize atheism?

                  Why do you demand standard of other worldviews that you yourself cannot provide?

                • ryry

                  Man is not omniscient? Yes, that’s my point. You seem to want an all-inclusive God-like knowledge. Instead of chasing the wind, you can have a relationship with the source of love, beauty, and all good things. Or, you can delude yourself that there really is no good or evil, those are just subjective opinions. You can tell yourself that a man killing children is really just a reorganization of matter. Relish your insanity if you desire, just stay away from my kids with that garbage worldview.

                • RobMcCune

                  You seem to talking to yourself, have fun making up a conversation where your worldview is justifiable, objective and consistent. So far everything you have written shows the opposite.

                • ryry

                  You have not answered anything. Your worldview has no answers to the big questions.

                  You actually believe the flat-earth myth i.e. the myth that people actually thought the earth was flat! You have been educated by the system, that’s why you can’t think deeply and are badly informed about history.

                  Do rape and child molestation come from nature?

                • RobMcCune

                  Looks like someone has exhausted their script. I’m sorry the rhetoric that you think is clever has failed you.

                • ryry

                  This question really shakes the core of your worldview doesn’t it?: Do rape and child molestation come from nature?

                  You don’t know what to do with it. It encapsulates the ethical/moral problems of your worldview. Everything has a natural explanation and yet you don’t want a natural explanation for the molestation of children. You want evil to exist, at least just momentarily, so that you can pin the existence of molestation on it.

                  I’m pretty confident that you’re not a real bad guy (<– just appealed to an objective moral standard otherwise that statement is meaningless and "bad guy" is just an opinion), but you need to think more deeply. I'm confident that if we met in person you might like me. I'm a diverse individual, I powerlift, and restore and drive musclecars. I'm also a linguist and speak 5 languages and an amateur composer and pianist/guitarist/vocalist.

                • RobMcCune

                  You’re still here? Looks like showing your attempt to show objective moral values from christianity backfiring on you has really gotten under your skin.

                • ryry

                  Bobby boy, if a fellow atheist (Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler) believes that it is morally alright to slaughter millions of people, what do you appeal to in order to convince them otherwise?

                  Stalin: There is no god, I can do whatever I want and I believe slaughtering these people will be better for the advancement of the state.

                  Rob: You shouldn’t do it because it’s wrong.

                  Stalin: Who says?

                  Rob: I do, society does.

                  Stalin: I couldn’t care less about your opinion Bobby boy, and I AM society over here in mother Russia.

                  Ryry: God has created all things and therefore all things are his property including you and all other people. He therefore has the right to require obedience to his moral standards which reflect his own perfect loving character. You will be held accountable before God when you inevitably die, Stalin. You will pay for any and all violations of God’s perfect standard of love. Human laws are supposed to reflect this same moral standard and they do to a certain extent, but because of the confusion brought into the world by sin they do this only dimly.

                  (Stalin cannot argue against this so his only rebuttal is to refuse to believe it. At this point Rob and Stalin realize that they are really more alike than they first realized.)

                • RobMcCune

                  So sad, if you can’t win a debate make up your own. By the way, how can you convince Osama bin Laden he is wrong? Oh right you can’t, looks like the two of you are more alike than you first thought.

                • ryry

                  Bob, you are unresponsive. You have no answers to my questions. Provide a rigorous definition of “harming others” so that I can tear apart you moral standard and demonstrate situations where your standard falls apart. Please do.

                • Spuddie

                  No, you are working off a script which everyone has deemed ridiculous canned shit. Nobody has taken the bait you laid out.

                  Nobody takes your argument seriously because you are relying entirely on attacking strawman positions rather than address points being made.

                • ryry

                  None of you have the slightest idea of how to explain the origin of objective morality with the assumptions of your worldview. That is a serious problem. It shows the major holes in your worldview. All that you can appeal to is your own subjective opinions, no science. Kodie was the only one to have an intellectually honest response. She denied the existence of moral absolutes and said “everything is permissible”. The rest of you keeping grasping at nothing trying to give a valid explanation for the existence of objective morality but you have pointed to no scientific studies or anything wherein scientists in a laboratory discovered objective morality with particle accelerators or such.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  None of you have the slightest idea of how to explain the origin of objective morality

                  There’s no such thing as objective morality. That’s the problem with YOUR worldview. Even in Christianity there is no such thing, Most of Yahweh’s pronouncements are merely “because I said so,”, and those with more depth have it for secular reasons. They cannot be otherwise.

                  There is empathy-based morality, however. That’s where the Golden Rule and “love thy neighbor” originate. And they are both of them subjective and secular. They’re the best we can have. Deal.

                  And having just read through here: ryry, your criticisms are shallow, childish, and arrogant in their ignorance. Repeating long-debunked arguments does not build credibility.

                • ryry

                  Well you will have to argue with Rob and Spuddie then, they have both claimed that objective morality exists. Empathy says to me to not chop up tiny people in the womb or suck their brains out with a vacuum tube and dump their remains in the trash. But abortion is still practiced by sick people who claim to have “empathy”.

                  The world is sick, rotten to the core. Empathy is a cheap word you use to hide behind the fact that your worldview has nothing to offer to those suffering, to the people that I spend my time helping. Their is no justice, no empathy, just particles and mechanical physical forces in your world. Human life has no objective value in your worldview. People have no objective worth. Your worldview is the underlying justification for the slaughter of millions that happened in Germany and Russia during this last century. Atheism provides no reason to love and show empathy. It is vapid.

                • Kodie

                  Hey, dick, mind not mischaracterizing me to support your lame argument?

                • ryry

                  You have foul language.

                • Spuddie

                  You are a useless troll who can’t go beyond a scripted argument. Feel free to fuck off and find another forum. There is no point in responding to you.

                • ryry

                  Is this you expressing empathy Spuddie? Please forgive me for my stupidity. I have the beliefs that I do because of my inherited genetics, my brain chemistry, and the environment I was raised and live in. Every person is a necessary product of those things. I couldn’t believe other than I do otherwise genetics, chemistry, and the environment are not causes of behavior/belief and we must ascribe it to something mystical, magical, or supernatural.

                  You believe what you do by necessity, and I believe what I do by necessity. All things happen in accordance with natural laws that can be studied by science, there is no randomness in the universe. Your belief in evolution is a necessary consequence of your brain chemistry and environment and my rejection of it is also a necessary consequence. All things have natural explanations including beliefs. Please forgive my stupidity Spuddie buddy dino-man and have empathy towards me as you said you would earlier.

                • Spuddie

                  Its empathy for anyone bothering to respond to you. I feel for them. You are such a waste of time.

                • ryry

                  You’re right, I am a waste of time. My life is a waste of time. I guess you want me dead along with the 1 million unborn children every year? Or you’d probably rather that I was killed in the womb?

                  So, you strongly support your mother’s “right” to have aborted you? It would have been perfectly acceptable for you mother to abort you?

                  Your “empathy” is a joke. It’s a meaningless word that you use to try to build some sort of meaningfulness into your cold, dark, empty vision of reality. The truth is that in your godless world everything is pointless. You are as pointless as a speck of dust in the corner of my room. You have the value of fecal matter. You try to escape this conclusion because it frightens you, but it remains. When you die in a couple years it won’t matter, it will all have been a complete waste of time. Do I believe this? No. I believe that you have infinite more value than a rock, or a cockroach, or fecal matter. I believe that you are created in the image of God to reflect his glory and yet you reject the honorable position that you have been given.

                  It is love of power that has done this. You do not want to have to submit to the authority of anyone or anything else, not even God. Sin is at its root a love of power, a lust for power. You tell yourself that you are the master of your own destiny, but you secretly know that’s a lie. You are as powerless as I am. You may die tomorrow, I may die today. God rules in this reality, and you hate that fact. However, God is always open to reconciliation. He only asks that you humbly come to the table.

                • Spuddie

                  “You’re right, I am a waste of time.’

                  Yep.

                • ryry

                  Empathy says to not chop up a living human fetus in the womb or suck the brains out of his/her skull with a vacuum tube and then dump the remains in the trash. I hope that you agree with me there Spuddie. Now here is something I’m confident that you disagree with. Empathy says to offer the hope of salvation to those who are dying.

                  Now, my point is that presenting “empathy” as the sole basis for morality does not make everything easy. People will undoubtedly disagree on what is empathetic and what isn’t and so we are basically stuck back at the beginning: What is the objective standard by which to determine what is empathetic? Is there a scientific standard, some measuring stick? Could some field of science have the certainty to dictate to the rest of society what is and isn’t empathetic? Then we could build laws around that field of science and legislators would be unnecessary?

                • Spuddie

                  Now an appeal to personal disgust? Forcing someone to give birth and risk their body an life to please a sky fairy is moral? Its arbitrary, illogical and without empathy for the mother whose body she is making decisions for.

                  If morality is coming easy, it isn’t morality. People who want easy answers are too scared to ask the right questions.
                  You don’t have an objective standard at all. Its subjective based on how you want to read the source.

                • ryry

                  So you do believe that it is expressing empathy to suck the brains out of the skull of a living human fetus and dump the remains in the trash? Just had to verify that one. Your definition of empathy was shared by the Nazis: get rid of anyone that is unwanted in society.

                  Empathy leads you to the mass slaughter of millions of young boys and girls. You can keep your “empathy” then.

                  It’s interesting that animals have more rights and their unborn young are protected more than unborn humans. I guess that’s “empathy”. Oh and I didn’t realize that pregnancy just falls out of the sky. I seem to have thought that anyone that gets pregnant made a decision to take that risk. Abortions from rape are incredibly rare. I’ll even grant those for the sake of argument. You have an empathy of death, an empathy that kills and murders and destroys.

                • Spuddie

                  You betcha! Because I have empathy for the born person. The one capable of personal autonomous existence and making decisions for themselves.

                  “Empathy leads you to the mass slaughter of millions of young boys and girls.”

                  Nope. Only an idiot can’t tell the difference between a born person and the unborn. Young boys and girls are born people. A fetus is not.

                • ryry

                  Wow, you are radically ignorant Spuddie. Even with the current legal system birth is not the determining factor that marks the distinction between human and non-human. Is that what you just said? Yes, it is what you said.

                  “Only an idiot can’t tell the difference between a born person and the unborn.”

                  Oh I can tell the difference: one is born and the other isn’t. That’s really the only difference especially at nine months. I’ll let you in on a secret because I’ve witnessed birth and tell you that nothing about the baby magically transforms when he/she comes out of the womb. This ranks as one of the stupidest statements I’ve ever heard in my life. So something magically changes the moment the baby comes out? 2 seconds before it was acceptable to chop it into pieces and now 2 seconds later that would be murder? Talk about arbitrary morality.

                  “Fetus” is just a term to denote the stage of development. A person is not fully developed until adulthood, so maybe killing children is alright? A person does not have full legal rights and responsibilities until 18/21. I guess that means they aren’t fully human yet. You have a perverse mind, a sick and dangerous mind.

                  It’s a “fetus”, not a person, It can’t support itself and it’s not independent, kill it.

                  It’s an “infant”, not a person. It can’t support itself and it’s not independent, kill it.

                  It’s a “toddler”, not a person. It can’t support itself and it’s not independent, kill it.

                  It’s a “child”, not a person. It can’t support itself and it’s not independent, kill it.

                  It’s an “adolescent”, not a person (<– Some would agree with that.)

                  Now it's an "adult", finally recognized as a person.

                  The "fetus" has a unique fingerprint, a unique and individual human DNA, a beating heart, a functioning brain, hands, feet, and face. And you believe that it is empathy to destroy all of that. To destroy humanity in its most helpless and innocent stage of development. In fact your entire argument is that the justification is the very fact that is IS so helpless and innocent. You say that because it can't survive on its own that justifies killing it. So, the most helpless in society have less value and no right to life in your opinion?

                  My brother is paralyzed from the chest down. He has been in a wheelchair for 10 years now. He cannot function without the constant assistance of expensive technology, a service animal, and other people. He has a nurse come to help wash him a couple times a week. So, according to your logic, his right to live is diminished to the extent that he cannot support himself. According to your logic it would be perfectly acceptable to kill him and get rid of him since he's just draining the rest of us. Actually Hitler would have agreed with you. He went through the insane asylums and the hospitals full of people with disabilities and different levels of dependence upon others and killed them. (Not personally of course).

                • Spuddie

                  How about some fire for those strawmen!

                  You are full of shit about the legal definitions (like everything esle). “When life begins” has zero bearing on abortion rights. I don’t have to give a flying crap what you think happens as it develops. Its an irrelevancy except for a ridiculous appeal to emotion. The only relevant factor is that a fetus is not a born person and incapable of exerting any kind of independent existence without its mother’s will. A woman has a right to an abortion because only she is capable of making a decision which affects a fetus and its her body.

                  “That’s really the only difference especially at nine months.”

                  Yet you fail to understand the fundamental difference those months make so you engage in dishonest false equivalency. Something happens when it comes out, it means any other human being on the planet can take custody of it besides the mother. So you are by my prior definition, an idiot.

                  A fetus is not a child. Unless you can take custody of it from its mother, your feelings about it aren’t worth a pile of shit. Its in her body, its her choice no matter what. You don’t have to like her decision. Its not yours to make. If you don’t like abortion don’t have one. Anything else is just oppressive.

                  You can’t take another POV without attacking her. Anti-choice sentiment is all about insulting women, ignoring their existence or attacking them in one form or another. There is nothing moral in it.

                  Anti-choice is very much like creationism. Its about lying, making spurious arguments and making phony appeals to spiritual authority to cover up for a lack of a rational basis.

                • ryry

                  “A woman has a right to an abortion because only she is capable of making a decision which affects a fetus and its her body.”

                  It’s inside her body, but it isn’t her body. The fetus can have a different blood type from the mother, it has its own distinct DNA. I see, now science is rejected to try to save your view. If I have a person in my car and decide to take it to a field and destroy it and say “it’s my car I can do what I want with it” that is ignorant.

                  Again, since it is a burden on the mother, she can kill the child, rip it into pieces and suck its brains out.

                  But again, do you defend your mother’s right to have aborted you? Do you think it would have been acceptable had you mother had your brains sucked out of your skull with a vacuum tube?

                • Spuddie

                  “It’s inside her body, but it isn’t her body.”

                  Yes it is her body. She is not chattel property for anyone else to control. Your sociopathic lack of understanding of human beings is showing here. Evidently your God considers a pregnant woman to be a slave to religious minded people.

                • ryry

                  The fetus is actually a part of the woman’s body? You seriously can’t be that dumb. So a woman carrying a boy actually has a penis, 4 arms, and 4 legs until she gives birth? Is that the idiocy you have led yourself to? Spuddie, you are one of the dumbest people I have ever met. The fetus is inside the mother’s body, but the fetus is not the woman’s body. I don’t really believe that you are this stupid, I think you’re feigning in order to avoid some difficult conclusions.

                  When I’m sitting inside my car I am not part of the car, I’m just inside the car. I don’t know what to tell you if you don’t understand that buddy, other than that you’re radically ignorant.

                  Do you know what DNA is bud? Look it up if you’ve never heard of it before, it’s not a word it’s an acronym. Don’t try to pronounce it like “dunaah”. No, it’s pronounced “D,N,A”. Every part of a person’s body has their DNA in it. If your heart, liver, finger, stomach, lungs, brain, etc. were taken out of you we would know that they came from you and no one else because they would have your DNA. The fetus, however, has its own DNA separate from the mother. So, if the fetus is part of the woman’s body why doesn’t it have the woman’s DNA? Ouch, science is working against you very strongly right now. But you really don’t care about science anyway, you just want justification for being your own god. You are complicit with the murder of children. You will be held accountable for this in about 50 years or so when you drop dead.

                • Spuddie

                  I don’t give a flying shit what a fetus is like as it develops. Its
                  irrelevant to the issue of abortion rights. Its in her womb, its her choice. Your statements on the matter are less than useless.

                  Save the nonsense for a thread on abortion rights. This has gone way too far off topic and frankly you are too boring to respond to any further.

                • ryry

                  I don’t care about your opinion, I want science bud.

                  If the fetus is part of the woman’s body then why doesn’t it have the woman’s DNA?

                  “I don’t give a flying shit what a fetus is like as it develops.”

                  That is why you don’t understand anything, you don’t care to know or learn, as you just confessed. The scientific mind wants to know, it inquires. However, the Spudster dino-brain doesn’t care to know anything, he prefers ignorance.

                  This may be off topic but it did just reveal that you really don’t care about science in the end. You confessed that you don’t care to know about anything.

                • Spuddie

                  How do you keep an idiot in suspense?

                • ryry

                  I see that I posed a question that you have no answer to. You have become unresponsive. I guess the debate is over on that topic. When you stop swinging and can’t even block hits anymore the ref has to stop the fight. I just pounded your face in intellectually.

                • Spuddie

                  Of course he has to make his own debate up.

                  Nobody is bothering to decypher the word salad he calls an argument and he is not responsive to anyone’s posts.

                • ryry

                  It’s not about “winning” a debate, it’s about vetting a worldview to see if it adequately models reality. Your worldview sucks at the task of explaining the existence of objective morality. You have failed to provide any explanation for the existence of morality based upon the assumptions of your worldview. It needs to be rejected because it fails at what it is meant to do, explain reality.

                • Spuddie

                  Yet you only play poker with the marked deck.

                  Argue purely on axiomatic statements and demand that people accept your terms and arguments without deviation.

                • Reginald Le Sueur

                  There is Objective Morality. Why ? Because we humans say there is, because we have norms of behaviour which must be followed if we are to live together in a succesful society; ie do not steal or lie or pinch your neighbour’s wife, or rape toddlers.
                  Whereas in your “Divine Command” moral system, your precious God being omnipotent can behave immorally as in the Old Testment, committing genocide,–just because he can. There are no moral or penal restraints on God are there? He cannot be locked up or made to pay a fine, so he can have a field day. If God exists, and he is on your side (which of course he always is!),–then anything is permitted: ” Kill them all, let God recognize his own”. (A Catholic General ordering the slaughter of the Carthars on the 13th century).

                • ryry

                  “There is Objective Morality. Why ? Because we humans say there is”

                  That is actually arbitrary morality. “This is right because I say so” is arbitrary morality. God’s makes his commands based upon his own character in order to reflect his character of perfect love and humility.

                  “Whereas in your “Divine Command” moral system”

                  Straw man. I don’t accept the “Divine Command” moral system as it is commonly understood, and I don’t think that’s actually the way the bible explains morality either. Things are not right merely because God commands them to be, rather they are right because they reflect the perfect love and humility of God. Actions that reflect his character we instinctively recognize as right. These things he also commands us to do. He has the authority to command us because all things are owned by him.

                  You have a difficult time, however, explaining why any person or group of people can impose their morality on others by threat of death. Any government (including the U.S.) imposes a morality upon its citizens by threat of death. Compliance is assured by a police force that is prepared to use lethal force if necessary to enforce the imposed morality. I’m not saying this is a bad thing. It just is the way it is. You can’t explain a basis for this imposition of morality though. Why can certain people force others to do things or prevent them from doing things?

                  “your precious God being omnipotent can behave immorally as in the Old Testment, committing genocide,–just because he can.”

                  All people have sinned against God. He has the right to be merciful as he is with you and me or to exact justice. You actually agree with this in principle unless you are against police officers taking down violent murderers? We are all murderers in comparison with God’s love. If he exacts justice it is the same as a police officer taking out a shooter who refuses to put down his gun. A police officer is not a murderer for neutralizing a threat and neither is God.

                  “If God exists, and he is on your side (which of course he always is!”

                  You don’t need to try to imagine my thoughts, you’re pretty bad at it. God is not always on my side, in fact I am still a wretched sinner and daily I fail to meet his perfect standard. Is he merciful with me? Yes, because I am repentant and acknowledge my sin. He doesn’t support anyone who is in sin. The bible clearly shows God rebuking King David, Moses, and others when they are in sin. You are arguing against an imaginary form of Christianity, and I will argue against it as well.

                  “then anything is permitted: ” Kill them all, let God recognize his own”. (A Catholic General ordering the slaughter of the Carthars on the 13th century).”

                  No. You are really trying to make the argument that the bible permits anything? The bible permits homosexuality? The bible permits denying the bible? The bible permits sinning against God? Now you’ve gone nuts. I don’t care what some Catholic General said. Is the basis of Christianity the words of christians or non-christians? No, the basis is the bible. It doesn’t matter who is speaking, if they are contradicting the bible they are not speaking for God. The Catholic General was not speaking for God, he was speaking for himself and trying to use God to give his words authority. The bible alone is authoritative.

                  Ok. I answered and neutered all of your arguments.

                • ryry

                  Bubsy, here is something that you can at last agree with: Barack Obama is a stupid idiot because he is a theist and believes in God. Obama is a moron because he claims to be a christian and attends church. Barack Obama is just another stupid moronic theist.

                • RobMcCune

                  ryry can’t even justify his own worldview, thanks Obama!

                • ryry

                  So you acknowledge that Obama is an idiot for believing in the God of the Bible. However, you haven’t addressed the argument I posed above: Do all things have natural explanations? If so, then child molestation has a natural explanation. If not, then your worldview falls flat dead-on-arrival. You are completely unresponsive to this question.

                  Another thing to point out is your lack of historical knowledge. You alluded to the idea a couple days ago that people thought the earth was flat. This can’t be brushed over. Your complete ignorance of basic history must be addressed and you must be called to confront it. Don’t you feel a little bit concerned that the public education system has left you poorly educated and ignorant of history? You made an unbelievably stupid comment about history, this cannot be passed over.

                • ryry

                  I’ll try one more time to formulate this question in a way which you can understand. If you still can’t understand it then I will have to conclude that either you are feigning ignorance to avoid a devastating conclusion for your worldview or you are just radically ignorant.

                  In the atheist worldview everything has a natural explanation, everything can ultimately be traced back to a natural origin. This means that child molestation has a natural explanation and can be traced back to a natural origin. A child molester can be described as a product of many things: brain chemistry, genetics, the environment, etc. Each of those things can themselves be described as the product of other natural causes and we have a chain of causality leading all the way back to the beginning of the universe. The child molester is then the _necessary_ result of a network of many interconnected causes. The main point is that the _necessity_ of his existence is irrefutable unless we reject a fundamental axiom of science that all things have a natural cause.

                  The trees, the stars, the ocean, the mountains, are all products of “nature” defined broadly as any and all natural processes such as evolution, natural selection, chemistry, gravity, etc. And humans are also products of “nature” in this sense. Everything about us is a product of “nature”. Our skin color, eye color, walking upright, our great intellect, our social behaviors, art, music, philosophy, religion, the belief in evolution, practicing science, rape, murder, child molestation, love, kindness, hate, etc., all of these have their origins in natural processes or else they have their origin in supernatural (outside of nature) processes.

                  If you deny this conclusion that is fine. But you are then denying naturalistic atheism and you are blindly accepting things on “faith”. That is all, you are dismissed now.

                • James

                  Hi, I’ve been following this debate and I would like to interject my thoughts. I am not advocating theism or the Bible, but I would argue that evolutionary theory is scientifically invalid. A new explanation should be sought or it should just be acknowledged that we simply have no idea where all the variety of life forms come from.

                  Evolutionary theory is basically an extreme overextrapolation of the observed data. To extrapolate is to extend a model or graph beyond the observed data. We observe genetic mutations in DNA and the ability of animals to make minor adaptations to situations. However, all of the observed adaptations are infinitesimally small when compared with the proposed progression from a fish to a bird or a bear or a human.

                  I watched this movie and I think it did a very good job at its main goal which I don’t think was to prove the bible as much as to show that evolutionary theory is based on “faith” as described in the movie. “Faith” is a proper description I think, but a better word would be “overextrapolation of the data”. That is to say, the observed data is unjustifiably extrapolated way beyond what is logically acceptable.

                  This is not a new point, but it is one that many are not familiar with inside the evolution community. I have asked this question many times before and have never been given a reason why it is justified to extrapolate the data so far as is done with evolutionary theory. Most just stare at me as if they don’t understand the question, and those that do understand it give a non-response such as “scientists have determined this is fact”.

                  Bacteria is observed developing a minor adaptation yet still being basically the same bacteria and then we extrapolate from there that bacteria can transform into humans given enough time. If that is acceptable then it is definitely acceptable to observe a person starting out lifting weights and getting progressively stronger and to extrapolate that eventually that person will be able to lift 1,000,000, lbs. That is simply illogical. Everyone knows that you can’t infer that. Extrapolating data is pretty reliable short term but the further out you extrapolate the certainty drops radically. Extrapolating out billions of years and on the levels that evolutionary theory does is just completely unjustified.

                  This does not mean that evolutionary theory is necessarily false, it just means that it is not a good scientific model. It really is a “faith” more than anything as this movie shows fairly well. I think we need a new paradigm for understanding where life forms came from. I also have a problem with the mainstream view of natural selection. As a mechanism it can describe adaptations to existing structures/systems but it doesn’t adequately explain the creation of said structures/systems. I think I just revealed that I am a biological structuralist.

                  Anyway, those are my thoughts. Oh and by the way evolutionary theory is far from settled and accepted within the community, it is presented that way but that is not the reality.

                • ryry

                  Rob, is molesting children objectively wrong or is that just a social convention like stopping a vehicle at a red hexagon?

                • Kodie

                  It’s an octagon.

                • RobMcCune

                  ryry is a christian relativist. God can hold up an 8 sided figure, and he will see 6,7 and 8 sides all at once without contradiction.

                • ryry

                  I see that you don’t want to defend your views but merely distract. You have not answered my simple questions. It could be a hexagon, octagon, or pentagon. The point is that it is arbitrary.

                  So, my question still stands: Is child molestation objectively wrong or a social convention?

                  It’s very telling that you can’t answer simple questions. It is also a logical fallacy to pick out mistakes in a person’s argument which have no relevance to the main point as a way to avoid the question.

                • RobMcCune

                  It’s very telling that you can’t answer simple questions. It is also a logical fallacy to pick out mistakes in a person’s argument…

                  Well no, since logical fallacies only apply to logical arguments. You asked a question, and I made a joke.

                  But if you insist, child molestation is objectively wrong. Now you’ll respond claiming to be objective while simultaneously claiming your personal refusal to believe anything but your own opinion makes it false.

                • ryry

                  It could be ANYTHING. It’s arbitrary, it’s a social convention. Now is child molestation objectively wrong or is it a social convention?

                • Spuddie

                  Especially if your morality is dictated to you from an outside source. Like handed down to you by God and followed out of fear and self-interest.

                • Kodie

                  The stop sign is actually a symbol warning the driver to stop and look before proceeding safely. You sort of taking that social agreement very lightly, so don’t get behind the wheel. What it looks like is arbitrary, it’s red, red arbitrarily means danger. That means it’s a pretty serious sign and it is for all intents and purposes, objective in the law, not up for interpretation or whim. The shape is also arbitrary but you either didn’t know the name of the shape with 8 sides, or can’t count to 8. It’s pretty widely known by anyone past the 1st grade that a stop sign is the exemplar of an octagon. You don’t even have to pass your driver’s exam to know it’s an octagon, and I don’t really trust that you have if you’re going to disregard this “social convention” and risk running into cars and pedestrians.

                • Spuddie

                  Is something only moral because God commands it to be so or does God merely like us to do moral things?
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

                • ryry

                  Do you know what a false dichotomy is? You just made one. Both are true. God wants people to be loving and selfless in imitation of his own character and so he commands us to be so.

                  Something is moral because it reflects God’s perfect character and those are the things which God commands us to do/be.

                • RobMcCune

                  That’s a non-answer, why is God’s character something that is inherently good and moral? What definitions are used to determine that?

                • ryry

                  If God is defined by something outside of himself then he would not be God by definition. The concept of God presumes that he is the starting point for all definitions.

                  God is a selfless, loving community of 3 distinct persons. This is the archetype of love and human community. That which is moral is that which reflects this.

                  You want to go into infinite regress. There must be a starting point for all definition. I posit that it is God. You don’t like that… noted. However, the definitions used to presumably determine God’s character would need to be defined, then those would need to be defined, etc., infinite regress. We need a starting point and the correct starting point is God by definition. Again, you don’t like that. Your opinion is noted.

                • RobMcCune

                  It’s not a matter of dislike, I am simply asking questions to establish that your worldview has objective morals, definitions, etc. I don’t see asking you to demonstrate that indicates any kind of dislike, all I am asking is you show your worldview does what it claims.

                  So then all definitions are arbitrary and circular in your world view, since God could define them as anything? How do you know your definitions are correct, does scripture provide you with these definitions?

                • ryry

                  When did I say God can define morals as anything? I never said that and I don’t believe that. God’s character is eternal and unchanging and that is the basis for morals, so God can’t “define them as anything” anymore than I can define my favorite ice cream as anything. God’s values are the way they are and they will never change. If he just randomly chose things as moral/immoral that would be arbitrary but that’s not how it works at all.

                  Definitions are circular in ANY worldview when you really get down to it. Have you studied high-level math (calculus and above)? There is always an axiom, a starting point from which all things are determined. You seem to be really bothered by this aspect of reality. What can I say? It’s just reality. EVERYTHING is circular when you dig deep enough. The question is whether a worldview adequately explains reality. My point is that atheism does not account for the existence of absolute morality. It accounts for absolute laws of physics, but then again theism does as well. So, one model accounts for reality better than the other.

                • RobMcCune

                  When did I say God can define morals as anything? I never said that and I don’t believe that.

                  If God doesn’t define anything then why are you using him a standard? Also this contradicts your claim that God is the source of all definitions. Or do you not understand the word “define”?

                  God’s values are the way they are and they will never change.

                  That answers that, even if they are defined by God’s atemporal existence, guess what they are still defined by God.

                  You seem to be really bothered by this aspect of reality. What can I say? It’s just reality.

                  I’m simply asking you to meet the standards by which you judge other worldviews. You apparently can’t.

                • Spuddie

                  Not a false dichotomy just a succinct way to describe the arguments here. Its a dishonest response on your part. You have been arguing constantly that something is moral because God commands so. The rebuttal has been saying that things morals are independent of God.

                  “Something is moral because it reflects God’s perfect character and those are the things which God commands us to do/be.”

                  Stock answer but ultimately meaningless and counter to your prior assertions. You have claimed all morality comes from God’s commands not because it “reflects God’s perfect character”. You don’t even believe your own statement. =)

                • ryry

                  Again, both statements are true. They are not mutually exclusive statements and so it is a false dichotomy. Poor argument.

