Hemant over at Friendly Atheist was able to get Ray Comfort to respond to an interview. It’s worth taking a look just to see how his brain works. For instance:
Hemant: What is the strongest evidence you can think of in support of evolution by natural selection?
Ray: There is no indisputable evidence for species to species evolution. All “evidence” comes down to faith — does the believer believe the dating process or the information given by other believers in evolution.
I don’t think it’s possible for Ray to ever really understand evolution, because he thinks it goes against his holy book. Until he sees evolution as something compatible with his intellectual foundation (the Bible), he could never believe it has any merit.
Why should any Freethinker pay any attention to him? He’s a media whore. By addressing him in the media we are saying that his world view is at least worthy of our attention and it’s not.
Seriously. He’s a deceitful imbecile.
“All “evidence” comes down to faith”
/Facepalm!
It goes further than that. He, and the vast supply of others like him, must actively ensure that he does not believe. Most religions have that wonderful protection feature that says disbelief shows lack of faith, and lack of faith will ensure eternal punishment.
It’s almost recursive. Just taking a step towards disbelieving the chance of eternal punishment will ensure that you are subject to it.
That generates a form of self-censorship that, I’m sure, if practiced from childhood, becomes almost autonomic.
“That generates a form of self-censorship that, I’m sure, if practiced from childhood, becomes almost autonomic.”
I’m sure you’re absolutely right.
To expand on that I think that If you are also conditioned to assigned emotions that are suppose to be so powerful that they exceed the feelings you have for friends and family, to an infinite personality that has given you “everything” would also create a fear of committing an ultimate betrayal along with the fear of eternal punishment. Which would only reinforce the self-censorship.
Pingback: Interview With Ray Comfort - Science and Religion Today
I’ve been kicking around an idea for blog post about this, but I think we skeptics need to encourage and exploit Mr. Comfort as a poster child for our cause. He’s a shining example of what happens to someone’s mind when religion takes hold of it. If you’re not scared by that prospect, then you’re already lost.
I agree with this.
“It is impossible for a Christian to convert to atheism because a Christian is someone who knows God.”
He’s certainly comfortable making statements that are false to fact.
The first phrase is false to fact. The second phrase is a made-up definition, an opinion. It not only doesn’t support the first phrase, it’s a non sequitur.
Well if he knows god, then why is he still a Christian and not a muslim?
I see what you did there.
I wish the USA would just deport Ray Comfort to New Zealand (or trade him for Neil Finn, Sam Neill or Peter Jackson)
Are you trying to start a war with New Zealand?!
I think the relevant phrase here is: “No takebacks!”
We are still using Jackson, we’re delighted to have Neill and we have enough trouble holding onto the Finns as it is!
You guys were dumb enough to give him residency/citizenship/whatever.
This joker probably had relatives back in the 1600′s who believed to their death that the sun revolved around earth in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Denying evolution nowadays takes that kind of ignorance.
And yet, in the USA, we’ve got Ray Comfort and probably many others.
He’s an embarrassment to me as an American and a Human.
What a shame.
Jeff
You’re not the same Jeff who sometimes posts here, are you? Clearly not, and I congratulate you for that :D
Although many embarrassing people are American, Ray Comfort is from New Zealand.
Maybe if we convince him that God created all the evidence for evolution… i don’t know, maybe to throw us off… to test our belief, who knows.
He can easily proof that the fossiles are created by god. Just show is the fossiled rabit, cats and dogs that also existed back then when the dinosaurus were here.
He could also show us the crocoduck since that would be definately proof that god created life since evolution tells us that this is an animal that could never have evolved trhough evolution.
I am wondering does he BELIEVE in gravity?
Since it is only a theory. LOL
Ok, don’t get me wrong. I am not defending Mr Comfort. :P
I do want to contest this, though, on a more general level:
“I don’t think it’s possible for Ray to ever really understand evolution, because he thinks it goes against his holy book. ”
Why on earth would that make it impossible for him to understand evolution? I understand things I don’t agree with, things that go against my moral code, and things that aren’t in the Bible. I understand all kinds of things despite my own personal beliefs or feelings on the matter.
I’m trying to think of an example that isn’t particularly charged, and having trouble. Maybe let’s use one that’s been worked over pretty good: LRA and I disagree about homeschooling. Does that mean that it is *impossible* for me to understand her point? Lemme see… no.
Or take a tenet of the Bible: I believe that I should love God. Does that somehow make it impossible for me to understand the act of not loving God, the reasons why someone wouldn’t love God, or other moral codes that would preclude loving God? No.
I’m trying to figure out where this came from. Why should disagreement, or even firm belief that something is wrong, preclude the ability to understand it? Is it that anyone who actually understood evolution would somehow be guaranteed to agree with it? Is it that those who commit strongly to a non-scientific belief become incapable of understanding science? Why should it be impossible for Comfort to understand a theory he opposes? If anything, you could all “love to hate” him more if was in full command of evolutionary theory and still disagreed with it, right? I mean right now you’ve basically given him a ready made means of escape: “oh, I misunderstood this whole time…”
Can somebody ‘splain?
I think the implication is more that the epistemological stance Comfort takes is incompatible with understanding science at a basic level. It’s not so much not understanding something that you don’t agree with, but more excluding an entire type of thought because they are incompatible with the type of thought necessary to believe what he does.