                • Spuddie

                  Since your argument is based entirely on one prong of the dilemma it is more of a case of not bothering to address the second part of the statement. You are deliberately avoiding about the nature of the argument presented.

                  If all morality comes from God’s command, there is no personal morality at all. All is permitted under the sun under the guise of being “god’s will”. All means are justified by the ends.

                  If morality is independent of God’s command and acts are moral in of themselves, then the claim that God creates morality is false. God becomes unnecessary to the moral equation.

                • ryry

                  All is permitted under the guise of being “god’s will”? Not according to the Jewish scriptures. The moral law is very clear: do not murder, do not steal, do not lie, love your neighbor as yourself. I will grant that in your magical fantasy view of God’s command all is permissible, but not in reality.

                  So, your argument is that the Bible and Christianity teach that anything is permissible? Then Christianity is progressive and incredibly liberal.

                  So, Spuddie, you have no problem with the Bible influencing society’s moral then because the Bible permits anything according to you. The Bible does not restrict anything, so that means that a society based upon the morals of the Bible would not restrict anything, pure freedom, what would you have against that?

                • Spuddie

                  Except Jewish Scriptures are not particularly consistent on any given moral point. There are plenty of instances of pious people committing murder, stealing, lying and hatred, even genocide with God’s sanction. All bets are off when it comes to conduct with heathens. Even in the NT.

                  According to the CONDUCT of Christians, everything is permissible when done in Christ’s name. Especially lying as is the case with Mr. Comfort. Claiming “no true Christian” absolves themselves of immoral acts with religious justification is a fallacious argument.

                  The Bible DOESN’T restrict anything if one is willing to interpret it in a self-serving manner. Of course it can also be used to restrict everything. It lends itself to amoral activity with cheap absolution for immorality. An argument from incredulity is not much of an argument. Basing one’s moral conduct on it requires far too much dishonesty and spurious arguments. No sense in using it. Better off with something less arbitrary and capricious.

                • Kodie

                  You still have no argument to explain why your life has more value than a cockroach.

                  Ask the cockroach if he agrees with that statement if you want to be thoroughly objective.

                • ryry

                  You are unresponsive to the question. Is that an acknowledgement that you and all your family and friends have no more objective value than a cockroach or a pile of feces or a rock?

                • Kodie

                  There is no such thing as an objective value. It depends who you’re asking. A lot of people can agree to a value, that doesn’t make it objective. To a fly, a pile of feces is the Hometown Buffet. To a farmer, it is fertilizer. Humans like rocks, some of them are very valuable and kept in vaults and worn as jewelry. I don’t know anyone who likes cockroaches, but that’s because I don’t know any entomologists. I saw a documentary about them once, and they are actually kind of cool to watch (on tv). You fail to name anything with an objective value.

                • ryry

                  How do you know there is no such thing as an objective value? I know that you can’t get everyone to agree on something. But then you are assuming that I define an objective value as “something which everyone agrees on”.

                  Gravity is an objective part of physical reality. It exists whether we know or agree with it or not. What I’m saying is that ethics are an objective part of reality as well. Moral standards exist whether we acknowledge them or agree upon them.

                • Kodie

                  You are saying god says cockroaches are bad, so you think they are bad, and that’s why you think they are bad. You don’t just disagree with anyone who likes cockroaches or find anything good about them (the documentary made them, like most animals, seem fascinating to me); you are saying that I am in disagreement with god’s decree. Most people find cockroaches to be a household pest, and hardly anyone admires them. Squirrels are cute, but some people like birds better, and so have to hate squirrels.

                  You are also saying humans have intrinsic and objective value, and I don’t agree. Humans are god’s favorites, and therefore your favorites. I think humans are more like cockroaches than you want to admit. Fascinating, but at times, disgusting – as individuals and as a species. You are biased and most humans are biased that humans are the best. On what basis?

                  Oh yeah, it’s the intrinsic, objective, “they just are”! basis.

                • ryry

                  You have said that there are no objective moral values. So then, molesting children can be morally right in theory? Or it can never be right which would mean that morals are objective?

                • Kodie

                  I have already answered that question.

                • ryry

                  Ok, molesting children can be morally right in your worldview. Thank you for your intellectual honesty. You are philosophically astute enough to recognize that moral absolutes are impossible in a world that is at base nothing more than particles and the 4 forces: gravity, electromagnetism, strong force, and weak force.

                  You take the position that I had when I was an unbeliever. I, however, was more logically consistent with my position than you are Kodie. I argued that any type of society was just as good as another, because “good” is merely an opinion in that world. I argued that might makes right and the only justification for any law or legal system is that those in power want a certain amount of control over others.

                  All things are permissible. I agree with the logicality of that in your world. But then why be involved in politics or anything? Why strive for anything if there is nothing really to strive for? I guess the answer would be just because you want to. In your world you are no better or worse than a child molester. I appreciate your discussion. Thanks for engaging with me.

                • ryry

                  If there are no objective values then you would acknowledge that molesting children can theoretically be morally right? Slavery was morally right as long as most people agreed that it was? Gay marriage is wrong as long as it is not legal?

                • BYUCOLORADO

                  These types of arguments are hilarious. The fallback of “well, if your world view is true then we don’t have any more value than a cockroach” is so ridiculous. The implications of a reality does not determine the validity of a reality. It doesn’t matter if it leads to conclusions that make us feel less special, it only matters what the evidence is leading us to believe and if we are rational actors based on the evidence.

                  Also, it is BLATANTLY obvious that Christians do not believe other species are as valuable as humans. They show that every day by their actions and how they treat other species.

                • Angela AndTerry Stone

                  Its not a desperate cling for me, its an arms wide open embrace. I see Him in my life, feel Him in my very soul.

                  There is nothing like the love of God. I believe I am special to God–and so are you. You’re right, with out the love of God, my belief of God, I am worth NOTHING.

                  Jesus said “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

            • clyde gray swindell

              Nice, cant refute ,so attack his grammar . Ray is taking all comers , anytime or anyplace , but i dont see a rush to debate him , nope we little mealy mouths will chat or talk about how stupid he is in the comfort of our basements. of course blind science should be able to take down poor stupid Creationist Ray Comfort . or all of you dogs still under the porch bahahahahahahah ! hahahhahah, just load the barrells and pull the trigger my friends

              • islandbrewer

                What exactly is there to refute? He hasn’t made any cogent arguments, so there isn’t really anything to pick apart, aside from his spittle-flecked rage and naked assertion for which he has offered no evidence. Many here, including myself, have refuted, again and again, the absurdist creationist claims of Ray Comfort ad nauseam. It falls on deaf ears. Presenting evidence to a creationist is about as useful as presenting evidence to a pile of poo. It’s much more efficient in the end to walk around it than to try to convince it to move aside.

                • clyde gray swindell

                  Again , Ray is taking all comers , instead of coming on here and reaffriming your wouldviews , and attacking people , make it a debate , you neither answered one of his questions/rebuttals , you immediately attacked his grammar. to quote Margaret Thatcher ” When i am personally attacked it means the other side has nothing left to argue.’ see the movie for what it is , to question God is easy , to examine BOTH sides of an argument , I think the point is missed , that people on both sides of a argument blindly follow . I can go back and forth about Evolution vs Creationism . The point was shown is HOW blindly people will follow , and the lack of both sides being presented. Evolution is theory period . and the students believed in something without question which is dangerous in its own right . That comes straight from the Nazi regime of believing something without testing it

          • Kodie

            You suffer from a problem with perspective. Humans can be better (to ourselves) than cockroaches without having to mean anything to your personification of the entire universe. How big is your head to believe that? Cockroaches probably love people just as much as they love themselves because we leave all the food laying around. So, in essence, you matter a lot personally to the people who share your life, and even cockroaches admire your untidy habits. It is convention to kill a cockroach while it is not ok to kill a person or molest a child or whatever example you want to use. We have no empathy for the cockroach and intend to drive them homeless and without the sustenance they need to stay alive – this is what we like, not giving a shit about what happens to poor cockroach. Let them all starve, die, have fertility issues…. never fulfill their own destiny of eating, pooping, and raising a family, just like they are little people.

            But why is it ok to treat people like they are cockroaches? If you believe god will take care of them, you haven’t figured out that we need to help each other as no one else is coming to save us. Your whole big problem is that you don’t even matter to the universe. You are greedy for the approval of and recognition by a master, Mr. #1, who created you and can treat you any way he decides to. Anything less is not enough for you. It is not enough for you that, if you are alive, at least part of the universe acknowledges your existence, and might even love you.

            You are frightened by the idea that this cannot go on forever. You are insulted that you have to settle for mere human acceptance. You want the whole thing and you want it to last forever. Sorry if you think atheists take away all your meaning and purpose, but it’s not our fault or the fault of our arguments that you lack perspective on the situation. Life is ordinary, everyone’s got one, and history doesn’t write each one down individually. If you want to matter to someone, look for a real human being, start with that.

            • ryry

              I’m not into personal opinions, I’m talking about objective reality. So you acknowledge that the objective reality is that humans have no more value than a cockroach but you have an illogical faith / personal opinion that human life does matter because that comforts you and helps you get through life? The value of human life is an objective reality or it is a subjective convention/faith/belief of humans. You believe the latter. So do me a favor and be consistent and NEVER judge another culture from another time based upon your 21st century conventions and opinions about morality. NEVER make a statement about oppression of women or slavery or anything in past cultures because there is NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD.

              • Spuddie

                But you are!

                You are all about trying to browbeat people into accepting your personal opinion as to how the world should operate. You are all about trying to cajole people to accept your religious faith as their own objective belief.

                If you need religion to form the basis of morality and the value of human life then you are nothing more than a psychopath on a leash. Someone who has no human connection, empathy or understanding of other people. Someone who needs such things dictated to them because they lack traits so innate to the rest of humanity.

                “So do me a favor and be consistent and NEVER judge another culture from another time based upon your 21st century conventions and opinions about morality.”

                Only if you won’t use that ancient culture as a guidepost for the current one. There are objective standards of morality and they don’t require an appeal to the supernatural.

                • ryry

                  What are the objective standards for morality? And should every person and every culture from every time submit itself to YOUR ‘objective’ standard of morality?

                • Spuddie

                  Never heard of empathy? A connection to fellow human beings and the human condition?

                  If you need someone to dictate a standard of morality, it means you don’t have an innate sense of moral standards. A textbook example of a sociopath if ever there was one.

                  You are saying that you are so lacking in empathy and understanding of people besides yourself you have to be taught that deliberately trying to harm others is bad.

                  I do not need the 10 commandments to tell me murder, lying and stealing is bad. Nobody sane does. I know that I do not want it done to myself, I have enough empathy with other human beings to feel bad when it happens to others and to and understand how it affects them.

                  If your “morals” come from a mythical system of rewards and punishment, you are not acting morally at all. Merely in self interest. Religious based “morality” is not morality at all. Its why people use religion so easily to justify harmful, hateful and destructive acts.

                • ryry

                  You misunderstood my question and still have not answered it. I never said that atheists can’t be “good” people. Rather, my point is that “good” is meaningless in an atheist worldview. You need to borrow from the theistic worldview in order to even make sense of morality. That is my point and you still have not shown that your worldview can EXPLAIN morality independently.

                • Spuddie

                  Actually that is exactly what you said. You were just trying to dance around the point. You were claiming that atheists have no sense of morality because they do not use God as the basis of their moral center. You are claiming atheists lack any appreciation of morality.

                  You ignore my point, which is that your version of morality is not morality at all. Its merely self-interest coupled with a sociopathic approach to dealing with people. You misunderstand what morality actually is in favor of an infantile system of rewards and punishments from on high. You have no independent morality. You have no morality.

                  You deny empathy. You deny any connection to fellow human beings. If you have to be taught through your religion that harming other people is bad, then you never had a sense of morality in the first place. It isn’t borrowing from theism. Its understanding its proper role in the situation.

                  You want an independent explanation for morality, it is that we have a connection to our fellow human beings. Empathy. We have a society that requires sane interaction with others. We understand what it feels like to be harmed and would not want the same to others. If your morality doesn’t come from caring about other people, it isn’t morality at all.

                  Your view of morality is why it is easy for religious people to act wickedly, maliciously and downright evil without feelings of conscience. Because they just chalk it up to doing “God’s work”. A morality which is easily turned into amorality.

                • ryry

                  I deny empathy? I said that empathy is a beautiful thing. Also, I never said that I believe in self-interest. Christ taught that we are to be selfless, that is the complete opposite. It seems that you agree 100% with the theistic worldview. You believe in empathy, selflessness and love. Christ taught and demonstrated these things. God is the source of all these things. In your worldview gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force are the ultimate source of everything. Gravity has no empathy. Everything works according to physical laws in your universe so the idea of human freedom is excluded.

                  How is a person free to make moral decisions in a universe where all things are determined by physical laws? If we are a product of evolutionary chance and our brains and the behaviors and feelings and urges they produce are merely the result of millions of years of evolution then where is moral freedom? A child molester is merely a product of evolution. Society is a product of evolution. Everything that we witness occurring in this world is merely a result of the mechanical physical processes that started it. Rape, murder, child molestation, etc. are results of nature. Unless you believe in the supernatural or the idea that reality exists beyond what we can see, touch, feel, and smell in the physical material realm you are stuck with this conclusion.

                  Do rape and child molestation come from nature? Or is there reality beyond nature, i.e. beyond what the physical sciences can know and study?

                • Spuddie

                  You deny empathy as a source of moral thinking. You deny any form of actual morality in favor of what is really self-interest and sociopathic lack of concern with basic human existence.

                  “Christ taught and demonstrated these things”

                  And it did not exist prior to Christ? Could moral thinking exist without it being taught to you? Of course it did. Nobody needed Christ to be moral human beings. Nobody needs him now for such things.

                  Does one have to attribute it to God. No. It requires no supernatural basis. Morality would exist without ever having knowledge of such things. It is innate to human beings. Societies which never heard of Christ or the Bible have compassion and morals. Its unnecessary for such things.

                  If anything religious notions of morality are usually anti-moral. They deny innate moral concepts in favor of sectarianism, self-interest, indifference to others and extolling groupthink at the expense of others.

                  Your characterization of evolution is infantile to say the least. To you people are mindless automatons either being moved by God’s hand or the forces of the natural world. Its a very reductive and insulting view of the human condition. One made especially by a person who denies empathy towards others as a significant factor in one’s moral makeup.

                • ryry

                  Do rape and child molestation come from nature? If not, then the supernatural exists, i.e. reality outside of nature.

                • Spuddie

                  Its a non question. What do you mean by “come from nature”?

                  Are you trying to ask if they perfectly acceptable natural activities, therefore should not be subject to sanction.
                  Are you trying to claim that such actions are sanctioned because of supernatural prohibitions?

                  Something else you pulled out of your sphincter?

                  Be specific here.

                  Nothing “comes from” supernatural. You cannot prove its existence by default. God does not exist in gaps. You need positive evidence of its existence. This is why all Creationist objections to Evolution are ultimately crap. Even if evolution is flawed, it is not an endorsement of creationism or the supernatural. One would simply look for another scientific explanation. The supernatural never gets to enter the picture.

                  Of course it doesn’t matter where it “comes from” to apply moral principles to such acts. The act is the act.

                  Part of living in a human society is recognizing and appreciating that harming other people in a malicious manner is unacceptable. Doing so sexually is especially so because of the indelible and far reaching nature of the damage caused. Human beings can understand pain and suffering in others. (Except for you perhaps)

                  Even at the most basic moral level, one recognizes it is not something to be done because one does not want it done to one’s self either.

                  The Abrahamic faiths did not invent the Golden Rule. It exists in all societies as a universal ground floor for moral thinking.

                • ryry

                  My question is whether human behaviors are a result of evolutionary processes, inherited genetics, brain chemistry, and society (which is itself a product of evolution). Basically, rape, murder, and child molestation must have been selected for by evolution and natural selection or they wouldn’t be here. To say that there are phenomena in the world that SHOULDN’T be here (such as child molestation) is an interesting statement in your worldview.

                  Whatever is here is merely a product of ‘mother nature’. Humans are just a part of nature, everything is. EVERYTHING is natural in the naturalistic worldview because nature is all that exists. Child molestation is a result of natural processes or it’s a result of the supernatural (i.e. evil and sin). So, you admit that child molestation is just a part of nature. Mother nature through evolution and natural selection has selected for child molestation, rape, and murder. I’m not sure that you are intellectually up to the task of this discussion.

                  I could ask the question this way: Did evolution and natural selection select for child molestation? If not, then why after millions of years of evolution are there child molesters? Evolution and natural selection are responsible for the behavior of animals in the magical world of atheism, that is my basis for this question.

                • Spuddie

                  Your question essentially denies the existence of free will whether one is an automaton for God or nature. It is a false dichotomy. Plenty of behaviors natural to animals do not work well in a society of sentient beings. You deny the role of human intelligence in making decisions. Our behavior is more than the makeup of our genes.

                  So the answer is neither. You assume too much in your question and are far too presumptive in drawing a conclusion based on a clearly false set of propositions.

                  Your premise that non-theistic morality is just determinism, lacking in free will is mere assumption and stipulation on your part. One does not need to adopt concepts of sin to determine whether something is morally wrong. The concept of sin is a very elastic one. Usually self-serving, draconian and arbitrary in nature.

                • ryry

                  “The Abrahamic faiths did not invent the Golden Rule. It exists in all societies as a universal ground floor for moral thinking.”

                  So then dino-man, who did “invent” it. Did it always exist? The Golden Rule could only exist always if consciousness existed always… oh now you’re a theist.

                  If it didn’t when was it “invented”? How do you know it has always existed in all societies? Did it exist in Nazi Germany? Did the Golden Rule exist in Stalinist Russia?

                  I didn’t realize that Nazi Germany was an example of the Golden Rule. But you have said something incredibly ignorant like “It exists in all societies”. So it can exist in a society even when it doesn’t exist in that society? You’re getting mystical now.

                • Spuddie

                  So are you saying societies which never heard of the Bible never had a concept of morality?

                  Only Abrahamic faiths were capable of coming up with moral concepts?

                  It didn’t have to be invented. Its intuitive when humans live together in units bigger than a family. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you are living in the same space as another, it is more beneficial to play nice with others. Reciprocity is the most basic form of interaction we have. The ability to express such primal ideas EVOLVES over time as our ability to interact with each other does.

                  “I didn’t realize that Nazi Germany was an example of the Golden Rule.”

                  Way to Godwin on a strawman argument! Can you be stupider or less honest?

                  Moral behavior becomes rare when it is easy not to act so. Morality is personal in nature. People weighing decisions with one’s conscience. Very very few people find the ability to act with conscience against society. Which is why there are more people who claimed to have resisted the Nazi and Soviet governments after they disappeared than when they existed. =)

                  Given your moral basis, if a religious leader said it was God’s will to commit genocide, you would find no problem with it. No internal consideration necessary. Religious figures frequently had no problem in commit immoral acts or inciting others to do so. Assign everything to god and never have to consider it for yourself. Your morality is the same as the Nazis and Soviets. An outside authority commands you, you jump.

                • ryry

                  Why do we lock our doors on our houses and our cars and have police patrol every neighborhood? Oh yeah, the Golden Rule is practiced everywhere, that’s why cops carry loaded guns ready to use lethal force. It’s a beautiful and nice world, I forgot.

                  The biblical worldview predicts that any and every society will have an understanding of morality. The bible says that God’s moral code is written upon our hearts.

                  Why are there so many liars, thieves, murderers, rapists, etc.? If it isn’t beneficial to society then why do they exist? Why hasn’t natural selection selected against them? Natural selection magically transforms legs into wings and 3-chamber hearts into 4-chamber hearts without an intermediate step (a 3.5-chamber heart would kill the animal instantly). So if it has magical power then why can’t it get rid of destructive behavior after millions and millions of years if that behavior is not beneficial for the human race? Or maybe it is beneficial for the human race?

                • Spuddie

                  Evidently you can be stupider and less honest! Go figure. You outdo yourself in phony strawman arguments.

                  There is no actual “biblical worldview”. As several people have already noted, it is subjective and myriad in interpretation according to the given reader. What they want to emphasize, what they want to ignore.

                  The Bible is hardly the only source of moral thought. I see you dodged the issue I brought up about whether societies which do not adopt abrahamic religious ideas can be moral. Its telling. What you call a religious worldview or religious morality is really very specifically sectarian in nature. Morality is hardly so specific. Not that you know about morals.

                  “The biblical worldview predicts that any and every society will have an understanding of morality.”

                  Bullshit. It says nothing of the type. More lying for the lord. As I said before, there is no biblical worldview per se and moral behavior is remarkably sectarian in nature according to its scriptures.

                  Ultimately your argument is all about saying, “if you can’t explain something, it has to be God” which is the ultimate in slinging bullshit. God is not a default position. You have to prove his existence. In reality your position is “I am too lazy to think of something, so it must be God”.
                  Not good enough for anyone.

                  “Why are there so many liars, thieves, murderers, rapists, etc.? If it isn’t beneficial to society then why do they exist?”

                  Why does your scripture not say that God is a giant cheese sandwich. Its failure to do so means it is lacking!
                  Why would they be naturally selected out? Why would survival of society have anything to do with survival as a species?

                  Your knowledge of evolution is sorely lacking. Please stop pretending you know jackshit about what evolution means. It is obvious you don’t. You are an idiot who has to rely on God to explain what you are too lazy and ignorant to figure out yourself.

                • ryry

                  You don’t like the biblical worldview and in your subjective opinion it is invalid… noted. I see that you have not answered my question though so I’ll pose it again for you bud:

                  Why are there so many liars, thieves, murderers, rapists, etc.? If it isn’t beneficial to society then why do they exist? Why hasn’t natural selection selected against them?

                  Yes, magical natural selection can transform legs into wings and 3-chamber hearts into 4-chamber hearts without an intermediate stage (magic, duh!) and yet it cannot get rid of behavior that is not good for society. Is it painful watching your junk worldview fall apart before your eyes?

                • ryry

                  Spudster, you claim that the world is more than just physical processes, and yet you give no reason to believe that. I guess that is just a deluded “faith” that you have. So, the basis of your view of morality and human dignity is “faith”. Ok, now I know.

                  You have also said something to the effect that morality does not need to be taught. Then you are advocating the strange view that children should never be taught right and wrong, just let them do whatever they want, they will know on their own, they will have empathy.

                  If a fellow atheist such as Stalin or Hitler believes that slaughtering millions of people is alright what do you appeal to in order to convince them otherwise? Oh yes, empathy. When they say they don’t care about your opinions then you appeal to what?

                  Why should I not slaughter people?

                  Spudster: Empathy

                  But why? Why should I have empathy?

                  Spudster: Just ‘cuz, jeez I don’t know, scientists proved it. It’s real dude, just believe it ‘cuz I said so. It’s like faith and stuff, yeah man.

                  Is empathy a part of reality?

                  Spudster: Yeah dude.

                  So it can be scientifically measured? It has mass? Or maybe it is purely energy? What are its properties?

                  Spudster: Dude I don’t know, it’s like not like physical stuff dude. It’s like metaphysical, but don’t call it like supernatural which would be a good term for it. But don’t like call it that dude because that term scares me dude. Yeah man.

                  Your view of reality is incredibly scientific Spudster. I see that you do not believe in anything beyond physical reality that science studies. I see also that you don’t accept anything on “faith”. HA! Your entire moral system is conjecture based upon an illogical faith.

                • Spuddie

                  Wow, you really just go with canned responses. Even to the point of canned conversation. You don’t even bother to read responses.

                  Why should you have empathy? You don’t have a choice. If you are a non psychopathic individual, you have it. Its part of your makeup as an intelligent sentient being living among others.

                  Is empathy a part of reality? The only thing which is not part of reality is the “supernatural” God. He is so unreal you can produce no evidence of his existence beyond just being emphatic about it.

                  So it can empathy be scientifically measured? Actually yes! They have this science called psychology which studies such things and how it relates among people. You may have heard of it.

                  Overall you are trying to pretend I am taking a scientistic POV. That all things can be scientifically explained. Of course that is a position which can only come from being tone deaf, relying on canned arguments and false dichotomy.

                • ryry

                  Empathy is never studied directly buddy. The actions of people can be studied and their responses but “empathy” is an abstraction from that. Empathy is not measured directly, it has no mass, it is a non-physical entity. Science alone does not explain reality, thank you for acknowledging that.

                  And you still gave no reason why people should have empathy, there are many people who disagree with your POV and you have nothing to appeal to in order to refute them other than your opinions. Your morality is based upon subjective faith.

                • Spuddie

                  God is never studied at all. Just assumed. People attribute to God whatever is useful for them. In your case morality which is innate to all sane human beings.

                  So everything which is not directly quantifiable is supernatural? No. That is what lazy people do when they don’t want to think conceptually. Are your thoughts created by supernatural effort because they cannot be measured or read? No. Do abstract concepts not exist because they are abstract? No. One does not need to attribute to God anything which makes your head hurt.

                  If you have to go with “science can’t address reality spiel” you can forgo any pretense of a scientific argument ever. Its telling me you will never hold yourself to a scientific answer All those “scientific flaws” of evolution you may allege are really just window dressing since you do not take its method or form seriously anyway.

                  Of course you have illustrated the primary lie of Creationism. Creationism claims it can produce scientific proof of God and cough up scientific flaws in evolution. Faith is unnecessary.

                  Of course with your response you are admitting Creationism is just a lie and you were lying to support it. You are now claiming that faith in God is important and all that science stuff doesn’t really matter anyway.

                • ryry

                  Theology is the study of God, and it has been studied longer than “evolution”. Evolutionary theory is based upon conjecture and assumption. As James said elsewhere the observed data is unjustifiably overextrapolated. There is no reason given to justify the extrapolation of the data. The model makes claims it cannot justify by empirical observation, it is just assumed.

                • Spuddie

                  Theology is not the study of God. Its the study of what and how people believe in God. The term is really only used for Christianity. It is almost never used when discussing the religious beliefs of about 88% of the rest of humanity. So it is even less useful for general application.

                  What has been proven in theology? What answers does it give anyone? Absolutely none. That is unless you are inclined to believe it to be. Entirely subjective and ultimately pointless in any kind of objective sense. If you don’t believe, you don’t have to care about it. =)

                  Don’t bother telling me what you think The Theory of Evolution is. It is obvious you don’t know what you are talking about and have zero respect for how it was derived or continues to be used.

                  The only people who consider it conjecture and assumption are those who have no knowledge or respect for scientific methods or methodology. If you were correct, then you would have no explanation for its universal acceptance and USE in biology and various disciplines which intersect with it.

                  It clear you do not know what a scientific theory is and how they are applied in the field. Since you already admitted having no respect for science, its methods or the credibility it confers, you have no business telling anyone what you think on the subject. Anything you are going to say will be irrelevant crap.

                • ryry

                  What objective unchanging knowledge has science given us? The theories have not changed? The current textbooks will still be valid in 50 years? No, the paradigms are radically changed quite frequently. The objectivity of science is a facade, even today there are debates about everything in science.

                  Now I don’t believe that that means there is no truth in science, you however do seem to believe that. You point out the fact that people don’t agree on theology as if that means that it is an invalid study. Well then all of science is invalid by that same standard. I don’t understand your reasoning, you are willing to reject the validity of science in order to reject the validity of theology? Nuking all human knowledge will destroy theology but it will also destroy your own position.

                • Spuddie

                  You continue to argue strawman positions rather than address what I said you may fuck off now.

                  If something is unchanging, it isn’t knowledge. Knowledge requires taking in evidence, making evaluations of it and honest discussion. Revision means you are willing to ensure something is correct rather than repeat mistakes ad nauseum. Unchanging means stagnant, inflexible, closed off to inquiry. Knowledge is never that.

                  Even your religious belief is not as static as you think. Religious thinking changes constantly with society. Even fundamentalism is a reaction to societal conditions rather than a default religious position.

                  Theology serves no function in society besides making Christians feel better about their beliefs. . I said nothing about lack of agreement in theology. I said it was not really the subject you thought it was.

                  STOP MAKING PHONY DEBATES AND READ SOMETHING ONCE IN A WHILE, DOUCHEBAG!!!

                  You believe science is without credibility because you say it does not answer the questions you find relevant. You feel that its failure to address such things is the failure of science. Hardly. It is its strength. It makes it more credible. Because science revises itself with new knowledge, questions sources and methods, invites further inquiry, it is far more credible than any given alternative.

                  The real problem is you seek to answer questions which nobody else has to care about. Science seeks to ask the questions which affect us all. Not just members of a given sect.

                • ryry

                  I did not say that science has no credibility. Science is a part of my worldview. What I said is that science alone does not explain everything, there are realities outside of what it can explore. My worldview includes science but it is larger than that; I am not restricted to that small box.

                  But you didn’t deny the point that I made about science: It changes just as much as any other field. If disagreement within theology is a valid reason to reject it then science should be rejected too. I don’t believe that, I’m just working out a logical conclusion of your position.

                  By the way, science doesn’t just “refine” theories to get closer to the truth. Many times there are radical paradigm shifts which change the entire field. Quantum mechanics and plate tectonics are just two off the top of my head. Those aren’t “refinements” based upon the evidence rather they are paradigm shifts, the type of shift that makes previous textbooks garbage.

                  Fifty years from now many of the current fields will be radically different. The textbooks that are being published right now will contain many errors, not just minor ones but major ones. There will probably be some major paradigm shifts within that time which will make some of the things taught in current textbooks invalid. Again, it’s not like saying Pi is 3.14 and then refining the definition to 3.1415927, paradigm shifts are something like “Pi is not constant, but is variable”. Of course I just made that example up, but that is the level of change in a paradigm shift, it’s not just refinement but a radical shift in the underlying assumptions of the field. Before plate tectonics was accepted it was a fundamental assumption that the continents were stationary and immovable, the paradigm shift changed pretty much everything in that field.

                • Spuddie

                  Unlike Creationism, science is interested in the ways someone gets to an answer. The truth is not in the end results but how one got there.

                  The answer has to change over time because our ability to discover and observe changes over time. Calling that a flaw or criticizing science for such things is to miss the point. Its ability to change makes it far more credible than any alternative methods of divining knowledge about the world around us.

                  This is why Creationists are so desperate to adopt the trappings of science (at least at the outset) because they want to tap into its inherent credibility. Something which is entirely lacking in religious belief. Ultimately you are all about making axiomatic statements which are empty and ultimately false. Religious belief changes radically over time. Its just fundamentalists don’t like to admit such things. Revisionism suits them well.

                  Creationism is all about confirming pre-existing answers by whatever means necessary. Which is why it is inherently dishonest. Your whole discourse is nothing but dishonesty.

                  You begin by making false claims about the science of evolution (and provide no positive evidence for its alleged alternative). When called out on it, you then go all conceptual. You try to shoehorn God into gaps of knowledge or as a default position. Then you top it off with phony scripted debate. You use whatever methods will get you to the point of affirming your faith through rhetorical browbeating.

                • ryry

                  “Creationism is all about confirming pre-existing answers by whatever means necessary. Which is why it is inherently dishonest.”

                  Confirmation is confirmation, it doesn’t matter how we get there. This is the practice of all of science. A hypothesis (pre-existing answer) is tested for confirmation. It’s interesting that you don’t like the procedures of science.

                  “Religious belief changes radically over time.”

                  The point? None. Whether or not religious beliefs change is irrelevant to whether or not they are true, just like science. Both are done by humans so they are subject to revision as the subjects are understood better. Why is that a bad thing? So it’s good for science but not for theology? Man’s understanding of God may change but God does not change. Man’s understanding of physical reality may change but physical reality does not change. I see no point to your statement, it is pointless. You’ve already agreed that a changing view on something is not a bad thing. The word doesn’t change, our interpretation and understanding of it can change/progress. So what? I watched the movie Inception 3 times and each time it got better and my understanding of it increased. So what? The same thing happens as more time is given to exploring the depths of the scriptures. So what? I don’t understand why that is a bad thing. I have never argued that man’s understanding of God has never changed. No, my argument is that God himself does not change. Do you know what a straw man is?

                • Spuddie

                  “Confirmation is confirmation, it doesn’t matter how we get there”

                  Which is why you will never have anything intelligent to say about science.

                • ryry

                  *Yawn*, great argument, loaded with content.

                • James

                  Hi, I would like to bring this discussion back to the main topic. Comfort’s movie points out a serious flaw of evolutionary theory that I have noted for years. The model is based upon extrapolating beyond the observed data. Extrapolation is not a bad thing in small amounts, but evolutionary theory is based entirely upon extreme extrapolation.

                  All that has been empirically observed is minor adaptations of existing structures in animals. The creation of new systems/structures in an animal has never been observed and there are no living animals that have structures in an *intermediate stage* of development. What we see all around are complete functioning systems. We don’t see works-in-progress but finished works.

                  I am not a creationist and I’m not advocating creationism, but evolutionary theory is bad science. If someone observes a stock going up for 3 months and then projects that it will continue to increase at the same rate (or even increase at all) for 3 billion years that is illogical. That’s the problem with extrapolation. Why are we afraid to just admit we don’t know where everything came from? And why am I labeled an *idiot* if I reject evolutionary theory as an atheist?

                  Evolutionary theory has become an ideology; those who are not *believers* are ostracized and not taken seriously. Is this how science progresses? With a religious acceptance of a model that is an over extrapolation of scant observable evidence?

                  I’ve never heard a logical reason for the extrapolation used to build the evolutionary model. I’ve read plenty of books about evolution and they tell some interesting stories, but there is never empirical evidence. There is conjecture about this animal descending from this one, but never evidence for it other than pointing out that they are similar in structure. Similarity of structure does not force a conclusion of common ancestry. Again, why can’t we drop evolutionary theory and just admit that we don’t know? Why make claims that are not based upon real empirical evidence? Or at the very least can’t we hold these positions with less ideological fervor?

                • Spuddie

                  I’m not buying it. If evolution had such serious flaws with extrapolation, it would serve little function in the field nor would it be as easily validated into other disciplines as well. Its efficacy speaks for itself. You are rehashing the same arguments as Comfort but pretending otherwise and throwing the odd scientific term around to sound more credible.

                  “The creation of new systems/structures in an animal has never been observed and there are no living animals that have structures in an *intermediate stage* of development.”

                  Evidently you are unaware of the time scales involved in evolution. Nobody has ever seen a canyon created in living memory but we know water erosion causes it. Evidently your definition of observable is also much more limited than the scientific one. All historical interpretation is just invalid in your eyes.

                  “Why are we afraid to just admit we don’t know where everything came from?”

                  We aren’t. But it doesn’t preclude the search for the answers or looking for ways to interpret research. Of course the answers have to be in a useable form. “God in the Gaps” is an argument from ignorance and is no use for science. .

                  “I am not a creationist and I’m not advocating creationism, but evolutionary theory is bad science.”

                  And your opinion comes from where? What manner of expertise do you have in such manners that your opinion would carry weight on the subject? Because an entire field of acknowledged and accredited experts say otherwise and they have proven their knowledge in the field is worth taking seriously.

                  Btw I don’t believe you are an atheist or that you do not advocate creationism.

                • James

                  Hi, Spuddie, this may surprise you but there are atheists that are skeptical of evolutionary theory, or at least parts of it. I am a biological structuralist. I recognize that animals are organic wholes, composed of a number of interdependent systems that work together to make the organism function. This is an engineering perspective on biology and analogies can be made with for instance an automobile. An automobile is a superstructure of individual systems all working together: the fuel delivery system, the cooling system, the ignition system, the braking system, the suspension system, the steering system, etc. The idea of building a car *progressively* through a sort of spectrum of phases wherein the systems come together gradually does not make sense from an engineering perspective. We may build cars that way, but they are not functional until all systems are in place and interconnected.

                  The only way this could work in theory is if the systems came into place seemingly out of nowhere and not through a spectrum of intermediate phases. Genetic mutation and natural selection as mechanisms cannot do this. Not from what we have observed and not even in theory.

                  I don’t think the gods of the various religions are necessary to explain these complex structures, but the current accepted theory is inadequate as well. The main problem that I have is that inquiry has seemed to cease, because the current theory has become widely accepted and anyone who has doubts about it is ostracized. As I said before this is bad for science, not good. Ideology and dogmatism can turn science into a sort of religion as we know from history. An interesting read that touches on all of these topics is Feyerabend’s ‘Against Method’. Although I don’t agree with Feyerabend on everything he certainly had some great insights. Also, Thomas Nagel is an atheist who has problems with the current theory. He has been attacked as a *heretic* for his book ‘Mind and Cosmos’ which argues that the current reductionistic model is not an adequate explanation.

                  Why do we attack nay-sayers so strongly if science is an enterprise that thrives on inquiry? My belief is that many people have a lot at stake and egos get in the way. It’s difficult for someone to base their entire career on a particular theory and then to just reject it overnight. That would be psychologically devastating; to tell yourself that your life’s work was all wrong. When you look at the history of science (and any other field for that matter) you will see that when paradigms change and old theories are *removed and replaced* by new ones it is generally not the older, established members of the field that do this. This makes sense psychologically; they have too much invested in the older theory. Their identity is tied up in it in a sense. Human nature is human nature. The same psychological forces that push people to blindly hold onto religious beliefs can push non-religious people to blindly hold onto a theory whether it be in the field of science, music, language, art, history, etc.

                  I think that another psychological motivator is the *need* to know and be certain. When someone asks the question, “Where did life come from?” we feel the need to have an answer. Is this pride or insecurity? I simply say that we don’t know yet, and perhaps we never will, but we will continue to search for the answers, because history shows us that if man is anything he is inquisitive.

                  The current theory is extrapolated beyond the observed data. That is a fact. Comfort attempted to show this in his movie. Whether that criticism comes from him or a fellow atheist I am all for it, because the rigidity with which the current theory is held is bad for science and progress.

                • Spuddie

                  Still not buying it. You are making the Creationist argument of “irreducible complexity” but trying to mask its origins. I don’t think you are being honest with me at all here.

                  Evaluating biology from an engineering perspective is an inherently flawed perspective. Not one which would fly with the biology community. The first thing one notes when looking at the structures of life is that its messy. Really messy. Structures do not work well from an engineering standpoint. There is junk, redundancies, things which are set up in less than optimal fashion. No engineer could conceive of something so chaotic and unruly.

                  If you had a legitimate scientific gripe with evolution and were an accredited “biological structuralist”. You would undoubtedly be able to research such ideas and publish findings which could confirm them. You would not be debating them with laypeople. Its not my opinion on the subject which counts, its the expert opinion of the entire scientific community. Since this is their bailiwick.

                  Evolution is not there to explain where life came from. Wrong question, so naturally you will get unsatisfactory answers. Whatever gripe you would have with evolution, that would not be a legitimate one.

                  “Why do we attack nay-sayers so strongly if science is an enterprise that thrives on inquiry? My belief is that many people have a lot at stake and egos get in the way.”

                  And that would be bullshit. Creationists hardly care about inquiry and evolution is accepted for reasons having nothing to do with “ego”. Critics within the scientific community concerning evolution are non-existent because there is no reason for them to take such a tack. If anything debate is on how things evolve. Not whether they do. The accumulated data and research has done nothing but confirm evolution exists.

                  The validity of a scientific theory not debated among laypeople. It is debated among scientists who have research and results to back up their assertions. All scientific works are put through a rigorous vetting process which tries to strip personal feelings, ego and politics from the mix as much as possible. If evolution did not pass muster in the field, it would not last so long. Its ability to be applied by scientists when interpreting their results which has kept it around so long. If you think it has anything to do with egos or personal investment in the idea, you have no clue what you are talking about.

                  “Comfort attempted to show this in his movie. ”

                  Now I know you are full of shit.

                  His movie had nothing to do with legitimate criticism of evolution. First was the “never observed changes” bit, now this bit of endorsement at the tail end of your treatise. You are a phony who is trying out a new tactic to repackage the same old creationist crap.

                • James

                  Hi, Spuddie, this will be my last post here today because I have to get to work on a project, but I will gladly respond to your points. First this one:

                  “All scientific works are put through a rigorous vetting process which tries to strip personal feelings, ego and politics from the mix as much as possible.”

                  That is noble, but personal feelings, egos, and politics cannot be removed from the *mix*. It’s just not human nature to be a robot devoid of feelings and passions. Again, the history of science is very enlightening in this respect. Personal feuds, egos, politics, etc., have gone hand in hand with the progress of science. I just don’t accept that anyone who has spent years in a field to the point that their identity is caught up in it would be objective. The person will tend to identify themselves with the theory. This is a psychological reality.

                  “If evolution did not pass muster in the field, it would not last so long.”

                  Again this is not true when we look at the history of science. To argue that the fact that a theory exists and is widely accepted proves that it is true is not a very good argument. Any theory that has been rejected in the past was once accepted. So, widespread acceptance only proves widespread acceptance, it doesn’t prove the truth of a theory.

                  “Structures do not work well from an engineering standpoint.”

                  I completely reject this statement, as do many engineers. Engineers actually study biological structures for insight into designing better systems.

                  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080204172203.htm

                  “The validity of a scientific theory not debated among laypeople.”

                  It should be unless we want to create a quasi caste-system with an elitist group of individuals. When science influences public policy the public should have the right to be involved. Again, here’s a point that Feyerabend makes very well in ‘Against Method’.

                  Biological structuralism is a real school of thought within the community. It is not the mainstream, that is true, but I hardly see why that discredits it.

                  I can disagree with creationists and still appreciate some of their work. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever read anyone that I totally disagreed with. I agree with you on some points, I disagree with you on others. This whole idea that evolutionary theory is what must be believed as an atheist is the big problem. I’ve encountered this for years. I’m typically accused of being a *creationist* when I make my views known or sometimes I’m accused of arguing just for the sake of argument. We may be few, but there are atheists who don’t fully accept evolutionary theory.

                  As I said I’ve not heard a logical argument for the extrapolation of the model beyond the observed data. I still stand by my words that the model is unjustifiably over extrapolated beyond the observed data. Creationists may call this *faith*, as accurate as it may be that is a loaded term. Unjustified over extrapolation is really what it is.

                  Anyway, thanks for the discussion I’ll check to see if you responded later this evening.

                  James

                • Spuddie

                  “Again, the history of science is very enlightening in this respect. Personal feuds, egos, politics, etc., ….”

                  I call bullshit on this again. Theories get dropped rather quickly when the evidence supports something else. Using your argument, no scientific theory would ever be considered valid because acceptance only seems to be a function of the egos of those using it. It doesn’t work that way.

                  If there was an alternative theory to evolution which could pass muster and worked with data presented in a methodology sound manner, every scientist would be willing to sell their grandmothers to be the one to cough it up.

                  “It should be unless we want to create a quasi caste-system with an elitist group of individuals.”

                  YES that is exactly what science needs to be!

                  Science is not a democracy. It is a nerdogarchy. A system made up of select individuals who were educated in the field, who perform research and subject their works to publication and the peer review process. This way junk from the ignorant, unqualified or those with an agenda to push are filtered out. To attack this system is to attack the credibility of science in general. Something you seem to be doing however unintentional.

                  Not all views require equal consideration. Your musings on the subject need not be taken seriously as criticism of the scientific principles involved in evolution because you have not gone through the process to ensure that your views are credible on the subject. That your opinion needs to carry any weight which must be considered. If you have a scientific beef with evolution, my first response is to ask what journals have you published it in.

                  Yes it means I am appealing to authority, but that is what all laypeople do when it comes to scientific information. The best standard to use in such situations is the legal standard. How a scientific expert gets their findings admitted in court. A person’s professional expert opinion is given the weight of fact when one shows their qualifications in the field. They provide proof of either acceptance of their opinions in said field or that an idea is a legitimate point of contention. Nothing gets admitted without accredited publications to support the assertions made.

                  Until I see some peer reviewed journals describing legitimate, evidentially supported, methodologically sound arguments with evolution as an overarching theory, it is safe to say the scientific community does not take criticism of it seriously. There is no reason for me. Someone outside of the field of scientific research to consider otherwise. Their field, their expertise. Their opinion on the subject carries more weight than your self-serving musings.

                  “I can disagree with creationists and still appreciate some of their work.”

                  I can’t. I find nothing honest about creationism. To a man they are liars. The whole point of creationism is to spin lies to browbeat acceptance of fundamentalist Christianity. There is nothing of value from them.

                  Anyone who takes them seriously is either lying to me or ignorant. You don’t appear ignorant, but you also don’t appear to be honest either.

                • ryry

                  “Unchanging means stagnant, inflexible, closed off to inquiry. Knowledge is never that.”

                  So you acknowledge that in the future evolutionary theory may be rejected completely and totally. A new paradigm may take its place. It is not a true description of reality, merely a conjecture which happens to have a lot of believers at the current time and in a particular place (early 21st century, western Europe and North America). Outside of that time and place it may be rejected outright. It is a fad. Ok, so now we are on the same page, you agree with me that evolutionary theory is conjecture and ridiculing people that reject it is foolish nonsense because knowledge is changing and in the future it may be completely and totally rejected as false.

                • Spuddie

                  When a new scientific theory comes along which is methodologically sound which can supplant Evolution, it will happen. Every biologist in the world would want to be the person who does that. Fame,nigh immortality await the one who does.

                  Creationists are never going to offer that. They have no respect for science or its methods.

                  Creationists don’t even have respect for their own religion. Creationism is crap Christianity. It encourages its proponents to lie about their faith in public and to deny clear and unequivocal objectively proven observations made by others. An attempt to browbeat people into accepting a religious view. Nothing more.

                • ryry

                  Ok, then we agree with one point: evolutionary theory is conjecture and may be completely rejected in the future. The idea that we all descend from a common ancestor through evolution may be rejected as false.

                • Spuddie

                  No. You just are incapable of reading and understanding what a scientific theory is. Your belief in God is fueled by ignorance and laziness by your own admission.

                • ryry

                  Ok, so you changed your mind about this statement:

                  “Unchanging means stagnant, inflexible, closed off to inquiry. Knowledge is never that.”

                  So you didn’t really mean this when you said it earlier? Ok, so now evolutionary theory IS closed off to inquiry, it IS above rejection, it CANNOT be refuted, ever. “Evolutionary theory is firm and will never be rejected, ever, no man dude yeah I’m really consistent and logical like a dino-brain, man.” Your brain is funny and entertaining, but also sad. It’s hard to follow your arguments when they keep changing bud.

                  So, the most brilliant Spudster has refuted his own argument. He now argues that knowledge is unchanging and inflexible. Pretty brilliant, bud, you’re debating yourself. Try to bang your head against the wall before you respond again, it may make your arguments a little more consistent.

                • ryry

                  Many of your fellow atheists have argued that there is no such thing as absolute morality, “everything is permissible” is what Kodie has said. You need to argue with them and the big problem is that you have no standard beyond your own feelings to appeal to. In the end your worldview boils down to subjective opinions, it is vapid and unscientific.

                  Is Barack Obama an idiot because he believes in the Christian God and the Bible? Is Obama a stupid moron?

                • Spuddie

                  No, that is not what any of them said. You have not bothered to read or understand anything said in response to your drivel. You have a script that nobody is following. Tough shit. Are you done lying for the lord?

                  Your “theistic morality” is not morality at all. It is undefined, subjective, arbitrary, capricious and lacking in any kind of connection to human experience, free will and interaction. It is not morality at all. Its what sociopaths use to restrain their behavior in public.

                  Your understanding of atheism, science and evolution is non-existent. I have a standard which I have been telling you from the get-go. You have been too thickheaded to respond to it.

                  You are not as intelligent as you think you are. Worst of it is you are BORING. Throwing up nonsensical points, lying about an opponents position and engaging in canned theatrics is not the sign of intelligent reasonable debate. Its telling you have to make nonsensical phony scripted debates because the real ones are going nowhere.

                  You are not interested in what anyone else has to say. Likewise, it is pointless to continue any kind of conversation with you.

                • ryry

                  You have no answers bud. Again, all you have is your opinions. Your entire worldview is built upon subjective faith and opinions. You have failed miserably to give an explanation for the existence of morality. Objective morality is a part of reality, your worldview cannot explain its origin. Your worldview is garbage.

                • Spuddie

                  I do, you just haven’t been reading. You are uninterested in reading anything besides yourself.

                  Don’t tell me what my entire worldview is! You don’t know jackshit what my worldview is because you have not bothered to read anything I wrote. You have not read what ANYONE has written. You have an argument in your head and nobody is playing along.

                  I gave you an explanation but you ignored it. If you didn’t catch it before, that is your problem. The only one whose view is subjective is yours. You fail to address the problem inherent in attributing all morality to God and you will never do it directly or honestly.

                  You have been doing nothing but making strawman arguments based on assumptions made of anyone bothering to respond to you. Our mistake was bothering to respond to you. It is obvious you don’t care what anyone is actually writing. All you are doing is written fapping. Bye bye.

                • Carmelita Spats

                  Biblical morality is subjective: text-reader-negotiated meaning. ALL texts demand a READER and readers change the text because every act of READING is an INTERPRETATION. There’s yer problem, Sparky.

                • ryry

                  I can’t understand your comment, it is subjective and based upon text-reader-negotiated meaning. It’s based upon interpretation so I can’t be certain I know what you mean.

                  You can’t be certain that you understood my comment which I subjectively interpreted your comment to be a response to. You think you understand what I said but your understanding is subjective: text-reader-negotiated meaning.

                  Science textbooks, articles, published papers, and discussions about any branch of science including evolution cannot be known, it’s all subjective: text-reader-negotiated meaning.

                  Yes, you’re right Carmelita, human knowledge is impossible. Let’s stop all human investigation into any field of knowledge, defund all schools and affirm that no scientific knowledge is valid because it is all based upon text-reader-negotiated meaning.

                  Here’s a simple analogy for you kiddo: If we’re both sitting on the same tree branch and you want to get me off the tree so you saw the branch off you will fall to the ground along with me. That is to say, claiming that anything written (by extension also spoken) can be known is to reject most human knowledge. In fact, you would only be able to know that which you directly experience. No history, no science, no nothing, since all of the knowledge acquired in those fields is mediated through human language either written or spoken (visual/auditory).

                  You have gone down a rabbit hole, and I’m not going to follow you. I’m just pointing that out.

              • Kodie

                People from the future might wonder why we all wasted so much time on this shit when it’s obvious. You lack perspective to understand your value is how you value yourself and how you value others’ opinion or values of you.

                And mostly when I look around, there is some truth the observation, “they all look like ants from up here”. You are being dramatic in your assumption that if the invisible sky wizard doesn’t exist to prefer humans and know your name personally, then you might as well curl up and die. That’s sort of like saying if Bobby doesn’t take you to the dance, then no man on earth exists so you can go on with your life. You have the perspective of a self-centered, everything’s-about-me dramatic teenager whose world falls apart because one person in particular doesn’t even know she exists. You don’t like it that it’s just up to us to decide, you want the boss to validate you.

                Lighten up, ok? It’s not good for you to be so drastic, it’s not good for anybody else.

                • ryry

                  “Lighten up, ok?”

                  These are serious issues. The atheist worldview makes anything permissible. Unless there is an objective standard for morality outside of human opinion then anything is permissible in theory.

                  You may not like your Zen disturbed because you don’t live in the parts of the world where people are being slaughtered. It’s easy for you to pretend that life is peachy but the world is not pretty out there. These questions have serious import.

                  “You have the perspective of a self-centered, everything’s-about-me dramatic teenager whose world falls apart because one person in particular doesn’t even know she exists.”

                  (1) Don’t stereotype teenage girls.
                  (2) Even if what you said were true what’s the point? You are again making a moral/ethical distinction that being “self-centered” is bad and yet you have not given an objective standard to base moral judgments upon yet. What is the standard you are using to judge self-centeredness as wrong?

                • Kodie

                  Everything is permissible – the universe will not condemn you eternally for anything you do, even if you’re a child molester. But we do have laws and punishments on earth to try to achieve some justice. It’s inexact and not as effective as reform would be. In your “worldview” just accepting the blood of Christ magically reforms someone. In mine, I would want someone who could live peaceably in civilization. But here’s what happens – a convict has done their sentence and is released into the world. No longer a threat? Paid the price for their crime? Learned their lesson? Not in any intentional or predictable way. They just graduated from hard crime college.

                  But will they go to hell? There is no hell. Everyone just dies and they do not have eternal justice that you really really want.

                  Being self-centered is juvenile. You pretty much can’t live in the real world, it’s god or it’s just shit. That’s your big problem with atheism is that you don’t like the system. Now we get into arguments with theists, and they are all, like, you can’t tell god to be different than he is, he’s god! Giving a conscience to the universe and making claims about his character does mean we get to have certain expectations to match the description. But the real world doesn’t answer to your demands. It’s not a person, it’s inanimate. It has a lot better excuse not to meet your expectations and give you all the attention you want. Tough shit if you can’t live with reality. It doesn’t care. It can’t care. Only people can care. That’s why you invent the universe as a person.

                  People should take care of themselves and I think it’s impossible not to think of yourself as the star of your life story, maybe it’s not impossible… always someone is going to say the opposite. But you are important to yourself, the rest of the world might not care about you that much, obviously. Your relationship with god, and your revelation of it, demonstrates to me that you are in the throes of an abusive relationship with god. You need his validation and discount other people (the same people you believe have intrinsic and objective value).

                • ryry

                  The irony is that you contradict yourself and you aren’t even aware of it. Philosophy is badly needed. Do you know what a contradiction is? You start off saying that “everything is permissible” and further on you make statements that ASSUME an objective/eternal/outside-of-individual-opinion moral standard.

                  “Peaceable” is a subjective/relative term in your worldview. I disagree with your definition of peaceable and you have no objective standard to appeal to in order to refute me.

                  “Threat” is a subjective term in your worldview.

                  “Crime” is a subjective term in your worldview.

                  Example: “The Americans will learn their lesson after paying the price for their ‘crime’ against Nazism. For being a ‘threat’ to the ‘peaceable’ National Socialist state.”

                  Every evil leader in history has thought himself to being ‘good’ and creating ‘peace’. If all is permissible, then all is permissible. Period, done, end. Don’t judge ANYONE ever because you don’t have the philosophical foundation required to judge another’s actions: an objective moral standard.

                  Can science be done without standards? Is it acceptable if the measuring devices constantly change? No. There must be an unchanging standard. Same with ethics. Now, you all know deep down that there is an objective standard but at a certain level you are in fact smart enough to realize the implications of objective morality so you simply say there is not an objective morality and yet continue to use it as an assumption in your ethical “calculations”.

                  You can’t deny the validity of a mathematical theorem and continue to use it in your calculations and further theorems. If you reject objective morality then your conversation on ethics goes no further. Everything you say is merely your own worthless opinion which falls flat dead-on-arrival once it passes through your lips. There is no reason anyone else should subject themselves to your opinions. The foundations of the legal system are then gone. Might makes right.

                  Ideas have consequences. Think more deeply about what you are really saying, spend a couple years studying philosophy and thinking deeply about your presuppositions. Question everything, and stop believing things just because a scientist said it.

          • Spuddie

            Making shit up about atheist belief and scientific theory isn’t going to help you at all. I think I hit all my lying creationist screed bingo spaces with your spiel.

            The “theistic model” is nothing of value. There is no such thing as scientific theism. Science requires claims which can be proven and disproven with objectively gatherered and evaluated evidence. Supernatural bullshit religious explanations do not meet that criteria. Its not even proper religious belief.

            Your view a form of self-deception. Its lying about the basis of your religious belief and coughing up whatever comforting explanation possible to justify it.

            If you were honest you would attribute your religious belief entirely to faith and admit that you are merely looking to justify it to others. But you are not. So instead you cast dishonest aspersions on atheists, attack scientific knowledge and repeat oft told lies.

          • http://www.summerseale.com/ Summer Seale

            Ever heard of paragraphs, you pathetic fool?

            Your absolute lack of understanding of….everything…is hard to refute. That’s because you’re so staggeringly ignorant on every single level that one doesn’t even know where the hell to begin.

            Atheists think that lives are meaningless? Where the hell did you acquire this idea? Please, let met reiterate: you’re a complete moron for thinking this.

            Atheists believe in magic? I don’t even know where to start with this fallacy. It’s been refuted time and time again, and that’s exactly why I was pissed off enough to rant about it. You’re not only ignorant, you’re an asshole for not carefully reading what I wrote when I addressed this issue.

            Our lives are not worth more than the life of a cockroach? Once again, you appear to understand absolutely nothing about how most atheists view the complexity of different life forms.

            I’m sorry that I don’t have more time to waste on you and your brain dead assumptions, because I’d really like to eviscerate you for the fucking fool that you are.

            • ryry

              You answered absolutely nothing. You are unresponsive. You did however spend a lot of time giving me your subjective opinions about me. In a court of law you’d be given a gag order because you are basically just ranting without saying anything.

              I’m sorry that you don’t have time to “eviscerate” my arguments, although you did have enough time to write 6 paragraphs of nothingness. I will not lie, I don’t think your “arguments” would have had much content anyway.

              • http://www.summerseale.com/ Summer Seale

                I couldn’t care *less* if I answered your “questions” because, as I’ve pointed out, these “questions” have been addressed time, and time, and time again by the millions. Literally.

                No, my intention is not to try, once again, to enlighten some benighted yokel such as yourself, but simply to insult you in the most callous ways possible.

                I wished to insult you, and I wish to keep on insulting you.

                You are an idiot.

                • ryry

                  Ok, then I will not engage you anymore because you do not want to engage in discussion by your admission.

                • http://www.summerseale.com/ Summer Seale

                  There is nothing to discuss. Discussion with a creationist is like discussion with a flat earther: you’re both wrong and you have absolutely nothing useful to contribute to a real discussion other than as a demonstration of total idiocy.

                • ryry

                  “flat earther”??? When did people believe the earth is flat? Never. Don’t tell me that you’re another product of the pubic edicashin sistim that doesn’t know history. Do you really believe that people once thought the earth was flat? Search this phrase on google “flat earth myth”.

                  I’ll finish with a statement that I know that you can agree with: Barack Obama is a stupid idiot because he is a theist and believes in God. Barack Obama is a dumb moron because he believes in the Bible, claims to be a christian and attends church. There, something that you can agree with… Barack Obama is an idiot theist.

        • K. C. Sunbeam

          Summer,
          It’s highly unlikely that I’m quite like anyone you’ve ever met. Hence my book Shocked by Truth.
          Everyone understands that Evolution supposedly works over “eons of time”. There are two major problems with this. The longer a creature would have to evolve, the longer it would have to be eaten, die of disease, fatal accident, or get genetic damage, causing it to cease existing entirely.
          Besides, TIME DOESN’T EXIST( as a scientific fact). It is simply the comparison of one event to another, such as the bamboo shoot grows X amount for every Y times Earth rotates. Anything frozen to absolute zero would NEVER deteriorate; it would be timeless. Evolution is either inherent in the creature or it’s not.

        • Just Thinking

          SS…I know of no creationists who think evolutionists believe that evolution was an over night event. We would like to side with Darwin and say that “if evolution were true we couldn’t walk out our back doors without tripping over transitional life forms”. Got any other than the handful that often turn out to be mistaken or were fraudulent by the Fundamentalists within your “anything but God” religion. Also, why did some “stay” in their original state? Also, who exactly is causing your heart to beat at the moment? Seems you’re pulling a page out of the Preacher’s handbook “when your point is weakest…pound the pulpit the hardest”.

      • islandbrewer

        Define “kind” in a precise scientific manner, please.

      • Spuddie

        Hawking a personal website is a major faux pas here. If you can’t make your point here, go the hell away. Nobody needs to expose themselves to your malware infested site to have a discussion on a topic.

        Its not ad hominem to call a creationist a lying sack of crap. Its just the most apt description for their discourse.

        Nobody has to give an example because the premise is based on a deliberate misstatement of evolution. Its like asking you to give one example from the Bible that God is really a giant cheese sandwich in the sky.

      • Isaac

        Dude, quit with the pathetic attempts to drive traffic to your site and sell us shit.

      • Reginald Le Sueur

        There are loads of transitional forms between “kinds”, ie the main groups of fish, amphibia, reptiles, birds , mammals.
        Archaeopteryx has bird and reptile features. There is Tiktaalik and many others. These evangelical con-men rely on their interviewee not having a brain like a computer ready to instantly download any answer to any question they might ask. Turn the tables; ask him why snakes and whales have vestigial hind limb girdles under their skin?
        Who said vestigial organs like the coccyx and appendix had to be non-functional? The coccyx is a supporter of perineal muscles as well as being a tail-bone; look at any moden dog. The “tail-bone” wags the tail, as well as supporting the muscles of the pelvic floor.

    • James

      This is exactly the type of attitude that destroys science and the advancement of human knowledge. To say that anyone who rejects evolutionary theory is an “idiot” is to be an ideologue. I do not accept evolutionary theory as it is commonly taught because it is not a good scientific model. Rejection of evolutionary theory does not require accepting the bible or a belief in God. I realize that I will probably be attacked for rejecting evolutionary theory but it simply isn’t good science.

      Evolutionary theory is based on overextrapolation of observed data. The observed data of minor changes in bacteria or other species does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the same mechanism can transform bacteria into fish and then into humans. Extrapolating is extending a model beyond the observed data. It’s alright to do this short term as it is pretty reliable but the further you extend the data beyond the verified knowns the less reliable it becomes.

      In other fields of science such extrapolation and extension of the data beyond that which has been observed is not tolerated. Why is it tolerated here? I believe that it is a case of the ends justifying the means. An explanation for the origin of the various life forms is desperately wanted so unjustified overextrapolation of the data is tolerated. It’s bad science though.

      It should just be acknowledged that we don’t yet know where the life we see came from and continue to examine different models. Making the current model “above reproach” and beyond criticism does nothing good for science. The attitude displayed in the above comment is ideological, not scientific. If we allow science to turn into an ideology wherein those who question certain theories are ostracized and called “idiots” then science will turn into religion and there will be no distinction.

      I’m not a theist, and yet I reject evolutionary theory. Why is that considered a contradiction? Is evolutionary theory the only option? The movie by Comfort did a great job of pointing out what I have said, that the current model is based on overextrapolation of the data. Comfort used the term “faith”, which is not a bad way to describe it but I’d rather the phrase “overextrapolation of the data”. At this point it seems that the theists are the only ones in a position to really criticize the unscientific claims made by evolutionary theory. It’s sad that this criticism can’t come from within the community itself, but whether it comes from within or without I support it either way. As long as scientists are making claims that can’t be supported by the observed data but are merely extrapolated the theory will be subject to criticism. Why not just stop making claims that are unjustified?

    • todddude

      Are you a school teacher? With an open mind? Rationally thinking? For the sake of our children? What organizations do you stand for?
      Who do you speak representing? The mind is a terrible thing to waste?

      • Spuddie

        If you are a creationist, you are a lying sack of crap. Its intrinsic to the belief. One doesn’t need much on the lines of credentials to notice that.

        Are you a Creationist? If so, when have you stopped lying?

        Is that a beard or just a hairy growth trying to swallow your neck?

    • todddude

      Are you a school teacher? With an open mind? Rationally thinking? For the sake of our children? What organizations do you stand for?
      Who do you speak representing? The mind is a terrible thing to waste?

    • BJ Esmailbegui

      I don’t think Ray is an idiot.. You have to look at it from his perspective… His entire foundation for living is based on his Christian beliefs… Imagine if you discover that everything you know and feel, everything you fought for, turns out to be false…A discovery as such could take the meaning of living away from those completely… Is the debates with people like Mr. Comfort worth ruining a belief system that can have a devastating impact on the lives of so many? Would it be easier to ignore Mr. Comfort and let science take it’s course? It sounds like an obvious answer however a side effects such as the texas school removing topics like Evolution in the science curriculum, is a major reality….

    • Mel Macca

      wow – all I know is that the more I look into this debate – evolution v god – and try to get a handle on it, the more I hear hate-filled rants like your own that just do character assassinations. I don’t hear him speaking with hate to the people he speaks to – direct, yes, confrontational,yes, but I’d rather know him in real life that folk like you – so violent and hurtful when this Comfort guy has done no harm to a single person. I guess it proves that some of us really are like brute beasts in the way we treat one another. Your hatred is scary

    • bizeditor84

      As of this moment, Summer’s post received the most “likes” from people who I presume are atheists and skeptics. That’s puzzling – I thought atheists and skeptics were committed to finding and speaking truth, using reason and logic, etc. Yet Summer’s post bulges with insults, invective, profanity — all sorts of ad hominem attacks and vitriol. Hers is a winning atheist argument style? It’s an embarrassment. And to think this is the top post on “the friendly atheist’s” blog. (Summer continues her argument style in other posts as well, so it wasn’t a lone outburst of frustration.) Logical? Friendly? Not.

    • R Clayderman

      As of this moment, Summer’s post received the most “likes” from people who I presume are atheists and skeptics. That’s puzzling – I thought atheists and skeptics were committed to finding and speaking truth, using reason and logic, etc. Yet Summer’s post bulges with insults, invective, profanity — all sorts of ad hominem attacks and vitriol. Hers is a winning atheist argument style? It’s an embarrassment.
      And to think this is the top post on “the friendly atheist’s” blog. (Summer continues her argument style in other posts as well, so it wasn’t a lone outburst of frustration.) Logical? Friendly? Not.

  • Wojtek Krzyzosiak

    How do you explain that Exodus and Leviticus are blatantly polytheistic – “I shall take my revenge on the Gods of Egypt” and such?

    • Know

      Yeah, here is a chance to find out how may gods there really were then, you are going to be asking the goddly authority after all!

  • cipher

    There is no point in interviewing Ray. Dialogue is impossible; he’s quite clearly completely dishonest and/or mentally ill. Nothing that is said here will cause him to change or even question his beliefs one iota. He will, however, go back to his flock of sycophants, repeat the lie that we are the ones who refuse to examine our “beliefs” (because, of course, atheism is a religion), and trumpet his “victory” over us. There will probably also be an insincere appeal to pray for our inevitably damned souls.

    Friendly Atheist is a well-known presence on the Internet now. All that will be accomplished will be to give this abominable excuse for a human being even more public exposure.

    • Know

      He reminds me of that wacko in North Korea that thinks they are the best of the world and that everyone else is crazy ….wait, all christians remind me of that wacko.

    • K. C. Sunbeam

      Anyone who doesn’t agree with you is mentally ill? (an idea started by atheist Sigmund Fraud to persecute others).
      Again, you give ZERO examples of one kind of life changing into another; Ray only asked for one.
      Instead, an angry rant.
      my website: http://shockedbytruth.jimdo.com

      • cipher

        Hush. Grownups are talking.

  • Lee Barbo

    Q: why does God permit innocents to suffer?
    Q: how can God be considered benevolent if he permits suffering?
    Q: how can God be considered flawless if his own creations are so very flawed?
    Q: how can there be true free will when one considers all the afflictions of the mind, brain injuries, and mental impairments that affect the will, including man’s own ability to diminish the will of another man by simply separating the frontal lobe of the brain from the rest of the brain as in a frontal lobotomy?

    • Know

      I asked a christian that just the other day and all they said was “read the bible and learn” they said it four times to four different questions, sounded like a broken record.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

      1, 2 and 3 are easy to answer: God works in mysterious ways.

      4. That is just Satan fucking with us.

    • Mike H

      Q: why does God permit innocents to suffer? This presupposes you believe in God. You think that suffering is bad, correct? If so, then you have to believe in its opposite Good. What is the measuring line? Where did the ethic to be “Good” come from? I personally believe God inherently places a conscious within us that knows what is good and what is good to do to another. On the other hand, “Good” and “Bad” are only relative to the evolutionist, atheist, and skeptic. There can be no true measure of Good because it would require an authority. So the authority becomes self. Because what is “Good” to one, may be “Bad” to the another. So defining suffering in an evolutionary world is subjective. However, Jesus said their is only one who is “Good” and that is God, Matt. 19:17. He laid down an authority. I hope you do believe in God.

      Unless you are willing to accept faith in God you may not accept my answer. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. After His resurrection the Apostle Thomas was filled with a doubt born of sorrow because Jesus, who he had hung with for the last three years, was crucified and gone. It was if he had placed three years of his life in a bad business deal. He did not want to get his hopes up that the resurrection had happened so He said unless I see the scars in His hands and slit in His side I will not believe. So Jesus appeared to Him and asked him to touch the prints in His hands. He said, “A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have,” Luke 24:39. He was in His preincarnate and glorified resurrected body. He also told Him, “Blessed are you because you have seen and believed, but more blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed.” Again we walk today by faith. I may not see the visible Christ but I believe He exists and to boot, He has placed the Holy Spirit within me. The Spirit also witnesses to me of God’s presence.

      To answer your question Biblically, humanity has been in a fallen state since the curse was placed upon the earth after the fall. Prior to the fall the earth was a perfect paradise in which there was no death. Eden was a Holy place and God walked in the garden. Mankind did not know what shame was, they had never experienced it. Adam and Eve forsook Him when they disregarded His command and chose to listen to Satan, who himself was fallen from heaven, Luke 10:18. For this they and the earth was cursed–they were even put outside the garden. Sin cannot dwell in the presence of what is Holy. It must be cleansed, which is why Christ died and was resurrected in innocence, defeating death for us. His innocence is accounted to all who will believe through faith in Him and the forgiveness of sin.

      You are asking God why He allows suffering, God is asking why we have sinned against Him as our Creator causing suffering to result everyday in His heart. Anyone who has borne children only to have them live in rebellion breaking your heart and causing suffering knows how God feels. Can you fix the child? Not without discipline and the suffering of tough love. Thus we suffer, for disciplines sake. Some suffering occurs because of our bad habits, some because of drunken driving, drugs, selfishness and the sins of others. Some because of thousands of years of gene “tainting.” That is as human kind populates genes begin to intermix and spread. Some may not adhere to others as well as some will. This may result in a birth defect. Could God fix it? Yes, He could. In some cases He will choose to do so. But sin must run its course, Rom 11:25. We have a hard time looking at the big picture as God sees it. In Genesis 15:13, 16 the Lord speaks of the suffering of the Israelites in Egypt for 400 years. I am sure everyday they asked why the suffering? Earlier He had spoken to Abraham in those passages above that this was going to happen prior to it happening, because the sin of the tribes in Canaan had to run its course. So He was showing Mercy to Canaan, allowing them to exist, yet hoping they would come back to Him, but in doing so He was allowing suffering to happen to Israel in Egypt. After 400 years He delivers Israel and then the Canaanites fall into judgment. We cannot fully answer the question anymore than an evolutionist can prove the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Evolutionists believe that through natural selection only the fit survive. Yet the suffering many are born with turns that on its head. It would seem that the unfit keep popping up.

      I place my faith in God where I at least have hope.

      God shows His mercy to us every day by allowing us to continue on in life, hoping we will turn to Him in repentance and humility asking forgiveness for our sin, Acts 17:26, 27. God gives us physical life as a gift that enables us to seek Him for a spiritual eternal life in which He is allowed to live through us.

      Q: how can God be considered benevolent if he permits suffering? see above

      Q: how can God be considered flawless if his own creations are so very flawed? God is flawless, sin flawed man. In the beginning it was not so.

      Q: how can there be true free will when one considers all the afflictions of the mind, brain injuries, and mental impairments that affect the will, including man’s own ability to diminish the will of another man by simply separating the frontal lobe of the brain from the rest of the brain as in a frontal lobotomy? God never promises punishment to the innocent. The fact that there is so much suffering in this world through sin and other things makes me glad to know that there is a place in heaven where suffering no longer exists. He shall wipe away all of our tears and there will be no more crying and no more pain. That is God’s promise. Atheism has no promise but death.

      • Lee Barbo

        Same old same old that I’ve heard all of my life, but still somehow manages to miss the point. The argument always comes back to the disclaimers that a) it’s the devil’s fault because God is only good b) the Bible is true because the Bible says so c) Our human minds simply aren’t capable of comprehending the mind of God
        I’m finding it hilarious that you argue about ‘gene tainting’? Really? Who the hell came up with that ridiculous load of shit?

        I can also tell you that your understanding of Evolution is totally off. Natural selection does not dictate that only the fittest survive as if the fittest were the best of the best, so to speak, and all else dies off. Natural selection, in a nutshell, is referring to the frequency with which an inherited trait occurs within a population of a species through successful breeding as dictated by the environment in which the species lives – not because of defects which a specimen may have. A species may die out due to many possible factors – the Natural Selection factors have more to do with a species’ inherited traits and their compatibility with the environment than with ‘defective’ sin-laden genes.On the other hand, I hope you realize that by arguing that the effect of sin is passed on in the genes to even innocent people that you are further condemning your version of God to being an evil being with no compassion. And to say that he is merciful by permitting us to live is even more condemning. It is saying that he (God) is even less benevolent to those who suffer because of his tendency to have them linger in their suffering.

        Your argument that man being flawed is man’s own fault does not address the fact that if man had truly been flawless in the beginning, then man would never, ever have been even remotely capable of becoming flawed. The creation story reeks of a God who lacks benevolence and who is greatly flawed.

        On the issue of Free Will and brain damage, you totally dodged the fine point of the question: where is the Free Will? For those without the capacity to choose, there is no such thing.

        Oh, and, in case you hadn’t noticed, you forgot to quote the scripture that discusses the passing on of the sin gene and the granting of mercy to the brain damaged. I’ve read the Bible cover to cover… it makes no exceptions for the way to get to Heaven. I was surprised when you neglected to say that those afflicted in the mind are demon-posessed and a good exorcism would cure them…. you disappoint me.

  • http://andybreeden.com Andy Breeden

    Q: Is it true that the coconut is a creationist’s worst nightmare?

    • Alessandro

      Yes, it’s true.

      Though some creationists in the KKK might see it as evidence that god wanted dark skinned people punished.

    • islandbrewer

      I think reality is a creationist’s worst nightmare.

  • B

    My favorite to ask creationists has become “Okay, let’s grant everything you say about evolution. It’s all a lie. The facts are obviously in favor of creationism. Fine. Now explain how 99% of scientists (all more qualified than you) have come to the opposite conclusion you have. I’m not interested in why you think evolution is false; explain why everyone but you think it’s true.” This leaves them in a very awkward position since they can’t fall back on any of their rehearsed talking points that often veer the conversation off track (“evolution takes faith”,”were you there?”, etc). Instead, they’re stuck trying to spin-up a conspiracy theory on the spot. There’s really only two options other than saying that they have a greater understanding of the facts than the overwhelming majority of specialists in at least a dozen different fields. Either the scientists are aware the evolution is false, and there’s a grand, perfect, conspiracy on the part of hundreds of thousands of scientists from all different countries, religions and walks of life that no one has every recanted on or run to the press with what would surely be the scandal of the century (ridiculous), OR there’s an invisible demon who has been successfully able to fudge data and trick everyone except Comfort, some extremist Muslims and a large part of rural Kentucky regarding this one, very specific area of science (equally ridiculous).

    • jferris

      B, that’s pretty good. i wouldn’t say we accept anything from him, I would not give him agreement on anything, he’ll use it as an edit and say “See! I’m RIGHT!!” But your question is good. It would definitely take him off-script, and might force him to places he’s not prepared for. Very good idea.

    • cipher

      Now explain how 99% of scientists (all more qualified than you) have come to the opposite conclusion you have.

      But you already know what he’ll say:

      1. There are and have been thousands of scientists who don’t accept evolution (and he’ll probably pull out that stupid Internet list);

      2. The scientists love their sin and hate God.

      Really, there is absolutely no point in attempting to engage Ray or others like him, for any reason at any time.

      • islandbrewer

        Because Satan!

        • cipher

          Yeah, that’s pretty much it.

      • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

        It’s a conspiracy! LOL

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        If he pulls out said list, it needs to be pointed out to him that said list is fraudulent. People were surprised and offended to find their names on it. Some names were made up.

        • cipher

          Of course, but you know neither he nor his sycophants care about that. Any refutation or contradictory evidence is handled with “La la la I can’t hear you!”

          This is one of the many reasons it’s misguided even to engage these people in the first place.

  • John Bridle

    I’m with some of the other posters here. Ignore him, I don’t want to hear from him. All you’ll do is give him a pulpit to spew from. He’ll twist the results no matter what you do.

  • Free

    Listen, the primary questions of species not just adapting but changing kinds as stated by Darwin is crucial to intellectual honesty. Not Comforts morals, ideas, etc… The questions were posed to Atheists in this video and not able to be answered using science. There is no observable evidence to show that one kind ie… cat becomes a dog or anything else for that matter. The distance between macro micro evolution, as even cited by the atheist professor in the video creates the secular faith conundrum. Faith in its essence is part of the human experience. The question is always in its object.

    • cipher

      I know this will be lost on you, but I have a minute so I’ll post it anyway.

      The authority figures to whom you listen have no understanding of the science they insist upon criticizing – and just because they keep repeating the same things over and over, it doesn’t make them true.

    • Timmah

      Cats. Do not. “BECOME”. Dogs. There is no observable evidence of that because thats not how it works. It sounds silly because it IS silly, it’s not reality and nobody is claiming that it is.
      Anybody telling you that this is how evolution works is LYING to you.

      • Derrik Pates

        No one (outside their deluded cohorts in creationism) would make such an outlandish claim. But their claim makes slightly more sense when they pretend that that’s what was said.

    • pRinzler

      Listen carefully: over *very* long periods of time, creatures can change via natural selection very much. It can be deceptive because it’s hard for us to wrap our heads around lengths of time like 1 million years, or more.

      Here’s a visual aid for you: (clicking on the image should enlarge it)

    • islandbrewer

      As she pointed out, your understanding of how evolution works is just like saying “No one has ever seen a toddler go to sleep and then wake up as an adult. If a toddler goes to bed, the next morning they always wake up a toddler! Sure, they may grow a bit, but that’s “microaging” and not “macroaging”! Therefore there is no proof of aging!”

    • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

      Since the other responders don’t seem to have pointed it out yet, I’ll note that the questions raised were indeed answered… but the answers that were given got cut during editing the video for release.

      As for the bit about micro vs macro and “kinds”, I’ve a standard canned response:

      Microevolution refers to genetic mutations which are able to diffuse (especially via reproduction) within a population group. When a population is divided by a barrier (geologic or genetic) which precludes future diffusion between subgroups, it is referred to as speciation. Microevolutionary developments in one group unable to diffuse across the species barrier are considered macroevolutionary with respect to the other group.

      While the rate of speciation is low (on the order of per species-megayear, depending in part on time to reproductive maturity), the large number of species on earth has resulted in several dozen speciations being recorded in the literature since Darwin’s time.

      The most common response to this is that these are “not really” speciations, since “it’s still the same kind”. This response reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the theory of evolution works.

      When a species barrier arises, the organism does not become an ENTIRELY new species; rather, it becomes a MORE specific species. Humans, therefore, are technically a sub-species of hominid-catarrhine-primate-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazoan-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. After becoming distinct sub-species, any novel mutation in one is thus macroevolutionary with respect to the other.

      Given that we KNOW species barriers can arise with time, it is a reasonable inference that extant barriers may not have always existed. Fossil evidence supports this. EG, searching back, we can find example some fossils showing resemblance to modern seals and some to weasels; and the older those appearing ancestral to seals are, the closer they are to resembling ancestral forms of the weasels. Thus, weasels are considered mustelid-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazoan-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life, whereas seals are considered pinniped-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazoan-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. This inference is additionally supported by modern genetic sequencing, which indicates considerable overlap between the modern forms, with the distinguishing sequences consistent with mutations of the same type as observed in the lab, and in an degree consistent with the expectations from observed rate-of-mutation in present and from the time estimates of the fossil record.

      If you’ve further questions on that, I suspect others can elaborate.

    • Spuddie

      Please define “kinds” in a clear fashion.

      By rejecting science and its methods, you can’t claim the credibility science entails. You forfeit the right of being taken seriously on a scientific subject.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      It’s sad that you’re so wrapped up in defending lies that you fail to recognize Comfort’s quote mining, dishonest editing, and intentional use of questions designed to attack straw men and thus be unanswerable.

      Since you imply that you are one of those “change doesn’t occur outside ‘kind’” types, here are some simple analogies that demolish that claim:

      Saying that ‘microevolution’ occurs but cannot lead to ‘macroevolution’ is exactly like saying that you can never eat an entire Snickers bar no matter how many bites you take of it. It is exactly like saying that walking 5,280 feet cannot cause you to walk a mile. It is exactly like saying that no matter how long a woman is pregnant, she can never give birth to a viable infant. It is exactly like saying that listening to every track of an album can never amount to hearing the entire album. It is exactly like saying that no matter how long you live, you can never die of old age symptoms.

    • Guest

      Tiktaalik. As for cats becoming dogs- evolution doesn’t say that. Cats and Dogs are both modern species. What evolution says is that cats and dogs had a common ancestor. They’ve found fossils of this probable ancestor, they’re called miacids.

    • phantomreader42

      Comfort lied, in this very video. If he’s preaching the truth, why does he have to lie all the fucking time? Why can’t creationists EVER tell the fucking truth? Oh, yeah, because you worship your own dishonesty and willful ignorance.

  • aar9n

    Ray, why do you consider it ok to lie for Jesus? E.g. Why do you use dishonest video editing? Why not display the entire interview with someone like PZ Meyers?

    Why do you never, ever, actually explain what evolutionists believe and instead use straw mans?

  • http://atheistminister.net/ Mike

    The only part of Comfort video that stuck with me (most is easily forgettable rubbish) is when he is asked by PZ Meyers “what if he is wrong” and he smugly replied that he is not. This is a perfect example of the arrogance and smugness to which atheists are often accused. I want him to answer that question FROM THE VIDEO correctly.

    Ray: 1. Are you infallible? (the only answer he can answer is that of course, he is fallible otherwise, he is perfect … and “only god is perfect … blablablah) 2. Therefore, being fallible means that you could be wrong about God’s existence. and FINALLY 3. Ray, now that you’ve admitted that you could be wrong, give PZ the goddamned respect he gave you and answer his question respectfully … WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG?

    • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

      Refusal to play an idiotic “gotcha” game is not arrogance.

      • http://atheistminister.net/ Mike

        Arrogance is believing or stating that you cannot be wrong … like Ray Comfort did in the video.

  • Maleekwa

    I would ask Ray Comfort if he would make the full cut of the professors’ interviews in Evolution vs God available on YouTube. If he responds no I would ask him why not.

    • K. C. Sunbeam

      Common sense tells you that it’s because of time constraints.

  • Pofarmer

    That was awesome.

  • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

    My standard opening question for Creationists is whether they accept the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction — that is, that (P OR Q) is equivalent to (Q OR P) such that either may be inferred from the other.

    (It’s nominally intended as introducing the first axiom of about a dozen, leading to a Robbins Algebra and vNBG axiomatic mathematics, to eventually get past Hume’s problem of induction. In practice, nine times out of ten they don’t go past this first hurdle, so never even reach the next question about Associativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction, much less anything as exciting as the Axiom of Pairing.)

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      *nods blankly*

      *long pause*

      *nods again*

      • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

        Wikipedia has entries with references for most of the math.

        • Thom Mills

          I think I’ll leave that one to you and sit here quietly under my dunce cap.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          Sigh. I know I should make more time for mathematics.

  • Amor DeCosmos

    Dear Ray – can you please address all of the points in Jaclyn Glenn’s video, since she was so kind as to refute many of the fallacies in your video.

    Failing that, could you please creatively re edit Jaclyn Glenn’s video to make it seem like she supports Creationism?

  • Nilanka15

    I’ve seen Comfort “debate” Thunderf00t on YouTube, as well as the guys from Atheist Experience. It doesn’t matter what you ask him. He’ll keep making the same circular arguments over and over again, and when you do stump him, he’ll simply redirect the conversation to another topic.

    At first, I thought he was a con-artist. But after watching these debates it’s clear he’s really just a simpleton unable to think rationally. He doesn’t have the mental capacity to understand complex thoughts. An interview with Comfort is an exercise in futility.

  • Amor DeCosmos

    Ray Comfort just left a response on Jaclyn’s video!

    Your “observable evidence” is birds changing into birds, and
    salamanders changing in salamanders. But there’s no change of kinds.
    Sorry Jaclyn, Try again. But don’t give me “tons” and “mountains” of
    evidence. One example of observably and testable evidence will do–and
    you will completely debunk “Evolution vs. God.” You can’t do it, UCLA
    and USC scientists couldn’t do it. Neither can Richard Dawkins…because
    there isn’t any. All you have is blind faith.

    edit: angry atheists are downvoting Ray’s comment. This comment has received too many negative votes . That’s a shame, at least Ray is trying and isn’t hiding like a chickenshit. I think we should vote his comment up to the top to let everyone see it and respond to it…

    • Matt D

      Strange, where does a man using his imagination to define the universe get off asking for “observable and testable” evidence? Is his entire argument nothing more than “I’m rubber you’re glue”, these days?

    • Scott_In_OH

      This makes me even more curious to know what he thinks the theory of evolution says. If it were an honest discussion, I would ask him

      What do you mean by a “change in kind”?
      How do you think the theory of evolution explains it?

      What do you mean by “observable evidence”?
      What observable evidence do you believe has been produced in support of the theory of evolution?

      An entirely different approach (but still relying on honest discussion) would be to ask him about his own explanation of salvation. If a single sin is enough to send a person to Hell, why does Jesus only need to die once to forgive everyone of all sin–shouldn’t it be once for each sin? If the punishment for sin is to be in Hell forever, how do Jesus’s three days in the tomb cover that for everyone? If people have been around for 6,000 years since The Fall, why did God wait 4,000 years to send Jesus–is everyone born before then, except perhaps the Jews, condemned to Hell forever?

      • Nilanka15

        It sounds like Comfort’s definition of “observable evidence” is literally seeing one species evolve into another species within his lifetime.

        Comfort’s basically asking anyone to show him the last time a monkey turned into a human. Ignorance at its finest.

        • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

          Yes. They seem to believe that evolution requires an animal to give birth to an animal of another species. No amount of explaining seems to get them to understand how it works. It’s willful ignorance. They don’t understand because they don’t want to. ugh, about to go home and visit relatives who think this way. Ugh ugh ugh

          • Kodie

            They can’t expect one species to give birth to another species and keep going on about missing links in the fossil record.

        • Scott_In_OH

          I agree. I’d just like him to say that out loud and to tell me how he thinks that’s an implication of the theory of evolution.

          It won’t work, because he has no interest in honest discussion, but if he did, that line of questioning would lead to an opportunity to explain to him why his “gotcha” is not really a gotcha.

      • cipher

        If a single sin is enough to send a person to Hell, why does Jesus only need to die once to forgive everyone of all sin–shouldn’t it be once for each sin?

        The answer most of them give is generally a variation on the following: Jesus is God and God is infinite, so his one death pays the penalty for sins that deserves infinite punishment. (They confuse “infinite” and “eternal” a lot.)

        Of course, one has to have pathologically low self-esteem to believe it in the first place – which you cannot explain to them, because they think we, with our “carnal minds”, can’t understand.

        • Mike H

          With respect ,no. As in Adam all die So in Christ all will be made alive. Adam and Eve sinned once and all humanity became subject to the fall. Prior to the fall we were created fully in God’s image, after the fall we inherited the image of fallen man, Gen. 5:3, only Jesus was never created in the image of man, Rom. 5:12, 6:10. If you speak with Christians please understand we hold the Scripture to be the final authority on all matters of faith.

          • cipher

            I’m well aware of what you believe. Fuck off, Christian garbage.

            • Mike H

              Regardless of how you feel the word of God will stand forever. You will never be able to shake off the fact that He died for u2. God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved, John 3:17 In Him we have hope.

              • cipher

                Everything you’ve been told is a lie, and you’re a psychopath. When you die, you’ll lie in the ground and rot. No God, no Jesus, no hanging around on a mezzanine in heaven laughing your redneck ass off watching us sinners being roasted alive for all of eternity.

                • Mike H

                  You really have a warped view of heaven. You can take out all of your bitterness on me all day and it will not matter one bit. Your problem is not me, it’s God. BTW, nobody will be watching people in Ghenna from heaven. Jesus is still calling you.

                • cipher

                  No one is calling anyone. Furthermore, your insistence upon having the last word – endemic to people inflicted with your form of insanity – is indicative of your deep insecurity concerning your faith. You aren’t here to spread your “faith”; you’re here because you’re terrified we’re right, and coming here and repeating Bible verses is your way of assuaging that fear.

                • Mike H

                  I will allow you to have the last word, knowing you will not be able to resist responding. Oh how wrong you are about me. I am here as a witness to Christ and His transforming work through the Holy Spirit. You say Christians are psycho, redneck, insane and doped up on religion. The same can be said of atheists. Atheism is the opiate of a people who do not want to be accountable to a Holy God/Creator. So you seek out ways in which you can defame the God who created you to wipe away the pain of knowing He could exist and that if He does your life will flash before His eyes in judgment. Atheism is a drug that for a moment soothes the guilty conscious. In Russia Lenin had hoped the philosophy of Atheism would spread into the hearts of the masses. It did not go as he planned, and when Stalin took over the death squads were ordered and the mass murder by millions became his claim to fame. But even then, he could not defeat the conviction of Christ. He died and in 1989 the wall came tumbling down. That wall is a great symbol of a world without God separating the fellowship of humanity. Atheism presided over the mass murders in Communist China. When people do not want to believe in the rule of Good laid out by God in heaven, they resort to violence and attacks. That is what I see all over these threads.

                  It is not intellectual to bully and attack. Bullies only attack, mock and scoff when they are in retreat.

                  I will agree with all, there is and has been a lot of bad on both sides of the issue – I am well aware. But true Christianity never incites violence or the hurt of another individual for whom Christ died and arose. If you desire to attack, then it is your free will to do so and I nor any other Christian will stand in the way. But I know who I have believed and I am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed to Him against that day. Yes that Day for it is coming.

                  As for being a redneck, Ha! I have 8 years of formal education beyond High School and I am a Sr. Software Architect. I write 15 languages and my salary most likely dwarfs many of those on this board combined. I use it to help others in need and to support many works of charity. Let it be known, that I say this because you obviously think that only Atheists have intellect. Not so. Your opium of unbelief has played you for a fool. For the fool has said in his heart there is no God.

                  I will pray for you all just as brother Ray Comfort is doing. I do hope that exposure to the light of Christ will cause at least some on this board to humbly accept the truth that we are all sinners, but even while in such a state Christ died for us, Rom. 5:8

                • Isaac

                  Gotta hate religious indoctrination. It makes idiots out of what were probably decent, logical individuals.

                • Mike H

                  I once was lost and without God in this world. Under no one else’s tutelage or persuasion I fell on my knees and stated Lord if you are real please come into my life and change me. At that moment I thought I was going to float into heaven itself. I felt so light and completely free of any burden and was at total peace. It was then I began to read the Bible. Intuitively I knew there was a God and Creator. I learned more about him after I read the Scripture. Call it subjective if you may, because it is, but nonetheless, it happened. Since the Holy Spirit came into my life I have never been the same. Just as Jesus promised. He can take your monstrous fears away as well Isaac.

                • Isaac

                  That is pretty funny, you trying to be condescending in a backwards manner, considering you use that one book as your compass to morality. Also, your personal anecdote, if it is even true, means nothing to me, as it is only a description of your rather boring experience. I have a feeling the “monstrous fear” you speak of is only a projection of your own, for I have none.

                • Mike H

                  Thats what these guys said until they were in their dying breath:

                  Published in the Ft. Lauderdale,
                  Florida ‘News and Sun Sentinel’ newspaper . 1968. :

                  Verbatim quotes by famous Atheists on their deathbeds —
                  1. Sir Walter Scott : ” Now i know there is a heaven”
                  2. Taleran (french) :” I am suffering the pangs of the damned”
                  3. Adams : (tore his hair out as he repeatedly said ):” Oh Christ, oh, Christ, Oh Christ….”
                  4. Voltaire :” I die abandoned by God and man” (the nurse by his bedside said that she would never watch another atheist die as long as she lived because it was too horrific for her)
                  5. Vollney kept screaming out :” My God my God, my God….” till he died
                  6. Meravue :” Give me opium that i may not think of eternity”
                  7. Brown :” Devils are in the room dragging my soul to hell”
                  8. Newport :” Millions and millions of years will bring me no closer to the end of my torments. O, the insufferable pains of hell, forever and forever”.

                  ******
                  But just remember, Hope is found in Jesus the Lord! John 3:16

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

                  “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’” Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

                  Yeap, sounds just lovely.

                • Mike H

                  Love that passage. It actually quoted in my new book coming out just before Christmas. The sword Jesus talks about and the division He speaks of is what is happening between atheists and Christians today. He is not speaking of a sword as in killing, but the fact that some family members will disregard others who are Christians just like they do on this board. Those that are Christs will run to Him just as the Apostles when He called them while others will rebel. This division was shown in the crucifixion by those who hated Him. His winnowing fork is at work even as we speak. Separating true believers from the unbelievers. It would be nice if everyone would listen to Him then their would be no need of the separation of the wheat from the chaff. But by our actions and beliefs we prove which side we are on. Will catch up later, on my way to… you guessed it Bible study.
                  I will be praying for you all with the group.

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

                  Uh, no, it says swords and hating people. You can interpret it out of existence, but when you torture and twist words to mean what they don’t actually say, it usually means you’re rationalizing something pretty awful.

                  Atheists aren’t dividing Christians, nor are we unable to live in a society with them. As a rule, we don’t cut off our Christian (or other religious, thanks for ignoring all the other religions out there) family or friends. We might call them out on some of the offensive bullshit they say, but we usually give them far more benefit of the doubt than they give us. Your interpretation, aside from ignoring the plain text of the passage, also doesn’t make any actual sense.

                • Mike H

                  Yes it actually does make sense. I am not being sarcastic or insensitive and condescending, so bear with me. I will explain. To correctly interpret the passage we need to ask, “Why would Jesus say such a thing, when He clearly indicated that His Kingdom was not of this world? If it were His disciples would fight for Him, Jn. 18:34-36. Also when Jesus was being arrested to be brought to trial just before His crucifixion, Peter did pull a sword and Jesus rebuked him for it. He stated, Matthew 26:52-53 (NKJV) But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in
                  its place, for all who take the sword will perish
                  by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He
                  will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?

                  That said, if Jesus did not promote using the sword, as in cold steel, why would He state that He came to bring a sword? Heb 4:12, “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and
                  of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.

                  Also… “Revelation 1:12-18 (NKJV)
                  1:12
                  Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13
                  and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine
                  brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword,and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. 17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.”

                  There are other references, but note in these two the use of the sword. It was His Word. The Words from His mouth. Proper exegesis would teach He was speaking about how His teachings would bring division in families. But if one loved family more than God, than His teachings would not bring the division because they would not be adhered to. So He uses the strong word “Hate” to emphasize how important it is to put the Lord God first, just as the first commandment teaches. Jesus loved families and He often met with and had feasts with them. But to be devoted to Him meant to be willing to forsake all and even do this if need be. That is a strong commitment, but if need be, like Peter, like Paul I too am willing to die for my Lord.

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

                  You cited Revelations. Your argument is invalid. Revelations is a thinly veiled political screed against Roman policy. Read as prophecy, it makes less than zero sense.

                  Also, loving god(s) more than one’s family is a truly horrific thing to advocate and can only lead to divisions within that family.

                • Mike H

                  I will disagree with you on John the Jewish Apostle’s Revelation. Ephesians 6:17 the Word of God is the sword of the Spirit. Loving God does indeed cause divisions in family. I see it happen all the time. Unfortunately this sometimes occurs for the wrong reasons.

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

                  Yes, but causing divisions in the family is not a good thing. If loving gods causes division in the family, and divisions in the family are not good, then loving god is not good either. That’s especially true when gods don’t actually exist, so one is placing one’s imaginary friend over relationships with real people.

                • Mike H

                  No one mentioned gods. I worship one God, the only true God. Deuteronomy 6:4-9 (Sh’ma)

                  6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. 6 “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

                  Or if you prefer:

                  Deuteronomy 6:4-9
                  6:4
                  שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהוָ֥ה אֶלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה׀ אֶחָֽד׃
                  5 וְאָ֣הַבְתָּ֔ אֵ֖ת יְהוָ֣ה אֶלֹהֶ֑יךָ
                  בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ֥ וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁךָ֖ וּבְכָל־מְאֹדֶֽךָ׃ 6 וְהָי֞וּ הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֗לֶּה אֲשֶׁ֨ר אָנֹכִ֧י
                  מְצַוְּךָ֛ הַיּ֖וֹם עַל־לְבָבֶֽךָ׃ 7
                  וְשִׁנַּנְתָּ֣ם לְבָנֶ֔יךָ וְדִבַּרְתָּ֖ בָּ֑ם בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ֤
                  בְּבֵיתֶ֙ךָ֙ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ֣ בַדֶּ֔רֶךְ וּֽבְשָׁכְבְּךָ֖ וּבְקוּמֶֽךָ׃ 8 וּקְשַׁרְתָּ֥ם לְא֖וֹת עַל־יָדֶ֑ךָ וְהָי֥וּ
                  לְטֹטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֥ין עֵינֶֽיךָ׃ 9
                  וּכְתַבְתָּ֛ם עַל־מְזוּזֹ֥ת בֵּיתֶ֖ךָ וּבִשְׁעָרֶֽיךָ׃ ס

                  “Sh’ma, Yisra’el! Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad [Hear, Isra'el! Adonai our God, Adonai is one]; and you are to love Adonai your God with all your heart, all your being and all your resources. These words, which I am ordering you today, are to be on your heart; and you are to teach them carefully to your children. You are to talk about them when you sit at home, when you are traveling on the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them on your hand as a sign, put them at the front of a headband around your forehead, and write them on the door-frames of your house and on your gates.
                  (Deut. 6:4-9)

                  Because I love God, I love my family more than a natural love because God induces this love within me by the Holy Spirit. If division occurs because of love for God and thus for family then some in family do not love God or they would love family also. Ask your Rabbi

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

                  Yes, I know the Hebrew, thanks. Grew up Jewish, can still recite it in my sleep. You forgot the second line- Baruch shem k’vod malchuto leolam va’ed (May He reign forever and ever), said in a whisper before launching into the V’ahavta.

                  I will also point out that you fail, hard, at worshiping that god if you are Christian. Christians worship some weird trinitarian god with three aspects, and since you were quoting Paul earlier, I presume you worship that set. Jesus and Holy Spirit are not Jewish deities, but they are Christian ones. If you’re actually Jewish, then this paragraph obviously doesn’t apply. Messianic Jews don’t count, btw; a huge part of Judaism is rejection of false messiahs, and Jesus was a false messiah to Jews. You can be an atheist Jew, but you can’t be a Christian Jew. Sorry.

                  You are also completely eliding my point. Loving a God or gods can cause division within families (not a good thing). Thus, loving a God or gods is not always a good thing. I love my family greatly, and I have no love for imaginary sky wizards at all. Since loving God(s) can cause division and is not necessary for loving family, isn’t it a net bad thing?

                • Mike H

                  I am a Christian and i am aware that Jewish people do not believe in Christ. I do considering there were hundreds of prophecies in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) that directly relate to Him. I know many Messianic Jewish congregations and I do have sweet fellowship with them.

                  You stated, “Since loving God(s) can cause division and is not necessary for loving family, isn’t it a net bad thing?” I say no it is not. Because there is one love that is natural and another that transcends and compliments it. Many (Not all) Atheists deny this because they do not want others to believe there is a morality inherent in mankind because they cannot explain why it is there. This natural love is a deep love or at least could be and should be. But when I look at myself as a sinful person and realize that God provided for the forgiveness of my sin when He did not have to, I am drawn all the more to Him and He leads me to love in a deeper way than natural love. So I love all of my family and inlaws and I do not detract from them whether they are believers or not. It is they who detract because of my love for God. The things of earth are temporary but the things of heaven are eternal.

                  By the way I pray for and support the Jewish people in all ways possible. I know that God holds them dear and one day, as Zechariah states in referring to His return,”and I will pour out on the house of David and on those living in Yerushalayim a spirit of grace and prayer; and they will look to me, whom they pierced.” They will mourn for him as one mourns for an only son; they will be in bitterness on his behalf like the bitterness for a firstborn son. (Zech. 12:10)

                  The Trinity is not 3 god’s but One God in three persons or essence. God the Father (Adonai), God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit.

                  When God created Adam he said, “let US make man in our own image.” At Babel He said, “Come Let US go down.” In Gen. 3:22, He said, “Man has become like one of US…” When God commissioned Isaiah the prophet He said, “Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: “Whom shall I send, And who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.” Isaiah 6:8

                  The One God in plurality is taught in the OT. I am not here to knock what you believe in any way. All people have to make choices. I have made mine and you have made yours. But I will say this whether you will read it or not. Mankind could not save themselves from sin, so God became like us to represent us. He was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. Because of this He can relate to our weaknesses and provides grace to help in our time of need. God was sinless and was hung upon a cross by both Jew and Gentile. The law states cursed is he who hangs on a tree. God took the curse for our sin and buried it in the tomb then rose from the dead to provide eternal life for all who will believe. He is seated in heaven as we speak making intercession for all the saints who believe and He will one day return and set up His kingdom in Israel. At that time all Israel will be saved and as Zechariah states, Adonai-Tzva’ot says, ‘When that time comes, ten men will take hold — speaking all the languages of the nations — will grab hold of the cloak of a Jew and say, “We want to go with you, because we have heard that God is with you.” ‘ ”
                  (Zech 8:23)
                  It is that day that I look for. This earth is not my home. I hope that you will at least consider what God has done for you through Jesus the Messiah.

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

                  1) There are no prophecies in the OT that reference Jesus. The people who wrote the NT had access to those prophecies and wrote in stories that cherry-picked verses and also half-assed birth stories to cram it into sorta kinda maybeish fitting, but don’t match any prophecies as a whole. Also, Christians put the books out of order, making a false narrative of the OT. Additionally, that sort of prophecy is really useless; if I say that in one year I’m going to move to China, and then a year later I do, am I a prophet? Not so much, no.

                  2) Humans do have innate morality. It’s called empathy. It evolved because humans (or proto-humans) who could work in groups were more likely to survive and have surviving offspring than people who couldn’t. Selfishness also evolved, and the whole point of studying ethics is to resolve some of the inevitable tension between these two basic drives. Of course, it’s a lot more complicated than that, with cultural norms also playing a big part, but in the end it all comes down to empathy. We don’t need a god for that, just good old-fashioned evolution.

                  3) You’re not a sinful person. You’re not a bad person. You don’t need to be forgiven for existing or making mistakes. The people you hurt (and everyone will do that), you apologize to and try to fix it. Substitutionary forgiveness is incredibly immoral; I can’t forgive you the harm you do Sally. Only Sally can do that. That sort of bullshit is one reason I reject Christianity; it brainwashes you into thinking you’re evil and then sells you the cure, but it doesn’t even force you to actually fix your mistakes or learn from them!

                  4) Heaven isn’t real. There’s no evidence for it. It’s a nice idea, I suppose, but I’d rather just live a good life here on Earth instead of hoping for magical-fairy-land after I die.

                  5) Christians read the story of Eden as a Fall of Man story. Jews read it as a coming-of-age story. The garden is our childhood- blissful ignorance, all our needs taken care of, amorality, etc. We grow up, though. We learn things (eat from the Tree of Knowledge), gain ethics and morals, and learn that life isn’t all good and beautiful. We get kicked out of the garden into the adult world, full of thorns and painful childbirth and paying taxes and all the shitty things that go with being an adult. And the angel with the fiery sword? That just shows that we can never go back. No matter how much we might yearn for the blissful ignorance of childhood, we can’t ever go back. It’s a freaking metaphor. And if there’s no literal fall, there’s no sin, there’s no need for forgiveness, and thus there’s no need for Jesus to ever get temporarily killed.

                  6) The God in the OT is part of a transition of the early Israelites from polytheism to monotheism. El is one of the gods in pantheon that makes humans and everything. He later gets conflated with and incorporated into the Adonai single deity, but the plural form is a vestige of the older beliefs.

                  7) Jesus, if he existed at all (it is a matter of significant debate among historians), died because the Romans weren’t fond of large influxes of people into Jerusalem during Passover. There’d been riots in previous years. They hoped if they killed this cult leader, they could prevent riots from breaking out. It wouldn’t be the first or last time the Romans did that to wandering charismatic “messiahs” during that time period.

                  So, to summarize: prophecies don’t talk about Jesus, empathy is evolved innate human morality, sin isn’t real, Heaven isn’t real, Eden is a metaphorical story, early Israelites were still transitioning from polytheism, and Jesus wasn’t special if he existed at all.

                • Mike H

                  Obviously you are not an Orthodox Jew. Also, your theories are nothing more than regurgitated teaching from atheists I have read for years. But thanks for taking the time to post them. I believe you are sincere in trying to keep people away from God. But no dice here. Garbage in Garbage out. I am not accusing you in anyway of being a bad person its just you can tell where and what you have been reading

                  My salvation came because the Holy Spirit drew me to the Father in heaven and opened my eyes. I was not raised in church and neither was I witnessed to by other believers. The only time I ever went to church was as a young child and that on my own. I was drawn to the church as far back as I remember but never came to a saving knowledge of Christ until around age 19. It was after I prayed and was filled and baptized by the spirit of God that I began to read and study the Scripture. It was also afterwards that I enrolled in a Christian University and went to Seminary for some more training. Just like the Apostle Paul was struck blind for 3 days unexpectedly so Christ struck me in the heart the same way. Your prescriptions of the worlds way of viewing things do not persuade me even one iota. As a matter of fact they are so humanistic that they are like Solomon’s “Grasping for the wind.” They are vile, empty, and futile. In the end they will gain nothing. Like the rich man who had all in his earthly life but found himself in Sheol. He asked if one could be sent to warn his 5 brothers about the terrible place he found himself in. All that was told him was “…’They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’ ” (Luke 16:29-31)

                  I will however pray for your salvation. Who knows, maybe the Holy Spirit will one day illuminate you to the truth. I will also pray that God reveals Himself to you but only in the way that you will know it is Him.

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

                  Please, please don’t. I find it incredibly creepy when people pray to their god to mind-control me, even if I know it won’t have any effect.

                  I’m not really trying to persuade you that you’re wrong. You had a personal spiritual experience, fine, whatever. I know enough about how brains work to know that it was a brain-glitch, but you’ve given it supernatural meaning. What I find incredibly disturbing is that you think your personal experience, which cannot be tested nor replicated, is persuasive at all to the outside observer.

                  And no, I was never Orthodox. As far as I know, they don’t believe in sin and the fall of man either, though … my sister has become Orthodox, and she certainly hasn’t brought it up. You called me vile, empty, and futile- all I ever called you was wrong. You are trying very hard to insult and belittle me and you don’t even realize it.

                • Mike H

                  Please forgive me. That was unintended. I am enjoying speaking with you and do not want you to think that I enjoy belittlement. I certainly do not. When others hurt I feel their pain. I was talking about the teachings that serve to hinder people but not you in any way. I know you were not trying to persuade me I just find that when things like that are promoted on any site it is not as liberating as atheists may think. What I have found is that misery loves company. And often when people join in to a conversation such as that on an atheist, humanist, or evolutionist site they do so to dispel doubts and or fears. But in most cases it only serves to soothe them temporarily. Just like a bully who knows he is wrong will gather others on his side in heckling will soothe him in public but in private he is miserable. I have counseled with enough people in my 30 years of ministry, believers and unbelievers, to know that trying to desensitize people from the spiritual convictions they have only makes things worse. I have seen the confused go to being so confused when confronted by humanism that they become very hedonistic even to the point of hurting the families who have tried to support them. I have also spoken at many funerals to unbelieving households and have been asked to bring a message of comfort and hope by atheists. That is oxymoronic. It seems when death knocks people really do not want to think they will never see their loved ones again. But the true atheist or evolutionist can only say they are dead and gone and you will never see them again. But deep down inside every person needs hope. The scripture gives comfort and hope. The Atheist finds hope in not believing. Again, please accept my apologies for stating things in a harsh way.

                  I have not prayed for you in the way you may think, but rather that God would see fit to show himself to you in some providential way. I pray this for many people.

                • Artboy

                  http://godbegone.blogspot.ca/2009/02/top-10-arguments-against-evolution-and.html

                  Saw this. Although I’m not an atheist, I detest the way certain Christians deny scientific evidence.

                • Isaac

                  So you won’t be doing anything, good to know.

                • Isaac

                  So you try to appeal to what you assume must be my overwhelming fear of death because I do not believe in god, and therefore must have no hope. The only thing that sucks about dying is I won’t be there to experience whatever it is that will happen after I’m gone. Even that is not a big issue for me. Also, those quotes you mention mean literally nothing, as some of them are outright lies or misattributed and again, would be personal anecdotes and only proof that people are afraid of the wrong things.

                  It would seem that one of the reasons why you came to that conclusion is because the book that you hold in such high regard told you to, not because you used logic and/or rationality to come to your own answers.

                • Mike H

                  No it was not the Bible. I had not read the Bible to that extent before I became a believer. I saw a world of hate and disregard for life. Using simple logic, I deduced there had to be an opposite and if I dd not find it I would be just as guilty as those I witnessed who lived without care of others. I may not have purposely hurt others but by not saying anything I was just as guilty. I felt their hurt. So I prayed, Lord if You are real…, note I prefaced my prayer with “If” because I had read all the evo stuff and was just not sure. I read the Scripture in its entirety 4 times in 3 moths afterwards. That is how powerfully my life was touched. Again I know that is subjective. But it is where I started. Just being honest. DId I fear death. Yes, I think we all do to one extent or another. I no longer do now. Even the most hardened atheist feared death at one time. The problem is they are gambling and basing it on human logic that rejects the supernatural.

                • K. C. Sunbeam

                  People like cipher who replace intelligent discussions with angry rants make other atheists look bad.
                  For a more thorough explanation of Creationism and other issues, minus Bible literalism, eternal Hell, and other things which are not necessary for Christians to believe, see my website http://shockedbytruth.jimdo.com
                  Thanks

          • Isaac

            You cannot use your book, apparently the only one christians are allowed to, as evidence of your claims. Evolution, as do many other fields, have many books and practicing scientists who could, if asked, literally show you the evidence and how they came to it. It would take some time, and willingness on your part to do so, but it could be done.

            Your scriptures are nothing but lies and misanthropy paraded around as the ultimate answer to all of your so called questions. If you cannot, or will not, apply the same metric by which you pretend you can question something you do not understand, to your so called holy book, then you should keep your ignorance and delusion to yourself.

            • Mike H

              Lies? Your killing me. That is all you can come up with? Your basing your faith in evolution on unprovable theories and assumptions. It appointed for all men to die then the judgment. Can you take the challenge below?

              A brother shared the following:

              First, the Bible is not just one single book. This is a more common misconception than many people realize, especiallywith people who do not come from a Judeo-Christian background. Rather than being a single book, the Bible is actually a collection of 66 books, which is called the canon of scriptures. These 66 books contain a
              variety of genres: history, poetry, prophecy, wisdom literature, letters, and apocalyptic just to name a few.

              Second, these 66 books were written by 40 different authors. These authors came from a variety of backgrounds: shepherds, fishermen, doctors, kings, prophets, and others. And most of these authors never knew one another personally.

              Third, these 66 books were written over a period of 1500 years. Yet again, this is another reminder that many of
              these authors never knew or collaborated with one another in writing these books.

              Fourth, the 66 books of the Bible were written in 3 different languages. In the Bible we have books that were
              written in the ancient languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic; a reflection of the historical and cultural circumstances in which each of these books were written.

              And finally, these 66 books were written on 3 different continents: Africa, Asia, and Europe. Once again, this is a
              testament to the varied historical and cultural circumstances of God’s people.

              Think about the above realities: 66 books,
              written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, on 3 different continents. What’s more, this collection of books shares a common storyline- the creation, fall, and redemption of God’s people; a common theme- God’s universal love for all of humanity;
              and a common message- salvation is available to all who repent of their sins and commit to following God with all of their heart, soul, mind and strength. In addition to sharing these commonalities, these 66 books
              contain no historical errors or contradictions. God’s word truly is an amazing collection of writings!

              After I had shared the above facts with this student, I offered him the following challenge: I said to him, “If you
              do not believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, if you do not believe that the Bible is of a supernatural origin, than I challenge you to a test.” I said to the student, “I challenge you to go to any library in the world, you can choose any library you like, and find 66 books which match the characteristics of the 66 books in the Bible. You must choose 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, written on 3 different continents. However, they must share a common storyline, a common theme, and a common
              message, with no historical errors or contradictions.” I went on to say, “If you can produce such a collection of books, I will admit that the Bible is not the inspired word of God.” The student’s reply was almost instantaneous, he emphatically stated, “But that’s impossible!”

              “But that’s impossible!” It truly is impossible, for any collection of human writings. However, the Bible passes this test. The Bible contains 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, on 3 different continents, with no historical errors or contradictions. The entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, bears the mark of Divine inspiration.

              • Isaac

                The last paragraph reinforces my point that you cannot, and should not, use your so called holy book as an example of anything other the ability of our species to delude ourselves. Many of the stories in that book are plagiarized from other belief systems some of which, in turn, were also copied from even older beliefs.

                Almost none of its so called historical context can be verified by outside sources. There are a number of scholars who are convinced that many of the authors, are not who they are said to be.

                The contradictions and hypocrisy evident throughout the book, should be more than enough evidence to, at the very least, severely doubt its veracity, if not write it off completely.

                • Mike H

                  Impossible huh? So you say. I have been studying near eastern myth and archaeology for about 30 years. What you say is incorrect. I would like for you to prove even one instance. Be careful though, we could go on for weeks.

                • Isaac

                  Why would I have to prove or even point you to any of it, when there is more than enough material on the subject available both on the internet and your local library. Also, I cannot believe someone who uses the so called holy bible as the truth to be honest about any aspect of their life.

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

                Uh, actually, the vast majority of the Old Testament other than the Pentateuch was written by one guy. One. He put it in separate books for readability, but it’s all one long historical narrative from a priestly perspective. You Christians chop it up and mis-order it, but that’s not really my problem.

                • Mike H

                  Sorry the Documentary Hypothesis was disproven long ago. Where you been?

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

                  You got cites for that? I have my scholarly books (not many, granted, but a few) that back it right up. Not to mention the authority of my ex-rabbi; while he could very much be wrong, at least I have confidence in his ability to evaluate the literature out there.

                • Mike H

                  There are so many problems with it that most Seminaries and post Graduate schools won’t even touch it. This document will give you an honest overview of what has been taught in its defense including just what it stands for. Then it tackles all of the problems it represents. Please read it all to get an honest critique.

                  http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/sbjt/sbjt_2001fallcomplete.pdf

    • islandbrewer

      I kind of said this in the other post, but because we have really awesome examples of transitions in human evolution, I’d reverse the vagary of the “kind” definition and propose:

      “According to you, Ray, the evolution of a human from a chimp (or humans and chimps from a common ancestor) isn’t “macroevolution*,” because humans and chimps are both “Hominid-kind.” And see if he can rebut it without resorting to bible verses.

      *”Macroevolution” as creationists use it, because they’re using the term wrong.

    • Timmah

      This is why I can’t be sure if Comfort is a con man living off people who choose to be ignorant, or is willfuly ignorant himself.
      It is not hard to understand. Evolution to the scale of a living animal looking very little like its ansestor takes millions of years. (IE Dinosaur to a bird) How long have we had a decent understanding of science and accurate record keeping? A laughably short time in the scale of things. Mankind will need to live to Dr Who levels in order to have a record of observable change in living animals.
      What Ray wants is someone to present some sort of hybrid monster like you’d see on a late night SyFy channel movie. Which of coruse nobody who understand evolution claims is what happens. With as many times as its been explained to him, again the only real choises are con man or willfuly ignorant.

    • Søren Kongstad

      And she addressed his point in the video. We see new species evolve in realtime, but larger phenotypical changes will take longer time, which is evidenced in the fossil record, through comparative anatomy, and DNA evidence.

      If by kind he means ohyla, then yes we do not see that happening, by definition everything descendant of a phylum, is in that phylum, so we won’t see a squid evolving to a new phylum, but it might, in time, evolve into something that bears little resemblance to modern squid, but it’ll still be a mollusc.

    • phantomreader42

      The questions Ray claims cannot be answered are all either meaningless or have been answered repeatedly, by the very people he claims could not answer them. He just refuses to admit it. Ray Comfort is a lying sack of shit, just as all creationists must be. There is no way to defend creationism without constant, shameless lying.

  • JET

    Ask him anything you like, let him blather on, and then edit his response down to: “I am… living proof… that some… human beings… are in fact… less intelligent… than a banana.”

    • tsara

      And that’s the second time I’ve had to clean coffee off my computer screen today.

  • JA

    I tried watching Comfort’s video, but the stupid made my head hurt. I’m amazed I made it 11 minutes into it, and now I’ve probably suffered permanent brain damage.

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    how foolish to set up the choices as Evolution or God. Evolution is provable. God is not. That’s not in any way a fair fight. Is Comfort really this stupid?

  • RuBall

    This guy isn’t worth anyone’s time or attention. Any attention from evolutionists, atheists, scientists, etc just puffs him up with validation. And he is invalid to me.

  • Theory_of_I

    Ask him to explain why he accepts the biblical declaration that man in his present form was made of dirt. Ask why an omnipotent God had to make dirt first, and how that makes more sense than any scientific evidence.

    Ask if man is God’s most cherished creation, and if God gave man dominion over all other species of life, why gut microbes can exist and survive nicely independent of man, but man cannot survive without parasitic gut microbes. Isn’t that direct evidence that bacteria are God’s chosen species?

    Ask if he believes God is omniscient.
    An omniscient god knows perfectly all that can be known. In other words,
    god is defined and circumscribed by what it perfectly knows. It can never
    know more or less than ‘all’ and cannot change what it knows. All of
    knowledge perfectly and absolutely defines all that is and all that can or
    will be.

    Therefore, since god already possesses all of knowledge, there can be no
    alternative, everything possible is already known and by definition pre-determined. Choice is impossible and there can be no free will.

    Ask if he claims god is omnipotent, meaning god is able to do anything
    without limit and at will. Then ask, since everything is already known,
    pre-determined and absolute, why this is not a meaningless construct.

    There can be no choices, no changes, no alternatives to what is all of knowledge and therefore absolute. If god is truly omniscient then he cannot
    discover or create knowledge he does not already possess and is accordingly
    not omnipotent.

    Alternately, if the sum of all knowledge can be expanded or altered at
    will, then accordingly god is not omniscient.

    Ask him if he believes god is perfect.
    If so, in the case of god being perfect, perfection must be defined as the unqualified, absolute perfect state, i.e.: one that cannot be modified in any way; thus something is either perfect or not perfect, and can never be more perfect or less perfect.

    Because the attributes of absence, anticipation, need and desire and the act of creating anything are necessarily non-existent in an absolutely complete, perfect state of being, a perfect god can lack nothing whatsoever. Therefore the need or desire to create anything cannot emerge from within that already perfect state–it is a self-evident contradiction in terms.

    By definition an eternal, infinitely perfect god pre-exists everything.
    Only a non-material god could pre-exist the material universe.
    Therefore your perfect non-material god could not need nor desire to create a material universe or any component thereof, including humans.

    A material universe exists, which causes an ineluctable conflict–since a
    material universe does exist, it can only be completely independent of a
    perfect god, and makes the existence of such a god totally irrelevant.

    A perfect god must be complete, singular, unique, infinite and eternal, solely constituting all that is. Therefore a perfect god can neither lack nor desire love, worship, devotion, or obeisance from anyone or anything at all.

    It is self-evident that if god lacks anything it is then definitively
    imperfect.

    If any attribute of god is imperfect then none of the attributes of
    god can be considered otherwise. An imperfect god–even if one existed–is irrelevant.

    If he disagrees, ask by what authority would any apologetic modification, manipulation or re-definition of a perfect god’s attributes be acceptable?

    None of these are new questions but they can be useful in keeping Comfort focused on the burden of proof.

  • Timmah

    There is only one queston to ask Ray “Are you a con man, or willfuly ignorant?” As I said below, it is one or the other. I am opposed to giving him press either way.

  • Esquilax

    My question to Ray? “Since there are numerous recorded instances of evolution being explained to you in detail, how do you explain your continued misrepresentation of the theory after these incidents? Are you simply terrible at retaining information, or are you willfully distorting the facts to suit an agenda?”

    It’s something I’ve wanted him to answer for some time, though I don’t have high hopes that he actually will…

  • Guest

    Ask him if he saw who wrote the bible.

  • Guest

    Ask him where in the bible it says the world is 6,000 years old. Ask him to cite you chapter and verse.
    Ask him why all the dinosaurs died in the flood? Were they especially sinful? If he says the levels of oxygen changed after the flood, ask him why small dinosaurs like
    Compsognathus also died? Ask him why, if the flood story is literally true, can’t we find genetic bottlenecks in all populations of land animals?

    Ask him the precise mechanism by which God transformed dust into humans.

  • Lagerbaer

    Ray, clearly you realize that your shoddy editing of scientists’ contributions to your video counts as “bearing false witness”. How do your reconcile that with your holier-than-thou attitude?

  • Peter Nonacs

    Hi Ray,

    A couple of questions you never answered fully from our previous interviews.

    1. You believe in Noah’s flood. All the animals were on the ark, but what about the plants? How did they all survive for months under tons of water? Then how did all the plants disperse to all the right places? Example, Cacti to North American deserts, but euphorbs to African ones?

    2. Still on the flood, how did dodo’s get to an island in the middle of the Indian Ocean (and nowhere else)?

    3. Still on the flood. Was the water fresh or salt or brackish? How come all the fish that had to live in “wrong” type of water didn’t die?

    4. You told me that all vestigial organs and deleterious recessive mutations in populations are degenerations that happened after being kicked out from Eden. Care to elaborate on that one? How come we do not see such mutations happening and accumulating in populations at the rate that would explain their appearance and diversity in 6000 years?

    5. Humans (and all organisms) have gone through 2 huge biblical bottlenecks: the creation and then the flood. To get to the levels of genetic diversity we see in humans and many, many other species, both advantageous and deleterious mutations must be happening at enormously high rates and then spreading through populations at rates far faster than predicted by natural selection. Please elaborate.

    6. If canines and felines are baramins, then again they must be evolving very rapidly and continually (i.e., to get to both a kitty cat and a tiger from a common baramin ancestor). How come we cannot observe any ongoing evolution of baramins??? E.g., dingoes introduced to Australia have not evolved into wolves, foxes, coyotes, etc, even though all these ecological niches are open. They are still just dingoes.

    Sincerely,

    Peter Nonacs (UCLA)

    • K. C. Sunbeam

      Peter,
      I disagree with Ray on Bible literalism. Therefore, your questions are irrelevant to a Creationist like myself.
      But Ray is right in that you can’t give ONE example of one kind changing into another; nobody can.
      What Ray is asking for is SIMPLE.

      • Peter Nonacs

        First, we need to define what “kind” is. I’m quite willing to go with the following: “An evolutionary change in morphology, physiology, or behavior that is so large and fundamental that it may take thousands of generations to appear”. Therefore, any change in “kinds” will always be beyond the range of direct observation. Thus, if the only evidence for evolution you are willing to accept is an observed change in kinds, it means that evolution is untestable. Not that evolution is false – just that we have no way of either showing that it can happen, or showing that it cannot happen. Obviously concluding that the history of life on Earth is something “nobody can” ever understand is not what a scientist like myself is going to willingly accept. I would really, really like to know if evolution is possible to be true! So instead, we ask specific questions along the lines of “If evolution is indeed capable of producing new ‘kinds’, what would be the results in terms of the fossils we find, where we find fossils, the distribution of animals and plants throughout the planet, the differences in plants and animals across mainland versus oceanic islands, the relationships across organisms as might be evidenced in their DNA, the evidence for selection in genomes, the distributions of non-functional genes and fossil viruses, and of course, the natural selection resulting in new adaptions to changing environments.” For all of these, if it is truly the case that one ‘kind’ can never evolve into another, then we should see very different things than if kinds can and have changed and appeared. And the reason that I am an evolutionary biologist is that the patterns we see in nature are overwhelmingly consistent with evolutionary predictions. There is nothing either in the fossil record, genetic data, or population biology of species that suggests that there are hard boundaries of distinct and permanent “kinds”. Ray’s only argument then becomes that evolution does not happen fast enough for his liking. (And, on a separate note, since you reject literalism, Ray would also probably conclude that you are not a true Christian.)

      • Spuddie

        Short of theistic evolution (God uses evolution), there is no form of Creationism which isn’t glossed over self-deception. Nobody needs to give an example of one kind changing into another because there is no definition of “kind” and its not how evolution works. What Ray is doing is arguing a strawman. Displaying his ignorance and dishonesty.

        Creationism is all about being dishonest about religious belief. Its about pretending faith is unnecessary because alleged evidence exists to that is convincing enough to make one conclude the existence God.

  • spyPlus

    Ask Ray why the title of his movie is God vs. Evolution and not Creationism vs. Evolution? there are a lot of Christian Believers that also believe in Evolution (i.e. take Genesis as a metaphor or does he consider these people not true Christians?.)

    • R2D3

      Sure, there’s lots of Christians who also believe in evolution eg. Ken Miller, Hugh Ross, etc. So what?

      Phillip Johnson says naturalists define words like “evolution” and “science” in such a way that naturalism is true by definition. He said in World magazine: “Evolutionary science is based on naturalism and draws philosophical conclusions to that base. That’s why any theistic evolution is inherently superficial. It leads people into naturalistic thinking, and they don’t realize it.” (Nov. 22, 1997, p.13)

      • phantomreader42

        Phillip Johnson is a lying sack of shit. So is Ray Comfort. So are you. So are all creationists. Your idiotic dogma is nothing more than a pack of lies, so you have to lie constantly to prop it up.

  • R2D3

    I wrote to Jaclyn and said in part:

    You said:

    (7:55) “Consider this: If even one fossil–one– were found in the wrong
    geographical strata–if it were found in the wrong place, the entire
    theory would just be blown out of the water. It would be entirely
    disproved by locating one fossil in the wrong place. Evolution could be
    destroyed overnight. It’s so easy to disprove. But no one has been able to
    do it.”

    Testing a theory experimentally is most efficiently done by disproving,
    not proving. Dawkins’ statement in Time Magazine (Aug. 15, 2005) that a
    single hippo or rabbit fossil in Precambrian rock “would blow evolution
    out of the water” underscores the point.

    Although no hippo or rabbit fossil has been found in Precambrian rock,
    microfossils of pollen, spores, angiosperms, gymnosperms, and at least one
    winged insect have been found in Precambrian rock.

    So why haven’t these discoveries blown evolution out of the water?

    The vast majority of biologists believe in evolution, but appeal to the
    majority is a fallacious argument. The majority used to believe in the
    Ptolemaic model of the solar system, spontaneous generation and
    blood-letting, all shown to be inciorrect.

    That’s why scientists look for minority data–data that clearly doesn’t
    fit one theory, but does fit another.Good science is always tentative and
    self-correcting, but this never really happens in the case of evolution.
    Regardless of the data, the idea of evolution as a valid concept is not
    open to debate. Students are allowed to ask “How did evolution occur?” but
    never “Did evolution occur?”

    Check out:

    http://www.trueorigin.org/evomyth02.asp

    How do geologists and paleontologists explain microfossils of pollen,
    spores, angiosperms, gymnosperms, and at least one winged insect, in
    Eocambrian (Upper Precambrian) rock?

    • islandbrewer

      Or, you know, there could be really obvious and more logical explanations for the pollen contamination, which is actually pretty common.

      How do geologists and paleontologists explain microfossils of pollen,
      spores, angiosperms, gymnosperms, and at least one winged insect, in
      Eocambrian (Upper Precambrian) rock?

      http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

      See Creation Claims CC 340 and 341, *yawn*.

      Sorry, I’m sure you got really excited writing that. Points for not mentioning the Grand Canyon or Hakatai Shales, if that’s any consolation.

      Troll harder.

      • R2D3

        Er, what do the reports by Stainforth et. al have to do with Creation Claims CC 340 and 341???

        The claim that one discovery would disprove evolution isn’t true. Evolutionists just change the story.

        For example, see:

        http://creation.com/slow-fish-in-china

        See also:

        http://www.thegrandexperiment.com/

        • Isaac

          People keep using that word “evolutionists” as if it describes a system reliant on blind faith,i.e., religion. Evolution, something you obviously do not want to understand, is based on empirical, testable evidence that anyone with the requisite training can observe for themselves. None of the sites you mention are based on fact, but instead are full of the logical fallacies we unfortunately have come to expect from creationists who seem to have not even a basic understanding of science, or even an ounce of intellectual or moral honesty.

  • hendeeze

    I could have a more reasonable discussion with my dog than banana man

  • Leroy

    After viewing Ray’s youtube post and Jaclyn’s I would like to make a few comments. First of all my opinion is biased as i am a Christian but I consider myself to be fair minded and open to the opinion of other people. I agree that Ray was at times rude and could be annoying and also would not let some of the people he interviewed finish their thought. I think that Jaclyn made some good points as did Ray. This is a very controversial issue and we all think our opinions are correct. I admit as a Christian that I cannot provide absolute, 100% proof for the existence of God no more than anyone can provide absolute, 100% proof that God does not exist. As humans we have to make that decision based on the evidence we have and there is evidence on both sides of this issue. In my mind the more important issue is what to do with Jesus Christ. Did He really exist? Is there any evidence in history of Him? If He did exist what does that mean to me? As stated earlier no one can prove that God exists but if He does not then the joke is on me. I have wasted my life following(not perfectly) the teachings of a fictional character who encouraged me to do good in the world around me and to treat others the way I want to be treated. There are countless examples of weird, strange, judgmental, critical, angry, imperfect people of faith. But there are also some who are actually doing good things like rescuing children from the horrors of human trafficking. So maybe there is a fifty-fifty chance that God exists or maybe it’s 60-40 or 80-20. If He does not exist ok, how much do I risk by believing in nothing but if by some slim chance God does exist and the Bible is true(sounds crazy I know) then I have lost it all.

    • phantomreader42

      Ray Comfort is a known liar. He’s been caught dishonestly editing interviews and outright bearing false witness. Isn’t that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with that? If your ridiculous book of myths is true, why is it that the only way your cult can come up with to defend it is to lie constantly?

      You have not offered any support for a 50% chance of your god’s existence, nor for a 1% chance, nor even for a 0.000000000000000000001% chance. You have not even TRIED to support your claims. If you can’t even be bothered to PRETEND to be interested in backing up your assertions, why should anyone give them any credence? Besides, you have conveniently ignored the millions of gods made up by cults OTHER than yours. You obviously don’t know the first thing about probability, so why should anyone take anything you say about it seriously?

      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.

  • Gregory Mathews

    Please ask him this. Is a persons life without god worthless? If he says yes ask him does that mean that you are for suicide.

  • phantomreader42

    Here’s a question for Ray, though I know he’s too stupid to comprehend it, much less answer it. Where is the evidence FOR creationism? Not attacks on evolution, not feeble attempts to change the subject, not ridiculous lies debunked long before we were born, not citing your precious book of myths as proof that your precious book of myths is true because it says so. Where is anything that even looks like actual evidence that all life on Earth originated from the invisible man in the sky sculpting wads of mud and breathing on them? And that said invisible man in the sky then decided to screw with his creations in some sort of prank involving magic fruit and a talking snake? And later told some old man in the desert to build a boat and fill it with more animals than could possibly fit in it, then slaughtered everything not in said boat with a flood, while somehow magically making it look like all the corpses from that act of genocide were organized in such a way that it looks like millions of years of evolution took place? Where is the evidence for THAT? Oh, that’s right, no creationist could ever DREAM of finding anything that looks like evidence for that, all they can do is masturbate with their bibles and lie through their teeth.

  • Jeffrey_Kramer

    Too late I know, but my suggested question would be: “Have you ever read a book about evolution?”

  • Michael Kimsal

    Couple of questions spring to mind:

    Death before “The Fall”. Was “death” introduced to the world because of Original Sin. Did anything die before Eve sinned? Really? Plant life included in that? Do plants die because Eve sinned, or because death is simply a natural part of ‘life’?

    “observable”: it seems pretty obvious that much of the Old Testament is written well after the fact – Adam was not keeping a diary that we now refer to as “Genesis”, for example – someone wrote it well after it happened. Why is this “non-observed” record correct and accurate but fossil records are not?

    Why is there such demand for massive numbers of fossils to prove something, but we have no fossil record of Noah, Adam, King David, Goliath, Samson or other Old Testament figures? I’d find it hard to believe we could find many fossils from 40,000,000 years ago, but find it a bit troubling that we can’t find the buried bodies of *one* biblical figure. Getting Adam’s DNA might put a lot of issues to rest (and raise new ones) but gosh darn, there’s no body there. From 6000 years ago. Yet you insist that *not* finding millions of fossils spanning millions of years in a form that you can understand immediately indicate evolution is false.

  • justsam52

    I have two points about the questioner and the answers. First, one does not “believe” in evolution. One studies and understands the theory. This is not a “faith-based” area where you are required to “believe”. Religion is what one must believe especially when facts contradict it’s myths. Second, the questioner constantly wants an observable example of evolution. Ask any biologist who has observed many generations of bacteria and viruses and you will “observe” evolution in our lifetime. Let people who want to believe in illiterate bronze-age sheepherders believe in that crap, just don’t let them teach in our science class. As the old joke goes, if you won’t teach in my science class, I won’t think in your church. Peace, Just Sam

  • Guest

    Just curious… Why so much aggression and hate in many of your comments? For those seeking answers, is this the alternative or more representative of those following this blog… “Friendly Atheist”?

    • Spuddie

      Because dishonest charlatans like Mr. Comfort are involved in trying to undermine science eduction for the rest of us. It is a threat to people who appreciate and cherish learning and science by loudmouth politically connected troglodytes.

      Plus Creationism is pure dishonesty given a religious polish. It has nothing worthy to it.

      If Creationists just kept their fictional nonsense to themselves, nobody would care.

      • Name

        Couldn’t the same be said of guys like Dawkins and others who use public platforms to further promote what they believe to be true?

        • Spuddie

          No, it can’t. You have no idea what you are talking about.

          Sorry, name dropping and false equivalence is just a failure on your part based on ignorance. You don’t know jack about Dawkins or how the worldwide scientific community considers evolution.

          Dawkins supports the honest education of scientific theories accepted in their fields regardless of his personal view of religion and faith.

          Evolution does not require atheism or any pre-existent religious ideas. It does not require one to lie about their religious belief or about scientific efforts. Creationism REQUIRES it.

          Ray Comfort lies about his religious belief and lies about science to get his point across. It is entirely without any redeeming values.

        • DavidMHart

          Using public platforms to promote what you have good evidence to suggest is true is not the same as deliberately distorting and misrepresenting other people’s words and pretending to be unable to understand things that have been explained to you countless times to promote what you believe. Comfort does the latter all the time; Dawkins not so much.

  • http://www.skepticink.com/reasonablyfaithless Reasonably Faithless

    My question would be a request to see the entire uncut footage of the interviews, particularly the ones with the academics.

  • Jeri

    Ask Ray why his god never follows the “Golden Rule” if god is supposed to be a kind and loving god.

    • James

      Because he’s god and he doesn’t have to follow his own rules ;)

    • deanforGod

      Hi Jeri, Thanks for writing. You are missing the main point. Humans are only evil continually and reject and sin against God. We all deserve to go to hell because we all lie, steal, look with lust (adultery of the heart), have hatred or anger (murder of the heart.) If we all got what we deserved, we would all end up in hell.
      Because God is rich in mercy and a loving God, He made a way for us. He sent His Son Jesus, fully God and fully Man, to live a perfect and sinless life, and to die on the cross for our sins. He paid the penalty for our sins. He rose from the dead on the third day and defeated death and sin.
      We have to turn from our sins (repent) and believe (trust in) Christ and His work on the cross for us, and you shall be saved.
      What a loving God.
      Dean
      NeedGod.com

      • Kodie

        You are so pathetic. Your understanding of love is damaged. The universe does not punish us severely and forever for any reason, least of all for being normal. If you believe we all deserve to go to hell for minor things, you are being abused. You call love salvation from hell for the petty misdemeanors of living a normal human existence. Theists don’t know what love is.

        • deanforGod

          Hi Kodie, Thanks for writing!! God perfectly demonstrated what true love is. While Jesus was being sacrificed on the cross for the very sinners that were crucifying him (and all humankind) He prayed, Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.

          Jesus was perfect and sinless. The only one without fault, yet He willingly became a sacrifice for us. He willingly died on the cross for us, so that we might have eternal life.

          He rose from the dead and defeated death and sin so that all who repent and believe shall have eternal life. That is love.

          You also trivialize your sin and trivialize the holiness of God. God is infinitely perfect, holy and righteous. Every sin of ours is an infinite offense to an infinitely holy God. Because God is infinitely good, righteous, holy, He hates sin or evil. And like a good and just judge, He punishes those who are evil according to His standard (the only standard that matters.) Yet He made a way for life through Jesus. That is love.

          Dean

          NeedGod.com

      • Obazervazi

        Euegh. You start wrong and just get wronger.

        Let’s start with this: How do finite wrongs merit infinite punishment? How does it even count as punishment if we never get to better ourselves afterwards.

        Yes, we do all deserve punishment, but we do NOT deserve Hell.

        • deanforGod

          Hi Obazervazi
          Thanks for your question. Our finite sins are against an infinitely good God, so they are an infinite offense. So the punishment is infinite.

          Punishment in hell is not rehabilitation, it is punishment. There is no opportunity for parole for good behavior. Hell is the just punishment for those who have sinned.

          The Bible says though that God is “not willing that any should perish” and that He “desires all men to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth”

          God actually proved His desire to save people when He sent his Son, Jesus, fully God and fully man, to live a perfect life and die on the cross for our sins and be raised from the dead on the third day.

          For all who turn from their sin (repent) and believe (trust) in Jesus shall be saved.

          Dean

          NeedGod.com

          • Obazervazi

            So it’s all about him. So he feels the need to infinitely torture (not punish) anyone who even slightly offends him. So he is only willing to leave people alone when they praise him with their every action.

            How can you call this thing “good”?

            “For all who turn from their sin (repent) and believe (trust) in Jesus shall be saved.”

            …from Jesus. By Jesus. But only if you say you love him.

            • deanforGod

              Hi Obazervazi,

              Yes, it’s all about God and His standard and it’s not about us. That’s the problem, everyone puts themselves on top and not God. God is the creator of the universe and deserves our worship.

              Dean

              • Obazervazi

                I don’t put myself on top; I put other people on top. If I am ever put in a position where I have to choose between helping God and helping humanity, I’ll choose the little guy. Every time.
                And yet, your god would have me burn for my loyalty, the very trait I was named for!

                “Don’t assume that I came here to bring peace on the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.
                The person who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; the person who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.”
                – Jesus Christ, Matthew 10:34-37

                • deanforGod

                  Hi Obazervazi,

                  Yes, I believe you that you choose yourself over God and I would love to go through scripture with you. You are free to quote scripture out of context and then I would be happy to explain the meaning of the passage within the context.

                  The context of Matthew 10:34 is that Jesus is speaking about the divisions that will come, even among family members, over their belief or lack of belief about Him. This is because many who choose to follow Christ are hated even by their family members.

                  Many people hate God.

                  A person who repents of their sin and put their trust in Christ is called to Love God and Love Neighbor. They are called to Love their enemy.

                  Dean

                • Obazervazi

                  “This is because many who choose to follow Christ are hated even by their family members.”

                  Funny, within my entire life experience, I have only ever seen the opposite. Nothing in Christ’s words says that the non-Christians are the cruel ones. Christ’s prophecy was remarkably accurate, but not in any way that reflects well on Him. Furthermore, He does not seem in any way upset by the suffering He knows He will bring.

                  “I believe you that you choose yourself over God”

                  I see two possibilities here:

                  1. You didn’t pay attention to my first sentence.

                  2. You think you can read minds.

                  Let me fill you in on a little secret: If I were the only human in existence, I wouldn’t mind worshiping Him. He has been good to me. He has never demanded any unreasonable sacrifices. I have a great life. But here’s the thing. He is *remarkably* cruel to other people. I have *seen* people unjustly suffer at his hands, and at the hands of his followers. Even the Word of God itself details several instances of inhumane treatment and unnecessary suffering, often solely for the sake of His pride. I cannot worship such a cruel being.

                • Kodie

                  You are told that the more you are hated, the more you are “doing it right”. PAWN!

              • Obazervazi

                “This is because many who choose to follow Christ are hated even by their family members.”

                Funny, within my entire life experience, I have only ever seen the opposite. Nothing in Christ’s words says that the non-Christians are the cruel ones. Christ’s prophecy was remarkably accurate, but not in any way that reflects well on Him. Furthermore, He does not seem in any way upset by the suffering He knows He will bring.

                “I believe you that you choose yourself over God”

                I see two possibilities here:

                1. You didn’t pay attention to my first sentence.

                2. You think you can read minds.

                Let me fill you in on a little secret: If I were the only human in existence, I wouldn’t mind worshiping Him. He has been good to me. He has never demanded any unreasonable sacrifices. I have a great life. But here’s the thing. He is *remarkably* cruel to other people. I have *seen* people unjustly suffer at his hands, and at the hands of his followers. Even the Word of God itself details several instances of inhumane treatment and unnecessary suffering, often solely for the sake of His pride. I cannot worship such a cruel being.

                • deanforGod

                  Hi Obazervazi,

                  “I believe you that you choose yourself over God”

                  I see two possibilities here:

                  1. You didn’t pay attention to my first sentence.

                  2. You think you can read minds.

                  Neither, my statement stands and is drawn directly from your response. You would do what you want to do (which is to put someone else before God) rather than putting God first. So you would choose yourself (or your way) over God’s. And putting God first is not counter to loving your neighbor. But our Creator should come first.

                  with regards to so called christian’s being cruel, of course there are. Many people in the name of God do terrible things. But they are not following God’s word or Jesus teaching which is to love your neighbor (which includes one’s enemies). Jesus would never do those things and imperfect humans are not a reflection on a perfect and loving God.

                • Obazervazi

                  1. If I loved God more than humanity and went out of my way to please him, that would still doing what I wanted to do in that situation. Just because helping one person/deity or another makes one happy doesn’t make the action selfish.

                  2. I should have left out the “and at the hands of his followers.” part. I was talking about the cruelty of God Himself, and that clause drew attention away from my point.

                  There are plenty of instances in the Bible alone of God doing abominable things without any non-”True Christians” being involved, let alone responsible.That is what I was referring to, not “Christians are mean sometimes.”

                • Obazervazi

                  1. If I loved God more than humanity and went out of my way to please him, that would still doing what I wanted to do in that situation. Just because helping one person/deity or another makes one happy doesn’t make the action selfish.

                  2. I should have left out the “and at the hands of his followers.” part. I was talking about the cruelty of God Himself, and that clause drew attention away from my point.

                  There are plenty of instances in the Bible alone of God doing abominable things without any non-”True Christians” being involved, let alone responsible.That is what I was referring to, not “Christians are mean sometimes.”

                  P.S. Disqus seems to keep eating my comments, so I’d recommend we take this very interesting debate elsewhere.

                • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

                  I’ve had the same problem with my comments being eaten. Where would you like to move our discussion? I’d like o address your comments.

                • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

                  It seems to be eating my comments too. This is my third try. Where would you like to take this debate?

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Hi Jeri, Thanks for writing.

        This isn’t your blog. Stop pretending that you are hosting others.

        Also, it’s churlish to advertise your site on someone else’s page without permission.

        • deanforGod

          Hi C.L. It’s actually not my website, but I do like it.

        • deanforGod

          Also, I apparently must not know posting etiquette, but was actually appreciative of people who respond to my posts. Hence the Thanks for writing.

      • Spuddie

        Flagged as inappropriate. Hawking outside websites is tasteless spamish behavior.

  • Joe

    In trying to understand if evolution has logical and scientific support, I watched both videos. Each gave just a nugget of data. Unfortunately the second spent most of her time on name calling and mean attacks which ended up discrediting herself. Istill am open minded to both and will look for evidence

  • Yehoshua

    You were as much a stupid JOKE and IDIOT, as what you claimed Ray Comfort to be! I will be sure to Follow you on Twitter so I can be sure to expose the STUPIDITY of the explanation you gave for Evolution were!

  • deanforGod

    We have all broken God’s law. We have all stolen, lied, looked with lust. We know right from wrong because God has written His law on our conscience. Because God is a just and holy God, he must punish sin (like a just and good judge who punishes a murderer by sending him to prison.) Each of our sins against an infinitely good God is an infinite offense. God’s prison is hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm never dies. The Bible says God is rich in mercy and loving and He made a way for us so that we don’t have to go to hell. He sent His Son, Jesus, fully God and fully man to live a perfect and sinless life and to die on the cross as payment for our sins. On the third day he was resurrected and defeated death and sin. God has two requirements of us. That we repent of our sins (turn from our sins, turn from our worldly ways) and turn towards Christ and that we believe in and put our trust in Christ’s perfect life and sacrificial death on the cross. So please, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.

    • islandbrewer

      Yeah, well, even if all you said were true, I am incapable of believing. In much the same way I am incapable of believing that gravity will suddenly reverse itself and I’ll fall to the ceiling. (Try it! Bet you can’t!)

      We do not choose our beliefs. We believe or we don’t – based on available evidence, sure, but we don’t choose what the evidence makes us believe or not believe.

      In short, you’re saying that your god is going to condemn me for something over which I have no control. That’s a pretty fucking worthless god, wouldn’t you have to agree?

      • deanforGod

        Hi Islandbrewer, Thanks for responding. No, I wouldn’t agree on two accounts. First, we all would have sinned in the garden of Eden and as the human race, we blew it then. So we are being saved from our own sinfulness and God’s wrath upon our sin. Second, the Bible says that you know that God exists, but you suppress that truth because you want to live your life without consequences. So you choose to suppress the truth about God, for since creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
        I also would like to add one other comment. I don’t say any of this to judge or condemn you, but rather to warn you out of compassion.

        • islandbrewer

          Second, the Bible says that you know that God exists, …

          Well, then the bible is wrong. (Oooh! Big surprise there.) I do not know that god exists – in exactly the same way I don’t know that Bigfoot or leprechauns exist. For you to smugly say something like “deep down in your heart, you know He exists” is not merely incredibly presumptuous, arrogant, and unevidenced on your part, but utter and complete bullshit. The christian meme that “atheists know god exists and are angry at him” is merely another blatant demonstration that you know absolutely nothing about atheists.

          Try this on: “Deep down in your heart, you know leprechauns exist.” Tell me, how does that sound to you? Yeah, that’s what it sounds like to me when you talk about god.

          Again, I cannot choose to believe. your god condemns me for something I have no control over.

          … but you suppress that truth because you want to live your life without consequences.

          This always makes me laugh. You can do whatever you want, then repent and say, “I’m sorry Jesus!” and you’re forgiven. That is a consequence-free theology.

          I am utterly and completely aware that every minor act of mine has consequence. In fact, the only thing that survives after I die, is not some eternal soul or magical crap, but my consequences.

          The only (pay attention, this is important), the only thing that survives me is my consequences. How did I affect those around me? What have I taught my children? How have I affected my community? In the words of Horace Mann, “Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.” How have I made my world better?

          I’m not unique. Lots of atheists have the same outlook about making their short lives count on this planet before we cease to exist. Living lives waiting for some magical celestial Disneyland at the end might work great for you, but it’s not for us.

          Life without consequences? Consequences are precisely what I live for.

          • deanforGod

            Christianity is not a life without consequences. Hell is a consequence of our sin. Repenting of your sin and putting your trust in Christ’s work on the cross and His perfect righteousness puts the eternal penalty of our sin on Jesus. A person who has murdered someone still suffers an earthly penalty of serving time in prison, even if from an eternal perspective, they are forgiven because they have repented and put their trust in Christ. Because Jesus is infinitely worth more than the whole universe, the price He paid is sufficient penalty for our sins. So there is still a price for our sins, they were/are just paid by Jesus.

            Atheism is actually a life without individual consequences. All the murderers and rapists who were never caught pay no penalty according to an atheist. Their actions have consequences on others, but they pay no penalty themselves. They just die and become dirt.

            The Bible says that we are all appointed to die once and then the judgment. Perfect justice will be distributed by God on judgment day. Each according to his works. And since we all sin, we all fall short of God’s perfect standard. Only those who put their trust in Christ, His perfect life and resurrection, and the penalty He paid for our sins on the cross will see eternal life in heaven. The rest will suffer the consequences of their sins, which is eternal torment in hell.

            My responsibility in this life is to Love God and Love my neighbor. I don’t do this out of obligation but love for God. To live my life in such a way that glorifies God. Part of that responsibility is to follow His commands to preach Christ to those who do not believe. To warn them of the eternal consequences. That is true love to my neighbor.
            I would hardly say that following the Bible is a life without consequences.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          Another example of your lying about people trying to converse with you.

          I should have read your other posts before treating you as if you were an honest but merely ignorant person.

          • deanforGod

            Hi C.L. I hope you will at least consider answering my response above regarding how the Universe came into existence.

            Dean
            For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.

    • deanforGod

      Thanks to the five people who read this and voted down. I appreciate you taking the time to read this post.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Awww, poor lying pissums. Don’t worry, you can still masturbate to your fake persecution despite being called out on it.

        • deanforGod

          Hi C.L. Thanks for being the 6th person to read and vote down!!!

          Dean

  • Dean Whitehurst

    Why is it that someone with no educational background in biology thinks that he can outsmart some of the most brilliant biologists in the world… on the subject of biology?

    It seems as though he found a group of first year biology students early in their education. I know more about biology than some of the people he interviewed and I have no formal education in biology, either. The only difference is that, unlike Ray, I study biology in my free time for fun because I think it’s interesting. And, also unlike Ray, I can see, clearly, that evolution did, in fact, happen and continues to happen because I’m not an idiot when it comes to thinking logically.

    And finally, I find it incredibly dishonest, and very hypocritical of Ray, to interview such a great number of non-biologists, again, while more than likely not ignorant to biological processes or at least not as ignorant as Ray, most of them are probably first year students, in regards to macrobiotic or micro-biotic evolution. One kid he was talking to is a training to be a geologist…

    On average, how much is a geologist really going to know about some of the most complicated questions in evolutionary biology? I’m not calling the guy stupid but it’s just not very likely that he would know as much on the subject as, oh I don’t know… PZ Myers, who answered everything correctly as I would expect given his stature in biological academia.

    Way to break one of the commandments, Ray. You are intellectually dishonest, slanderous, and I know I’ve heard you say at one point that you do occasionally lust… so welcome to the damn club of the lying, lusting, and blasphemous. Unless you have something intelligent to say sit down and shut the hell up.

    Dean Atheos

  • queenofromania

    I don’t accept people who believe that what they think while their cells are dividing will make a difference after their cells stop dividing. Jaclyn nailed Ray Comfort when she said that he was just an embarrassment. Anyone who thinks that Ray has something going for him is just as embarrassing. Let them soil their own underwear if they want, but I don’t need to smell it.

    • Spuddie

      The whole point of Creationism is to not only soil their underwear but flash it around to everyone. It is not a sincere belief, its just performance for the public to pretend that people need to take Fundamentalist wackadoodles seriously.

      • queenofromania

        Actually, thinking of religion as performance art clears up a lot of questions. Thanks for that perspective.

  • Reginald Le Sueur

    Why did none of the interviewees mention transitional forms (between “kinds”)?
    Why did they allow themselves to be browbeaten by a fast-talking slicker instead of telling him to “eff-off”?

    • Spuddie

      Editing. Ray likes to take out inconvenient answers.

    • deanforGod

      Hi Reginald, I know, I know, because there are none. :-)
      So please repent of your sins and put your trust in Jesus Christ, His death as payment for our sins and His resurrection on the third day.
      NeedGod.com

  • Reginald Le Sueur

    Its no good just calling him names; you have to turn the tables using his own techniques; challenge him to perfom a miracle by invoking Jesus. Ask him to show us in real time how Jesus raised the dead. What ? 2000 years ago? then you haven’t observed Jesus doing his stuff have you? Is Jesus alive now and with you (always)?- so, where is he?

    • deanforGod

      Hi Reginald,

      It looks like your logic is flawed. After Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross, He appeared at least 11 times over a 40 day period to over 500 eyewitnesses as evidence of His resurrection.

      Also, for present day, when you repent or turn from your sins and put your trust in Jesus, His perfect life, sacrificial death on the cross for our sins and resurrection, we are given the gift of the Holy Spirit, to indwell within us so that we might know God personally, as sure as I know my wife exists.

      Don’t believe me? Just repent of your sins and put your trust in your Savior, Jesus Christ, and then you will know.

      NeedGod.com

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        And yet oddly, not one single person actually took note of any of this at the time or for quite some time afterwards. Everyone also neglected to jot down things like the earthquake or the walking dead. Odd, eh?

        • deanforGod

          Hi C.L.

          Thanks for your response. I guess I’m not understanding your point. The entire New Testament was written by about 95 A.D. So within about 60 years after Jesus death on the cross for our sins and resurrection giving eternal life to those who repent or turn from their sin and put their trust in Christ, the entire New Testament was written.

          So who recorded the evolutionary process at the time it was happening?

          Dean

          NeedGod.com

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            (Sorry, I didn’t see this before.)

            This may help, “Silence of Contemporary Writers” (as well as all the other pages of the index, really):

            http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htm

            We have no evidence that Jesus even existed as the person described. The only account is the Bible itself, claiming that it is true. This is akin to my telling you about my being abducted by aliens and insisting that it’s true because I’m trustworthy, EXCEPT that the Biblical account is also hearsay. We don’t buy that Atlantis existed as described by Plato simply because he claimed that some other people said it was real.

            Have you ever noticed how con men add faux credibility by claiming testimonials from other vague, mysterious people who have supposedly profited by listening to them? How myths across the world refer to numbers of unnamed people who supposedly witnessed magic of some variety? This doesn’t even require a David Copperfield using tricks to make actual people believe that the Statue of Liberty vanished. Without technology to prove them wrong, all it would have taken back then is someone SAYING that someone else saw it vanish, and saying it convincingly and often. And humans, programmed to listen to one another as a social species, are very good at being convinced.

            Evolution has been observed in real time, as in one species changing into another*. Even if not for that, we have millions and millions of data points in every single scientific field pointing to the same conclusions about the theory. We have countless, testable observations based on it, all of which have led to strengthening the theory and adding to our knowledge base despite concerted attempts by scientists to falsify it. For over a hundred and fifty years, it has gotten stronger and stronger. Modern medicine DEPENDS on the theory. Without the theory, our bodies, all of geology, all of biology, all of genetics, would be gibberish. For that matter, PHYSICS would be gibberish, because Evolution is a process akin to water taking the path of least resistance.

            As I mentioned to someone else recently, given our knowledge of molecular genetics, to argue that the theory isn’t valid is literally to argue that either one believes that chihuahuas and wolves have identical DNA, or else to argue that dogs don’t exist. Natural selection, the bedrock of Evolutionary Theory, can be just as plainly seen in the process of artificial selection. We know of processes like polyploidy that increase the complexity of an organism and allow more room for mutation, variation, and selection. We’ve seen it happen.

            I highly recommend Jerry Coyne’s book, Why Evolution is True. which is extremely affordable these days. It’s an amazing piece, easily accessible to the layman. I’m not even a science major and I only had trouble following part of one page.

            As an aside, did you know that before you were born, in various stages of your development in those nine months, you possessed vestigial remnants of a coat of fur, an (empty) yolk sac, a tail, and gills?

            *Please, please don’t claim it’s about “kinds”. Google it. Claiming that small changes can occur but not big changes is exactly as silly as claiming that one can eat every bite of a Snickers bar and somehow never eat an entire Snickers bar.

            • deanforGod

              Hi C.L. Thanks for writing!!!!!

              Hmmm. So 35,000 or so manuscripts that support the Bible is not evidence that Jesus existed. I suppose the paltry second place finisher of 800 or so manuscripts of Homer’s iliad means that you would question the existence of Homer and every other historical figure which has far fewer manuscripts to support the history.

              Although you could read Josephus’ writings, there is historical context that’s useful that he wrote that is not the Bible.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

              The “kinds” discussion is not to be dismissed. The problem is that you are taking a small bite of a Snickers bar and telling me it used to be a Bit O Honey.

              It’s unfortunate, but the Bible tells us that many will suppress the truth of God because they don’t want to be accountable for the things that they do. That the fact that we all lie, steal, look with lust (adultery) or fornicate (also adultery) and are angry and hate (murder of the heart) is difficult for many to accept and do not want to be judged on.

              But God made a way through Jesus Christ, who lived a perfect life and died on the cross and paid our penalty for sin (He paid our fine, so to speak.) On the third day He was raised from the dead and defeated death and all who turn from their sin and put their trust in Christ will have eternal life.

              Dean

              NeedGod.com

              • Kodie

                It’s unfortunate, but the Bible tells us that many will suppress the
                truth of God because they don’t want to be accountable for the things
                that they do.

                This is your main mistake. You let the bible tell you the motivations of non-believers, but I just told you – that’s totally false. Just going from that, there is no reason to believe the rest of what you’ve written. You are going in circles because you cannot or choose not to learn your way out. You listen to the bible, which is notably false at least in one example, instead of people talking right to your fucking face. That is what is wrong with theists. Ignoring people who are trying to have a conversation with you in favor of the idiot marketing ploy of your church is my #1 reason to disregard every other thing out of your mouth.

                Go fuck your prayers. Nobody here needs your interference. You’re an ignorant piece of shit, I already told you and you ignored every feeling thing I have written to clue you in to reality.

                • deanforGod

                  Hi Kodie,
                  Thanks for writing. You seem awfully angry at someone who is just trying to engage everyone in a discussion. While you may not like what I say and you may not accept what I say, It sure seems like the name calling is not warranted.

                  I don’t think I previously had brought up prayers, but since it is included in your post, please know in only the most kind and sincere way, I will be praying for you.

                  Dean

                  NeedGod.com

                  for by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it’s a gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

                  Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father, but through Me.

                • Kodie

                  Instructions on Normal Behavior:

                  It is normal to get upset at someone particularly when you tell them something and they willfully ignore it in favor of their personal opinions. Like Deanforgod willfully ignores Kodie. It is normal for Kodie to express direct anger at deanforgod for deanforgod’s willful ignorance.

                  Instructions for batshit fucked up religious apologia:

                  Ignore what non-believers say to you, because it is not you they are upset with. Ignore it and say something irrelevant or contradictory. Blame the person who is upset for their general mood and never take the responsibility for 1) engaging them in conversation and 2) ignoring every fucking thing they said anyway. Good for you! You are so saved!

                • deanforGod

                  Hi Kodie,

                  Thanks for writing. So, what did you say that I ignored? I tried to respond to your comments and questions as well as everyone else’s to the best of my ability. You may not like my answers, but it’s still the truth and that is why I am persistent.

                  Dean

                  NeedGod.com

                • Kodie

                  Do your own homework, dipshit.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  So this is your way of shutting down the debate YOU started: You make up things about someone, and when they tell you off for making up things about their beliefs, you denigrate them for being offended by YOUR lies, and pretend that you’re acting civil.

                  You’re a foul little liar.

              • C.L. Honeycutt

                1. Other historical evidence supporting some portions of the Bible is not the same thing as historical evidence for Jesus. That Nebuchadnezzar existed and tried to conquer Tyro according to other sources (his failure alone proving that Ezekiel was no prophet) does not magically make other parts true.

                You don’t seem to know why Josephus is relevant.

                2. Much of the Bible not related to Jesus has been debunked, for that matter. Exodus, for instance: no evidence for it or the enslavement of the Jews by Egypt at all. Nothing.

                3. Homer was an author, not the subject of a book. I don’t know if you just had a mental error or if you’re unclear on the difference, but I have my suspicions based on other posts…

                It’s extremely relevant that there isn’t a single contemporary account about Jesus, let alone by Jesus. (Not to mention that his story is virtually identical to that of a couple of dozen other sun gods that predate him from the same region…)

                4. No, I am not telling you that a Snickers bar used to be a Bit o’ Honey (also, yuck.) I am explaining that many small changes amount to large changes over time. This isn’t in any way controversial. And as I mentioned, we have direct evidence, available for the Googling, as to how this happens. Blithely dismissing it is, as I mentioned a couple of responses back, only indicative of your ignorance of even the very basics of the science involved and your reliance on straw man versions of it.

                5.

                It’s unfortunate, but the Bible tells us that many will suppress the truth of God because they don’t want to be accountable for the things that they do.

                It took a surprisingly long time for your sickness to emerge. This is an arrogant, dismissive, and narcissistic thing to tell anyone. You are pretending that you can read my innermost thoughts. You’re falling back on disguised childish insults and pretensions of mental superiority. Experience suggests that it’s to camouflage the sudden awareness of the weakness of your claims.

                By the way, claiming to be a mind reader is claiming to be a prophet. False prophets don’t see the Kingdom.

                The last paragraph isn’t even worth shredding. It’s just the standard religious non sequiturs and begged questions.

                Thanks for responding! See you in Hell, I guess, false prophet.

                • deanforGod

                  Hi C.L.
                  Hey careful with those hateful words of yours. Bit O Honey is my favorite candy!! ;-D

                  Actually, if you were reading my other posts for the past few days, my “sickness” would have been evident. By the way, I’m not saying I know your innermost thoughts, I’m saying that God through the Bible tells us why you suppress the truth.

                  Maybe we should start at the beginning, beginning and then work our way forward to today as I’ve never really received a satisfactory answer from any atheist as to the start of everything.

                  Would you agree that there are only three possibilities in how the universe was created?

                  1. The universe always existed
                  2. The universe created itself
                  3. The universe was created by a higher being.

                  If so, which of the three do you fall into?

                  Dean

                  Jesus said, I am the way the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father but through me.

                  NeedGod.com

                • tsara

                  I’d like to tell you that I lack any sort of God-belief because the evidence has not been sufficient to convince me that any sort of God-figure exists. I was raised in a completely secular household (actually secular, not atheistic; to this day, I don’t know what my parents actually believe on the subject, though I suspect my mom is a deist), and it took me until I was twelve to figure out that religious people actually believed in that stuff.
                  I don’t suppress any God-thoughts/feelings; I completely lack them. Furthermore, I’m a decent person. On balance, I think I’m leaving the world slightly better than I found it, and I don’t really think there’s much that I need to be held accountable for; I always do my best to make things up to whoever I’ve hurt, if I hurt someone.
                  Sure, I curse, I’m genderqueer, I drink sometimes, I blaspheme, I masturbate, I have an IUD and intend to get [EDIT: insert 'rid of'] my uterus (and maybe my ovaries) as soon as I possibly can. Some people think that God would object to those things, but I have a perfectly clean conscience on those fronts, as I don’t find any of them to be moral wrongs, even in the slightest.

                  In short, if the Bible says that the only reason for nonbelief is that people ‘suppress the truth of God because they don’t want to be accountable for the things that they do,’ then the Bible is wrong. I doubt that the Bible does say that, though, as any perfect being wouldn’t be so stupid as to make ridiculous, absolute blanket statements about people’s beliefs, right? ;)

                • deanforGod

                  Hi Tsara,

                  Thanks for writing. Actually, the Bible does say that people suppress the truth. It’s in Romans Chapter 1 18-20 and then I’ll skip down to verse 32 in order to not make this post too long.

                  18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

                  32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

                  Basically, God is plainly seen in creation, yet despite knowing God’s decrees, people not only continue to sin but support those who practice sin.

                  See Tsara, most people measure themselves against their own standard and not God’s standard in the Bible. When I go street witnessing and ask people if they are going to heaven (and if they don’t believe in heaven/hell, then if assuming there was these places, where would they go) most people say heaven. When I ask why, 95% of the people say the same thing. I’m basically a good person.

                  But the problem is that God’s standard in the Bible is perfection, because He is infinitely perfect, good and righteous. Jesus said, be perfect as my Heavenly Father is perfect. That means if you sin just once in your life, you fall short of God’s perfect standard.

                  God has written His law on our hearts so that we know right from wrong.

                  That’s why I ask people if they have ever told a lie, or stolen or looked with lust (adultery of the heart) or had hatred/anger towards someone (murder of the heart.) Not to judge or condemn, because I have done those things, but rather so that they can understand that they have fallen short of God’s standard.

                  Because God is a just judge, He must punish sin. Just like a just and good judge would send a criminal to prison, God punishes all evil or sin. The place of punishment is hell. Because God is infinitely perfect and righteous, even one of our sins is an infinite offense to Him.

                  But the Bible says that God is rich in mercy and a loving God and He did something for us because He knows no one is perfect.

                  He sent His son Jesus, fully God and fully man to live a perfect and sinless life and to pay the penalty (pay the fine for us if you will.) That is why Jesus died on the cross, as payment for our sins and on the third day He was raised from the dead and defeated death and sin.

                  God requires that we turn from our sin (repent) and put our trust in Jesus for our salvation.

                  Turning from our sin is critical for Jesus did not come to call the righteous, but rather sinners to repentance.

                  Dean

                  Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, the life and no one comes to the father but through me.

                • Kodie

                  Clue: Not a single one of us is concerned with what the bible tells you about us. We know us and we told you. You still believe the stupid lies in the bible. How are you ever going to get it through your fucking head that we don’t believe there is a god. We’re not suppressing shit, I told you before and I will tell you again, because you insist on being dense about it. Why would any atheist start to go your way if the point you continue to harp on is what the bible says motivates us? It is not true. There is no apparent god to believe in from the beginning. It is your delusion. And your faith would have you continue to insult people because you’re too arrogant to listen to what we’ve already told you. Why are you so fucking arrogant?

                • deanforGod

                  Hi Kodie,
                  Tsara said that she doubted the Bible said that so I wanted to show her where it said that.

                  I see that the suppressing comments seems to make everyone most upset, and I am sorry for that. So next time, I’ll remember to just stick with the message of Sin, God’s standard, and salvation through Jesus on the cross and resurrection through repentance and faith, which is really the message I most want to communicate.

                  Kodie, I will tell you, I am not arrogant. Through the grace of God, my eyes have been opened and I only seek to warn those who don’t know.

                  Let me ask you a hypothetical question, since you’ve made it clear you don’t believe in God. If you pretended a minute there was a God and heaven and hell, and after we die, there is all eternity, either torment in Hell or eternity in Heaven. what would you do?

                  Dean
                  For by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it’s a gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

                • Kodie

                  Save my hide like the selfish coward you are.

                • deanforGod

                  Not me. Jesus does the saving.

                • Kodie

                  You threatened me with suppressing clear evidence that god exists to doom me to hell forever. Do not fucking lie to my face now and say you are not a selfish coward that you are.

                • Cake

                  “Let me ask you a hypothetical question, since you’ve made it clear you
                  don’t believe in God. If you pretended a minute there was a God and
                  heaven and hell, and after we die, there is all eternity, either torment
                  in Hell or eternity in Heaven. what would you do?”

                  What if the snuffleupagus is real? Is that supposed to be your eye opening gambit? Pathetic.

                • Obazervazi

                  “If you pretended a minute there was a God and heaven and hell, and after we die, there is all eternity, either torment in Hell or eternity in Heaven. what would you do?”

                  I’d do everything in my power to stop Him.
                  If He weren’t all-knowing, I’d at least consider faking devotion, but since he must know that I DO NOT APPROVE of his cruel treatment of other people, I might as well go all out.
                  (Also, Heaven is really scary when you think about it. I wouldn’t want to go to either place.)

                • tsara

                  “Actually, the Bible does say that people suppress the truth.”
                  But the quote you gave doesn’t seem to specifically refer to all godless people, and that’s what I was questioning. I doubted that that Bible chunk specified all godless people, rather than some group of them (or even just godless people in general). If that Bible section doesn’t specify all godless people, then your application of it is invalid. If it does specify all godless people, then it’s just plain wrong, because I’m godless, and it doesn’t describe me.

                  “That’s why I ask people if they have ever told a lie, or stolen or looked with lust (adultery of the heart) or had hatred/anger towards someone (murder of the heart.)”
                  I’m ‘yes’ on the first, ‘no’ on all the others. But that’s not the point of what I wrote. The point is, I truly and honestly don’t believe myself to be guilty of anything particularly egregious. Why would I ‘suppress [my knowledge of] the truth of God because I don’t want to be held accountable for things that I do’, if I don’t believe that I’ve done or will do anything wrong?

                • deanforGod

                  Hi Tsara,

                  Yes, Romans chapter 1 starting in verse 18 is talking about the people who don’t believe in God. Romans Chapter 2 addresses the Jews and the beginning of Romans Chapter 3 addresses everyone else and sums up all three groups of people with the following words starting in vs 10

                  10 As it is written:

                  “There is no one righteous, not even one;
                  11 there is no one who understands;
                  there is no one who seeks God.
                  12 All have turned away,
                  they have together become worthless;
                  there is no one who does good,
                  not even one.”
                  13 “Their throats are open graves;
                  their tongues practice deceit.”
                  “The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
                  14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
                  15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
                  16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
                  17 and the way of peace they do not know.”
                  18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

                  19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.

                  Not believing that you are doing anything wrong doesn’t make it right. But I understand your argument, in that you are saying that you have nothing to suppress, because you don’t feel you are doing anything wrong.

                  That’s why I bring up sin and God’s standard, so you will know.

                  Dean

                • deanforGod

                  Hi Tsara,

                  One correction is that Romans chapter 1 starting in vs 18 is talking about those who say they don’t believe in God. I forgot to have the word “say” in the sentence

                • islandbrewer

                  … and intend to get my uterus (and maybe my ovaries) as soon as I possibly can …

                  I have to ask, are they on backorder? Out of stock?

                • tsara

                  Shit. Fixed the typo; it should read ‘I intend to get rid of…’

      • islandbrewer

        Don’t believe me? Just repent of your sins and put your trust in your Savior, Jesus Christ, and then you will know.

        Do you ever think before writing? Look at that quote.

        First, you want us to “put your trust in your Savior, Jesus Christ” and then “you will know” that Jesus existed?

        In other words, just try to believe and trust in something you don’t believe exists, and then you will believe it exists.

        Is this an example of your christian logic?

        • deanforGod

          Hi Islandbrewer, Thanks for writing! Yes I do think before writing and after review of what I wrote, I would write the same thing again. See, you are suppressing the truth. You know that creation declares the glory of God, but you suppress the truth because you don’t want there to be a judge, so you can go on living your life without the guilt of a final judgment.
          God wrote the law onto our hearts so that we would know lying and stealing is wrong. So that we would know that looking with lust is adultery of the heart and that anger and hatred is murder of the heart.
          God’s place of punishment is hell (jail forever.) You must turn from your sins and trust in Jesus. He paid the penalty for your sins by dying on the cross and defeated death and sin by raising from the dead.
          When you repent and put your trust in Christ, your eyes will be opened and you will see the truth.
          Yes, repent and believe, and then you will understand.
          Please, please, repent and put your trust in Jesus.
          Dean
          NeedGod.com

          • Kodie

            No. If I knew there was such a system in place, I would think a lot harder about what I do. You have a superstition and fear. If such an institution were in place that I would be punished severely and forever, that would definitely give me pause on my behavior. I would not worship the deity, but I would, for my selfish preservation, obey it, if it were real.

            You have a lot of stupid, ignorant thoughts about atheists and what we’re really about. We see no evidence of your imaginary friend. We see no reason to heed prohibitions on behavior that are dictated by an imaginary person, if there is no actual negative outcome. You would have us cower to an imaginary being and behave in fear, as opposed to having empathy, which many atheists do have. What we don’t have is superstitious aversions to behaviors there is nothing wrong with. What we do have is reality-based aversion to dangerous and negative behavior, such as murdering someone. We are not scofflaws who do what we like with no repercussions. We would be punished for murdering someone or stealing from someone. The people we hurt on earth can punish us on earth. There isn’t anyone we can hurt in a spiritual realm. If things we do only count to hurt someone in a spiritual realm, those things are ok. You might not want to do them, but they don’t hurt you or anyone if someone else does.

            Nobody is suppressing shit, you doofus. God is imaginary.

            • deanforGod

              Hi Kodie, Thanks for writing. I do not have fear for me, just for you. But let me ask you this. Are you sure? Are you 100% sure with even no doubt that what I say is wrong? Do you know everything there is ever to know?

              If you were even 1% unsure, isn’t it worth it to actually read the Bible and see what it says. Eternity is a long time. Don’t you owe it to yourself to explore what I’m saying instead of dismissing it outright without seriously considering it?

              Please, turn from your sins and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved!

              Dean

              NeedGod.com

              • Kodie

                I’m 100% sure you’re full of shit.

                • deanforGod

                  Hi Kodie, Thanks for writing!! Please believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved!!

                  Dean

                  NeedGod.com

                • Carmelita Spats

                  Hi Dean! I’m not Kodie but thanks for playing!!! Please believe in Lord Rael and you shall be accepted into the mother ship before it’s too late!!! We shall be saved in a spaceship piloted by talking, lava-eating, sea clams! Helmets are optional, castration is not!!!

                  Hugs,

                  XOXO…Carmelita-For-Rael

                  http://www.rael.org/home

                • deanforGod

                  Hi Carmelita, Very funny!! But all of creation declares God’s glory, not Rael. Those who don’t believe in God suppress the truth, not Rael.

                  So please believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.

                  Dean

                  NeedGod.com

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  Doctor Who saved Humanity from the Daleks. We have video evidence that has been carefully examined by millions.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  Reading your posts always makes me want to play Banky to your Hooper. I wish you did panels.

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHLJfxfXHBg

                • Carmelita Spats

                  Hahahaha!Thanks! My story is not unlike that of many ex-Christians…I was born into a very conservative, very religious family and the religiosity made me crazier than an acre of snakes to the point of being completely unfit for church, marriage or civil society. I’ve never done panels but I used to do a radio comedy show in Mexico City, en español, until my family pulled the plug on the shenanigans and told me it was either rehab or the U.S. I made the obvious choice. I’m not familiar with Banky/Hooper, so thanks for the recommendation. I’m a HUGE fan of Black
                  Adder…Those of us with extremely religious relatives can
                  identify…LOL…

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krgUVduKFL4

                • Kodie

                  I don’t think I will do that any time soon. I don’t doubt this will eat you up, but there is nothing I can do.

                • deanforGod

                  Hi Kodie,
                  You are right, is does bother me. But I’d ask that you please consider doing so. But don’t worry. I have a lot of energy, so I will keep trying to proclaim the truth to you. :-)

                  Dean

                  NeedGod.com

                • Kodie

                  That is a sad and pointless way to live your life, but I can’t stop you. I can only ignore you.

                • deanforGod

                  Hi Kodie,

                  No, I don’t think so. It’s called loving your neighbor. I just wish I could talk to everyone in person instead of over the internet.

                  Dean

                  NeedGod.com

                • Kodie

                  It’s called being a pompous jackass. You’re just a pawn of your church sent on a mission to bother people. You’re just a fool who believes without you, I will go to hell after I die! You have a high opinion of yourself. Your beliefs are nothing but an ego trip.

                • deanforGod

                  Hi Kodie,
                  Thanks for writing. Actually, I have a very low opinion of myself when judged against God’s standard. For Jesus said that we should “Be perfect as our Father in Heaven in perfect.” See, that is the standard. The Bible says “for whoever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble at one point, is guilty of all.”

                  There is no ego trip for me. I recognize my sinful ways before a holy and righteous God. God and graciously extended His saving hand to me through His Son Jesus, fully God and fully Man, to live a perfect and sinless life and to die on the cross for me, and to be raised from the dead on the third dead.

                  Salvation is given as a free gift to all those who repent and put their trust in Jesus.

                  Dean

                  NeedGod.com

                • Cake

                  Saved from what?

                  Hey look its a JesusBot! I used to use that word as an insult, but leave it to them to make it a truth.

                • deanforGod

                  Hi Cake,
                  Thanks for writing.

                  Saved from the punishment of God on sinners which is hell. We have all sinned against God by lying, stealing, looking with lust (adultery of the heart) and anger/hatred (murder of the heart.) Because God is a just judge, He must punish sin. Just like a just judge who puts a murderer in jail (and he wouldn’t be just if he let the murderer go free) God is a perfect judge and must punish all sin. Every sin is an infinite offense to an infinitely good and holy God.

                  But the Bible says that God is rich in mercy and a loving God and He made a way for us. He sent His Son, Jesus, fully God and fully Man to live a perfect and sinless life and to die on the cross for our sins. He paid our penalty and on the third day He rose from the dead. God can now dismiss our case because the penalty for our crime has been paid.

                  God only requires that you turn from your sin (repent) and believe in Jesus and you shall be saved (from hell)

                  Dean

                  NeedGod.com

                • Cake

                  That sounds like something a bully or the mafia would say.

                  I have no need of forgiveness for something I didn’t do.

                • deanforGod

                  Hi Cake,
                  is lying wrong? Is stealing wrong? Is adultery wrong? Is murder wrong? These are God’s commandments. Are you suggesting you are sinless?

                  Dean

                • Kodie

                  If your main concern with these infractions is how god will react and not the parties so damaged by the actions, then you are a selfish coward, like I said.

                • deanforGod

                  Hi Kodie,

                  We should all be concerned how God views our sins, but in this case, I’m asking if you think each of these is wrong?

                  I’m asking you if lying is wrong. is stealing wrong. Is adultery wrong. Is murder wrong.

                • Kodie

                  We should be concerned about other people. If something hurts someone else, it is best to think it over. If that someone else is god, god is imaginary.

                • deanforGod

                  I’m having difficulty discerning your answer. So murder, since it hurts someone else, should be thought over? Is it wrong?

                • Kodie

                  It depends on the circumstances.

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

                  Lying and stealing- depends on the circumstance. Or yes, they are pretty much always wrong, but not doing them may be a greater wrong.

                  Adultery in the sense of polyamory is just fine. Adultery in the sense of having an affair behind one’s significant other’s back is wrong because it is a betrayal of trust. It hurts people. Murder is wrong because it hurts people and takes away life away from a sentient being who very much had dreams and plans and hopes for the future.

                  However: you don’t get to cherry-pick the universal societal rules. Is saying the Lord is not my God wrong? Is having other Gods before him wrong? Is breaking the Sabbath wrong? Is cursing one’s parents wrong? What if one’s parents are horrible people? Are these things on par with lying, stealing, adultery, and murder? If not, maybe your Bible is a pretty crappy place to find morality.

                • Cake

                  I am completely sinless and have no need for this magic vacuum cleaner that removes sin that you seem to call god.

                • deanforGod

                  Hi Cake,
                  I bet you truly don’t believe that.

                • Kodie

                  I bet you $100 that Cake does believe that. Put your money where your mouth is, asshole.

                • Cake

                  If you’re automatically assuming dishonesty from the people you try to converse with, why are you here?

      • deanforGod

        Thanks to the six people who read and voted down my post. I appreciate you reading my post.

        NeedGod.com

  • tbeachhead

    Jaclyn wants us to dismiss Ray because…the banana is not an amazing fruit? Or because she has no concept of humor at all in this debate. Perhaps the basic concept of design escapes her. She clearly does not understand the meaning of the term atheist…An atheist is not agnostic.

    And again, she rejoins the argument that Evolution cannot be observed…a billion-year transition, that completed itself so many millions of years ago that it must be taken by faith…not science. She has proven Dawkins’ point, and has the excuse he provided…not to think.

    “Just because it happened over millions and millions of years, just because you cannot observe it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen…” Of course not. That is the point. It only means it is not science. You cannot apply the scientific method to evolution.You must begin with a discussion of origins from the idea of evolution as a given, a priori. And any argument that refutes the theory must be eliminated before any lessons can be taught. She’s singing “Gimme that old time religion” all over again, but she’s too young to recognize the tune. In fact, she buttresses Comfort’s point by missing it altogether. Well done.

    She makes an observable change of kind…from bird to bird? Lizard to lizard? That seems to be a very satisfying argument…The bird remained a bird. The lizard a lizard…and you still have not evolved from one kind to another…You have not shown and cannot show through the fossil record or otherwise that monkey and human come from a common ancestor. The DNA evidence makes the transition an impossibility, and there are now hundreds of papers that have been written and accepted proving this as established fact. Every effort the evolutionist has made, Piltdown man comes to mind, has either been outright and deliberate fraud, or well-meaning, pedantic fantasy drawn using artistic license…Cromagnon man comes to mind.

    And you posted her ad-hom as a rebuttal, because…? Is this the best an atheist can do? There is some comfort for the creationist here: Ad homs don’t prove, and assumed facts are a priori arguments, not science…Evolution is a matter of faith that random chance can produce order, that accidental happenstance can make a rose, that a nuclear bomb dropped on a scrapheap can conceivably produce an Airbus and that a Rolex watch found in an ancient forest proves the case for evolution.

    Here’s a thought: If you want to refute Comfort’s claims…prove that Einstein did not say what Comfort quotes him as saying. Prove that Hemmingway, whose rejection of God led to his suicide, was not the only atheist on the atheist’s well-known and sadly insubstantial poster…

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      that you haven’t actually bothered to read about Evolutionary Theory, and misunderstand it, and science, so badly as to think it’s about “chance”, is only an overwhelming strike against your own position. You’ve done nothing but spout a very typical list of nonsense attacks on the theory, all of which have been debunked for decades, in some cases for longer than you’ve been alive.

      Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms. Why are you commenting on science, and especially, why are you so foolish as to reference DAWKINS of all people if you don’t even know that?

      • tbeachhead

        Thank you for your response. The fact that denial is requisite for the theory explains your disappointingly trite comment. Random chance is at the core of evolutionary theory…and the metaphor I repeated is merely the graphic display of origins. No evolutionist denies that random chance is involved, only that random chance “obeys laws”…of unknown origin. The theory insists on progression from chaos to order, from least complex to highly complex, and sustains itself by credulous authors approving each others’ conjectures.

        That the theory was used to denigrate the Jewish race for their refusal to intermarry, to excuse and promote eugenics by the likes of Margaret Sanger, to excuse euthanasia…in short, to promote natural selection artificially, and to defend bad science is only one indication of its flawed tenets.

        That the theory relies on flawed tenets of a trumped up “scientific method” is the most lamentable, transparent issue I have with its religious devotees. You insist that evidence be observable, and though your ilk often cite “thousands of examples”, you have none. The evolution of the human eye cannot be observed. There can be no evidence of the “evolution” of the eye in the fossil record. It must be taken a priori, as the theory itself must be. That intelligent design must be dismissed a priori, because it is not falsifiable proves the desperate antipathy you have toward the concept of “truth”. Truth is not falsifiable…and evolution has already been falsified…and often.

        I am a linguist…Explain, if you will how language itself has been proven to have originated in a single, highly complex tongue…and progressively grown, not more complex…but far less.

        • tsara

          “Explain, if you will how language itself has been proven to have originated in a single, highly complex tongue…and progressively grown, not more complex…but far less.”
          Easy. You have one smallish group of hominids (among many) developing a means of communication (oversimplifying origins here, but whatever) that might have been one among many at the time, but this particular group outcompeted all the other ones, so this language is the one from which all others descended.
          They start with simple things — naming objects and whatnot. These simple things combine into huge long strings of things that require a lot of grammatical nuance to be parseable. (or something *handwaves*. I have thoughts in my head that seem to be making sense, but I’m having difficulty getting them out. If you’re interested in asking questions, I might be able to explain further.)
          Languages get progressively simpler because humans are lazy fucks, and because sometimes being able to communicate very quickly is a matter of life and death. In other words, we refine things, removing complications unnecessary for understanding (see: who vs. whom. The distinction is pretty, but unnecessary… and therefore nobody cares) and collapsing large amounts of information into single-word concepts (for example, try explaining a guitar or a sunrise or the verb ‘to hunt’ to someone. They’re single words now, but I bet you they haven’t always been.).

          Shorter: We had to invent it, so it was a bit unwieldy at first. Then we got better at it.

  • john

    I’d say both Christians, and atheists should be embarrassed. Both parties argue as if they are convinced when the reality is nobody knows. There are missing gaps that will never be filled. We don’t know for sure. It takes a little faith regardless of where you stand. And faith should be investigated. So let’s all have a little more respect for each other shall we?

    • john

      And yes, science can be convincing, but there are other things equally convincing towards other conclusions. That doesn’t mean Christians are rejecting science. Some yes, but its an innacurate generalization. Nobody knows. Nobody will ever know until we are dead so stop acting like you know. We can just search for the truth and be amazed, can’t we? Its frustrating because both parties seem retarded. Maybe Ray is right, if so, at least he cares enough to say something. I do believe in God. I do think for myself. I don’t know all the answers and that’s where faith comes in. I could be wrong though. Nobody knows. I credit evolution. It makes some sense, but it also raises many questions. Also its possible that God said bang. Again I could be wrong. Nobody freakin knows. Sorry for the simple sentences. On my phone and editing is not easy.

      • Spuddie

        Science is as convincing as you can get. Its methods and presentation are to ensure credibility through critical thinking. Religion is convincing because its methods and presentation are avoid critical thinking.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      You’re very ignorant of actual atheistic arguments about religion, of the burden of proof, of the meaning of the word “faith”, and quite a few other things. These are correctable issues though.

    • Spuddie

      Nobody investigates faith. It is the absence of searching for information. Assuming something and never bothering to search any further.

      You do not know the atheist argument at all.

      Atheism posits the opposite of faith. Its saying one is accepting something based on evidence presented. That one searches for the answers one is looking for based on evidence which can be found.

      When people fail to understand the differences between these ideas, hostility is inevitable.

  • Diane

    I’ve read Darwin’s Origin of Species and all of it was a lot of this thoughts of what he thinks happened without solid evidence. A lot of “I believe”, “I think”, nothing absolute and concrete. Although Ray Comfort was brash, Darwin’s evolutionary theory showed more adaptation and micro-evolution and not macro-evolution. In the Origin of Species Darwin writes in his chapter of Difficulties on Theory, “Hence we ought not to expect at the present time to meet with numerous transitional varieties in each region, though they must have existed there, and may be embedded there in a fossil condition. But in the intermediate region, having intermediate transitions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? But I think it can be in large part explained.” Darwin was guessing what we show see in the strata, and believed it would be there. That’s faith. He even says, “To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”

    Can you explain Darwin’s tree of life and the sudden appearance of various life forms (aka Cambrian Explosion)? Darwin writes, “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much graver. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group, suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.”

    It’s not fact as everyone was taught to believe in school. It’s even still called a theory! If it were concrete it would be called a law (like Mendel’s law of Inheritance). Evolution is faith, which violates the constitution, I think. Both Intelligent Design and Evolution should be taught so everyone can think for themselves rather than basing it on scientist who are unsure about their observation and assumptions. I believe if Darwin had an electron microscope, rather than the light microscope, he would rethink his ideas, since he thought cells were just blobs that came together, when in actuality a cell is a complex city!

    And no, I don’t think I came from fish. I cringed when my vertebrate anatomy professor would say that. That’s absurd to me.

    • Kodie

      No wonder you theists are so backwards. You are up-to-date from over a century ago. Get with the times! The study of evolution didn’t end with Origin of Species. You will not find modern understanding of evolution in that book. Your bold attempts to take down a book written by an author making the first observations of evolution doesn’t take into account a century of scientific research that proves it. You also don’t know what the scientific definition of “theory” is, and you are mixing it up with the conversational vernacular which uses “theory” when it means “hypothesis” or “vague idea” or “I’m an idiot, but I’m going to say something anyway.” “Theory” in science (which you are afraid of) means that it has been tested using the scientific method and such results were confirmed. Confirmed=Theory. Gravity is also “just a theory” in the same sense as evolution.

      • Spuddie

        Diane thinks Science is Bible Study. If you don’t get it from the original ancient source, it is not reliable to her.

        • Diane

          It’s not just any author, sir. It’s the founder of evolution (your faith I presume), Charles Darwin. Yes, I understand that there are many books that expand on his idea ( I’m a scientist). I’d love extra resources that you personally think support Darwin’s claims besides his micro-evolution (which is more adaptation, which I believe). No, theory is not a vague idea but it is also not confirmation that that particular idea is completely true. Theory in the Oxford English Dictionary states, “a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.” It’s “intended”. Laws rarely change, but theories change as new evidence is discovered.

          You should really search for evidence of your beliefs. There’s loop holes everywhere. However, the more I study science its proof, to me, of an intelligent designer. There’s too much precision to say it’s spontaneous and I think that’s absurd. Just like you think my belief in an intelligent designer is absurd but I respect your thought process.

          In the end, we’ll see the truth. Evolutionist, I would assume you think we’d just become dissipated energy. Creationist believe we’ll be in heaven. I prefer the thought of the latter. It’s one of the biggest decisions in your life that you’ll make, I would just encourage you to think about it more..

          • 3lemenope

            I’m a scientist

            What’s your field?

            • Diane

              biology and neuroscience

              • 3lemenope

                And what precisely in those two fields indicates to you proof of an intelligent designer?

              • Spuddie

                I don’t believe you. If you were a scientist, you would be familiar with the scientific definition of theory and you would not be attacking evolution on the basis of its originator, but on its current form.

                I think you are nothing more than a liar who will say anything for your faith.

          • Spuddie

            “I’m a scientist”

            I didn’t know Liberty U handed out B.S. degrees. I know they handed out degrees in BS. But that is different

          • RobMcCune

            If you’re a scientist, it’s odd that you can only appeal to consequences and not to evidence, and that you presume your position constitutes a null hypothesis. Can you justify why creationism is the null hypothesis to explain life on earth? Or should just be accepted because of the promise of heaven?

        • Diane

          I think science is thoughts of an intelligent designer. If you studied more science you’d feel the same way. It’s too complex and with so much precision to say its random and spontaneous.

          • Kodie

            It’s not really random or spontaneous. Shows how little you know.

          • Spuddie

            But its pretty clear you haven’t studied science at all. An online degree from the Creation Institute does not count.

    • Spuddie

      A couple of things:

      1. Science is not Bible study. They do not rely on one book as the be-all and end all of a subject. Origin of Species laid the groundwork for the study of evolution, but it has progressed far beyond what Darwin had imagined. Comments on Darwin aren’t worth a pile of flaming dogcrap these days. You are more than a century and a half too late for that party. Darwin had no real concept of genetics or even much information about paleontology. Yet both disciplines are key areas of gathering information in the field of Evolutionary biology

      2. The “no-evidence” of macro-evolution is pure self-defined stipulation. A way to cover up the obvious evidence smacking Creationists in the face on a regular basis. Its evolution, period. What you call macro-evolution is really the accumulation of what you would call micro-evolution.

      3. Darwin would be unable to explain the Cambrian explosion but his successors can. Again too late for that comment to be of any value. You missed it by 150+ years.

      4. It is called the theory of evolution not because it is uncertain. That is just confusing layman and scientific definitions of “theory”. It is not called the law of evolution because it is not a scientific formula which can be applied in such a fashion.

      5. Evolution is not faith. The evidence of it speaks for itself, hence its acceptance by THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. Scientific ideas are not accepted based on belief. They are based on the ability to be defended from all sides based on methods, data and competing ideas of similar merit. One does not require belief in any religion or atheism to accept it. The only people who have a religious problem with it are a small vocal subset of Fundamentalist Christianity. Even the mainstream Christians reject Creationism as pure nonsense.

      6. Intelligent design is religious bullshit incarnate. It has no scientific basis. It has no scientific application. It is merely to give Fundamentalists
      a chance to browbeat people into accepting their belief. In the Dover Case they found the only difference between ID and Biblical Creation ideas was word substitution. It is shitty religion and dishonest rhetoric. It belongs nowhere. Creationism denies faith in public, yet ultimately it is an expression of it in private. Its all about lying to people. If you are a creationist you are a liar. Plain and simple.

      “And no, I don’t think I came from fish. I cringed when my vertebrate anatomy professor would say that. That’s absurd to me.”

      An argument from incredulity just means you are too ignorant to care to hear something.

      • Diane

        1. That’s funny you denounce Darwin. Mendel, father of genetics, worked with peas and what did those peas become different peas. Yes, I’m aware of that. There’s not change in species. Again, it’s micro-evolution. I’m assuming you’re thinking it takes millions of years for something the change into a different species, that’s faith. We can’t see it. Palentology, where’s the evidence of these bones?! All I heard was of “Lucy”, which I think is bogus and still doesn’t makes sense why there aren’t millions of bones to confirm evolution. Again, that’s why it’s still a theory.

        2. No, it’s a distinction. Micro-evolution is adaptation. Macro-evolution is a change of species. I can understand why you think its an accumulation, that’s still faith.

        3. What successors? I have yet to read on any that can explain the Cambrian Explosion. If anything, a lot are finding Darwin to be misguided. The more they’re finding the more they’re seeing Darwin really didn’t have the right tools to make his claim. Not just in biology but in all realms of science, physics, chemistry. You really need to research your perspective more.

        4. Theory in the Oxford English Dictionary states, “a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.” It’s “intended”. Laws rarely change, but theories change as new evidence is discovered.

        5. Evolution is faith. Faith is something you can’t see but you believe to be true. You can’t see macro-evolution. — It is not accepted by the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. wow, you really need to get your facts straight. There’s an internal battle, where scientist are being blacklisted because they’re veering off from evolution. New evidence has been stated that is not shared to you. I would think that would piss you off. I’m pissed off about that. It’s a conspiracy to make you think evolution is the only way of thinking, which it isn’t. I would encourage you to do more research on this. The movie “Expelled” might be something that can help you, yes it talks about ID but it shows that not the entire scientific community accepts it.

        6. I’m not sure why you have so much hostility toward creationists. ID gives the idea of a creator but not necessarily the biblical God. There’s various forms of creationism. Many of the scientist that you have read up on and who’ve founded science were believers of a higher being, not necessarily the biblical God. I can respect your stance that creationist are liars, like how I felt about my professor and his statement that we were all fish. You can believe we were all fish and I’ll believe that we all were actually created by someone intelligent.

        In the end, we’ll see the truth. Evolutionist, I would assume you think we’d just become dissipated energy. Creationist believe we’ll be in heaven. I prefer the thought of the latter. It’s one of the biggest decisions in your life that you’ll make, I would just encourage you to think about it more..

        • Kodie

          That’s what evolution is. What you are calling micro-evolution happens over time until a being is actually markedly different from another species. You are willing to accept “adaptation” but not to its logical conclusion.

          • Diane

            That’s faith. You’re basing it on assumptions that it will change into a species. When there has not been anything proven that it has changed to something other that what it is. Darwin’s finches…were still Darwin’s finches. Californian lizard were still Californian lizards. Fish to human? That’s evidence I’d like to see, which evolutionist believe happened.

            • Kodie

              I’m basing it on observable fact, and you’re dismissing it on the basis that you can’t really understand it or express what you’re dismissing correctly.

            • RobMcCune

              The fossil record and genetics show speciation. Funny that you’re moving the goalpost to fish to human evolution, since humans evolved from apes. If you actually understood science you would know that fish and humans are separated by hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

        • Spuddie

          Actually what Mendel observed was genetics, an “engine” of evolutionary change. What he observed was in far too short a time scale to be relevant as to the issue of evolution. Your problem is your definition of observed is unscientifically retarded. Observed also means seen from historical record. The only reason you don’t see evidence of it is you refuse to look in an honest fashion. As I said before, your POV is based on ignorance and dishonest approaches to the subject.

          2. Evolution is evolution. Distinctions between micro and macro are just ways creationists rationalize how evidence gobsmacks them in the face.

          3. Your ignorance is your own problem. The field of evolutionary biology has existed for quite some time whether you chose to figure out who is involved with it or not. If you haven’t read anything to explain your alleged issues, it is because you are not interested in finding out.

          4. There are 2 definitions of theory. Yours is the one used by people who have no understaning of science. All you have proven is you are not only ignorant, but willfully avoiding improving your knowledge on the subject

          5. No it isn’t. Evolution would not have lasted so long and gained universal acceptance if it was. Scientific ideas do not gain traction on the basis of faith, but on the ability to withstand criticism from all sides. Creationism REQUIRES adherence to fundamentalist Christianity to avoid being completely ridiculed universally.

          “There’s an internal battle, where scientist are being blacklisted because they’re veering off from evolution. New evidence has been stated that is not shared to you.

          Bullshit. There is no scientific opposition to creationism. Conspiracy theories are what people use to cover up the fact that their ideas are inherently ridiculous. You are full of crap.

          6. Because creationists are liars who revel in ignorance and anti-science nonsense. You are ultimately a liar. Someone who denies faith in public but whose view depends on it. You have no problems with the scientific issues of evolution because you don’t know jack about them. You will say anything or use any argument which props up your religious faith. Anything to lie for the lord.

          • Diane

            I’m not someone who denies my faith, case in point this discussion. I enjoy debates but if you’re going to be hostile, name call and don’t really have credible facts to share, there’s really no point. Study more on science is all I can say. Best of luck to you all.

            • Spuddie

              If you are a creationist, you deny faith. Or at least you do in public.

              Creationism is all about claiming that there is objective clear evidence to prove the existence of God and confirmation of your religious beliefs. That you can prove an intelligent designer, the Biblical God exists through presentation of evidence and arguments. It denies faith because faith is unnecessary in light of the alleged evidence you are claiming. If you have proof, you don’t have faith. Faith is the absence of evidence, not its presentation.

              By proclaiming your religious belief is based on faith, you contradict creationism’s public discourse. Which means what you said before were lies for a given effect. You are telling me your alleged evidence is really so much hogwash and ultimately is not what really convinces you in the first place.

              Creationism is ultimately dishonest. You are claiming you have proof which confirms your religious belief and such proof is convincing enough in of itself. If it were true, you would also be capable of being dissuaded from your religious belief by evidence which is more compelling. No creationist ever would accept such a premise.

              They never actually care how convincing their evidence is. They don’t base their beliefs on such things. It always comes down to faith. Which means all creationists are liars.

            • Fred

              “I’m not someone who denies my faith, case in point this discussion.”

              Right there is where you tossed the science right out the window and affirmed that you will lie in order to follow your faith. I really don’t know what dishonest scumbags like you are trying to do.

  • Randy Campbell

    First off how can anyone have a debate about God if they claim that He doesn’t exist, prove that He does. If you get on a plane from Kansas City bound for Miami Florida one would have faith that you are going to land at Miami Florida. I have faith in one true Sovereign Holy God and when I land it will be with Him by Him for Him in Heaven to praise “Jesus our LORD”. When you breath the air in and let it out how do you know that it’s real you can’t see it yet you breath. Point is there is a Creator who was is and will always be and we all will bow before Him.Believe on Jesus and you will be set free, oh and that by the way is a comandment from our Heavenly Father.God the Father God the Holy Spirit God the Son. May God open the eyes and hearts of this darken world to believe in Jesus. Eterinty is for ever, where do you want to spend it is the ?.Jesus came down from Heaven to lay down His life on a tree that He had made so that we may have life eternal with Him.

    • Kodie

      That doesn’t make any sense in the real world.

      • tsara

        So it is just word salad? Oh, good. It’s not just me, then.

  • Ronald Williams

    Visit Jesus Christ Visitation and Nature and Bible Poems: True Testimony Story on the World Wide Web:

    I am a living True contemporary Eye witness. He visited in person, He is in Heaven at this time. Jesus Christ the Same Yesterday Today and Forever. Amen

  • Ronald Williams

    Visit Jesus Christ
    Visitation True Testimony Story on the World Wide Web:

    He visited, He is in
    Heaven. Jesus Christ the Same Yesterday Today and Forever. Amen

    http://www.jesuschristvisitation.net

  • johncooperiii

    As it has been said in various ways before: If Rome had adopted Zoroastrianism, you would probably be a Zoroastianist and I would probably still be an atheist.

  • John

    Well, that bird – Greenish Wabler – did it turn to a fish or butterfly or something? It it remained a bird, then it is still a bird. No one disputes horizontal changes in kind, such as ageing and similar examples that you suggested. The issue is about vertical changes, like the apes turning to become man. I mean why do we still have them around to study if some adverse environmental factors did make (turn) them us – men? I know enough science to know that we can freeze or at least photographically record changes in laboratory to prove that a particular event is (or even may be) happening. Show me evidence to suggest that vertical evolutionary transition happens? Three questions, please note!

    • Alencon

      Evolution doesn’t postulate that modern apes turned into man but that modern apes and modern man have a common ancestor. There is no such thing as “vertical transition.” That implies a growth or improvement up some sort of scale or ladder. There is simply change.

      If you want evidence that change occurs, consider that 50 million years ago there were species that no longer exist and today there are species for which we only have recent records. Yet there are a wide range of morphological similarities between those ancient extinct species and the modern ones.

      By the way, nothing in evolutionary theory says that the mother species can’t exist at the same time as the daughter species.

      • StaceyM

        You think that humans know every single speicy on earth really? Really? humans we think we know everything don’t we we are just so smart that of course we have every animal bird fish documented and as soon as a new one shows up that means it had just evolved right? It couldn’t have been missed.

        • Alencon

          I never said we “know every single speicy (sic) on earth.” But I think it’s safe to say we’re not missing the thousands of species in the fossil record that are believed to be extinct because we have no evidence of contemporary live specimens.

  • Just Thinking

    I made an observation about man kind about 9 years ago and I am still waiting for this observation to break down…it goes like this…whenever I am confronted with something and my conscience is not clear; however, I am trying to justify it, I “bristle”. After seeing this tendency in myself over and over, I began venturing out to see if this was something like the Prado Principle (80/20 rule) as just being a part of the fabric of life for us all. As I watched this play out over and over in a myriad of circumstances I have come to the conclusion that those who are confronted with something that bothers their consciences they turn to throwing off sparks and bristling …Jaclyn…your slip seems to be showing here…you could have just ignored him and allowed the freedom of speech that you afford every group in our society to be respected (even though you have the right to do what you are doing here; however, you are hurting the credibility of your argument especially in the light of my observation above). The Word of God has said that He put into your and my heart (souls) the knowledge of His existence and our ultimate accountability to Him. I kind of perceive you are behaving like the young child in the middle of the living room covering your ears and jumping up and down denying that you never took those cookies that are falling out of your pockets…you’re attention to this subject actually drew me to this sight and having never seen Ray Comfort’s little video I have to say he made a lot of sense…sorry, I would feel embarrassed intellectually to side with you and your weak and flimsy rebuttals…go back and listen to his statements and then respond to them…not something different or similar in your mind.

  • Josh

    Jaclyn’s video has been refuted over and over again. Just go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X70GFpKeRZk‎

  • Steven Buckley

    Biblical World View vs World View. Scientists with a World View have the expectation of the concusions MUST match that view. Creationism simply asks the “how” questions. I was asked to leave a college chemistry class simply for qsking a question based on the Professor’s presented evidence of the neuclear field hwving been found weaker then the first time it had been measured, even though the same substance and instruments had been used each time. My question? “Wouldn’t that go against the theory of Evolution swhich dictates thing Should be getting stronger?”

    • Kodie

      I’m assuming you were asked to leave because you did not have the minimum prerequisite to be in that class in the first place, and the professor did not have time to remedy you.

    • baal

      “Evolution swhich dictates thing Should be getting stronger?”
      Schwing!
      It doesn’t say that. It says increasing fitness to match the selection pressure (and allows for drift). Sometimes the selective pressure is to get smaller and simplier. Sometimes it’s to get smarter and eat more diverse foods. Other times the better strategy is to specialize in a prevalent but hard to eat food (pandas, koalas). There are many ways to evolve to fit a niche.

  • todddude

    Are you a school teacher? With an open mind? Rationally thinking? For the sake of our children? What organizations do you stand for?
    Who do you speak representing? The mind is a terrible thing to waste?

  • Matt M

    That’s the evidence you provide that is a “response” to the video? Really? I’m sorry… the speciation thing really is a problem for Darwinists, if people watch this video, they will think so.
    I guess Darwin had Finches with different beak sizes that was the basis of speciation. Since then we’ve uncovered that fruit flies, peppered moths and viruses also have variations. Who could ever doubt this any longer?

  • Reasonable faith in God

    Lol, I watched the video of Ray and it was amazing and lovely.. Yes, all we theist need is to give us one observable evidence of a fish turning into human being, that’s all we need and we will throw all our scriptures away and we will be all atheist… Don’t tell me about a dog turning into a dog or a fish turning into a fish… All I want is a fish turning into human , and please don’t tell me that scientist are working on that because its just absurd, you believe evolution is established fact…. By the way watch this video of Trey Smith Theory of everything, this video is far better from Ray Comforts video ,many atheist abandoned their atheism after watching this video.. This one plainly show that evolution is a mythological absurd theory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtBz1roiQR8

    • RobMcCune

      Yes, all we theist need is to give us one observable evidence of a fish turning into human being,

      Except that’s not evolution, fish began evolving into land animals 400 million years ago while modern humans evolved only 200,000 years ago. You on the other hand, are the one who believes in magical fairy-tale transformations like the ones described in daniel 4:28-36.

      All I want is a fish turning into human ,

      The only thing that will convince you is some ridiculous fairy-tale transformation you made up in your own ignorance? So much for having reasonable faith.

      and please don’t tell me that scientist are working on that because its just absurd,

      I told you it’s absurd.

      you believe evolution is established fact….

      Because it is.

      many atheist abandoned their atheism after watching this video..

      You mean around 0?

  • Reasonable faith in God

    Hemant Mahte , you deleted my comment, its not bad to learn man, all we need is observable evidence for a macro-evolution, and we will throw our scriptures away….

  • Palcau Ioan

    i thought so my earlier comment its not showing here! im out of here tc pplz God have mercy of yours souls

  • Tonyshome

    “atheist”
    Wow, so much Hatred in your tongues. It”s no wonder at all we are in such a mess in this country, “A nation divided against its self shall not stand” Be careful because you are in grave danger. The only Sin that God will not forgive is the sin you have committed, That sin is rejecting God, At this point it is not to late for you! Every knee will bow to God whether you want to admit it now or not. God will not reveal true wisdom until you humble your self before him. He has the power to control what ever he wants. GOD’S WORD SHALL NOT RETURN VOID! The fool has said in his/her heart “no GOD”! God does not need you, people need him! It is not his will that any should parish. “FEW WILL FIND THE WAY!”

    regards,
    Tonyshome

  • Meg Armour-Jones

    I’d love for you to ask Ray if he has actually read “The Origin of Species” and “The Descent of Man.” If he had he wouldn’t use scientific terms incorrectly. Of course he uses vague social constructs every day to add to his cause as if they are truth, so he probably wouldn’t understand it.

  • StaceyM

    Why is it the a big deal if people believe in God? If u are an atheist u believe that u are non important a mammal nothing more then a whole dog or fish and after life you just die. Christians believe you go to heaven or hell so why not just let them believe and stop going after the Christian religion because really it should not make any difference to you. It’s not hurting you it’s not effecting you at all.
    If someone comes up to talk to you about God simply say you don’t want to talk to it.
    Unless its true then there would be a big problem wouldn’t there be? Then if would be affecting the whole evolution theory.
    In truth if you have read the bible I think it is not that bad it say love your neighbour as yourself, do not lie, cheat or murder. Pretty much be as good as you can be… Let me tell you I would much rather hang outwits someone who is not going to murder me then someone who is. So let Christians be Christians and perhaps why don’t you start going after the Islam who believe that they should commit suicide when people don’t believe or Scientology or any of the many other religions.
    Most of the time Christians are just trying to help they go over to many countries and help them, donate mone to various causes.
    If God doesn’t exist and I choose to believe does that effect you in any way no it shouldn’t much like if I choose to believe in Santa Claus.

  • StaceyM

    Anyways that my whole view point sorry about the spelling mistakes I wrote it on an iPad and it wouldn’t let me fix any.
    If religion is bad then just stop talking about it if its not true then why do you care? I look around this world and what it has become and I can’t stop thinking what is the point of life. If we are all just suppose to start school, when we are 5 well now I guess technically when we start going to daycare and then once we are done school go to work till we are old enough to retire and then hope that we are healthy enough and live long enough to do anything with the money we make what is the point? Let me tell you if there is no point and I go no where at the end of my life I personally think it is a big waste all of humanity is a big waste.

    • Ophis

      There’s no backspace on an iPad? Shit. Won’t ask for one of those for Christmas.

  • StaceyM

    Ok unsure of where my post went I don’t see if anymore so maybe this time I can write it and it won’t be deleted.
    My whole point is what does it matter if I choose to believe in God how does that affect you, it truly shouldn’t much like it doesn’t affect me if you choose to believe in evolution. Unless of course Christianity is true then that affects everything.

    Also what is the point of life to literally just be born go to daycare, school, work your whole life and retire and hope that you have enough time left to enjoy your time and if you don’t to bad and that’s it??

    One other thing if the world continues to evolve why don’t dogs start talking humans must have been around long enough or monkeys don’t continue to become humans why would they want to continue to be monkeys or dogs. You would think if evolutionist wanted to prove it and they say they know how they would start mating animals that need to mate in order to create a human I know they say it takes millions of years but don’t you think that they would start now?

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

      Hooboy, this could be long.

      First, it matters why you believe in God. Do you think the evidence points in that direction? Do you just take it for granted and not question it? Do you think so because you’ve been taught it literally since you were born? Are you scared to not believe it?

      Second, your beliefs inform your actions. If you believe in god(s), your actions will reflect that. You might do what you think God wants without worrying about pesky details such as how it affects actual real people or society. You might, for example, vote to deny people certain critical human rights because you think God doesn’t like how they live their lives, or think that declaring war on certain other people is okay because they believe in a different god than you do. I’m not saying you, personally, do either one, but people do that because of their beliefs. If your beliefs cause you to do harmful things, it very much matters if you believe in a god.

      Third, we create our own purpose in life. It’s scary and glorious at the same time. This is the only life we get, and it is short, and then we die. The ripples of our actions continue on after we die, of course, and most people want to matter. It’s a primal desire on par with desires for food, shelter, and sex. So we try to make the world a better place- more egalitarian, more fair, cleaner, safer, and just better. We try to learn how it works. We enjoy our brief moment; like the flame, we burn bright until we gutter and die. But also like the flame, we can be beautiful.

      Your questions about evolution betray your severe miseducation on what it actually is and how it actually works. I suggest you go to talkorigins.org; it is full of answers to all your questions. Basically, apes and humans share a common ancestor; the population split at some point, with some of them becoming our ancestors and some becoming modern apes’ ancestors. We don’t know what apes are evolving into. It’s a very complicated and unpredictable process, affected by genetics, environment, epigenetics, and randomness. Dogs seem to work pretty well as they are- why would they start talking? Evolution is a process without a goal: survival of a species determines success or failure, but there’s no ideal or end goal.

    • Fred

      At 560+ comments are you sure it not because you can’t find it?
      ProTip: log the fuck in and then post.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X