Or to put it more shortly, you can understand something scientific because at some level, you understand empiricism to be a legitimate epistemology for collecting information. Comfort’s stance on evidence itself absolutely excludes him from understanding anything that uses empiricism to construct explanations, as science does in general and the theory of evolution does in particular.
I’m just not sure about that. I get that he might not acknowledge its truth. I’m not sure that means he can’t understand it. If that makes sense. His stance on evidence means he won’t accept that knowledge as true, sure. Can’t, even. But unless I’m mistaken, that doesn’t preclude an understanding of that evidence, or even of the way it is interpreted by people who don’t agree with him. Using empiricism to construct explanations is not hard to grasp as a concept, and neither are the fundamental principles of evolutionary theory. It can be done.
Your point isn’t that the scientific method and evolutionary theory are so self-evident that they indicate a pure lack of basic reasoning skills in those who disagree with them. Is it?
That is the whole point, evolution and even the universe does not follow human reasoning and human logic.
You can come up with the best logical and reasonable explanation you can think of, if you check it with reality by testing and measuring it, and it does not fit what you thought then it has to go in to the garbage bin.
This is what scientists do, create a theory and model and test it, test test test many cross checks with in different fields. For example evolution, crosscheck with astronomy, biology, nuclear physics, it all points to the fact that Earth is billions of years old not 6000. Even if the evoltion theory would be somehow wrong, all other sciences still point to the fact that the bible is wrong. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands science evicendes show that the bible is wrong, the Darwin evolution is only a very tiny subset of science and even if you win the filosofical battle and make people believe and brainwashed that evolution is wrong, the bible is still wrong by all other thousands of science evidences in all fields.
Ray Comfort, is really somone that no matter how hard he tries will never understand the basic concepts of evolution. He simply cannot separate reality from fiction. I don’t think he is a bad guy but in his reality he thinks that the evil sceintists are trying to corrupt this world so he must save the poor soules.
From atheist logical point of view, the most logical explanation is that if a god exists, then he would have created this big machine called universe and programmed it in such a way that it does produce us using evolution.
Could a god exist? Yes.But does that mean that a god really exists? NO.
So from atheist point of view, a god could exist or not, but whoever wrote that bible, it was clearly NOT god!
Maybe god has created this bible as a test? A test to see if we can become intelligent enough to realize that this bible is fake so we become worthy to explore the universe and humanity will become eternal. Or stupid to still believe in this fake bible and stick to Earth. Since we did not create science to make the technology to explore the universe and humanity dies. Because the sun grows so much that humans die in the hell created by the sun since we are stuck on earth with no escape.
Or, restating (because I’m tired): acknowledging empiricism to be legitimate is different from understanding it on a conceptual level.
Tangent:
What Mr. Comfort says about believing isn’t that far from Hume’s thesis that we should proportion our belief to the available evidence. Comfort asks “does the believer believe the dating process or the information given by other believers in evolution.” That is actually consistent with empiricism. We should examine evidence, and proportion our belief to that evidence. Just because he is misinformed or wrong about what the evidence suggests does not mean that he doesn’t understand at least this fundamental principle of empiricism.
JJ, I really like you, but there is NOTHING that Comfort has to say that is compatible or consistent with empiricism.
The problem is that although Comfort talks about examining the evidence, he will never actually accept the conclusions of such examinations (he hasn’t thus far). When fundies like him say “We must examine the evidence” it’s simply code speak for “My mind is made up, and I refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary”. The former just sounds nicer, as if they actually cared about the scientific and epistemological processes.
JonJon, for myself I have a g/f who’s a graduate in human sciences from Oxford, and her sister who graduated from Nottingham in archaeology. I have “faith” that they know what they’re talking about when it comes to genetics and radiometric dating for more than Ray Comfort.
Mkay, let me say again what I’ve already said: *I am not defending Mr. Comfort.*
I have no interest in doing so. Not what is at issue.
This is not about whether he is right or wrong.
Lemme address trj.
“The problem is that although Comfort talks about examining the evidence, he will never actually accept the conclusions of such examinations (he hasn’t thus far). When fundies like him say “We must examine the evidence” it’s simply code speak for “My mind is made up, and I refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary”. The former just sounds nicer, as if they actually cared about the scientific and epistemological processes.”
I am not talking about “caring about” scientific or epistemological processes. I don’t think he does, but that doesn’t matter I’m talking about being aware of scientific or epistemological processes. This is not precluded by being indifferent or opposed to something.
Yes, when he says “examine the evidence” he is using it to back up his point. However, the fact that he is making an appeal to evidence at all, even if it is a silly one that scientists won’t agree with, means that he does, on some level, understand what makes empiricism tick. The ability to manipulate claims to make them sound empirically based indicates some knowledge of what is valued in the empirical process, and therefore what makes it work.
I just don’t think that being opposed to something precludes understanding it.
LRA, what I mean is that he is manipulating his claims to make them sound empirical. That indicates a knowledge of how empiricism is supposed to sound, and thereby how it is supposed to work.
Custador, I think I’ve made clear that I’m not defending one word of what Comfort has actually said.
Oh- ok JJ. Gotcha. :)
You know, I have this ex-gilfriend that is slight mentally handicapped.
Although she has no clue what she is talking about, but she is able to reframe logic in such a way that it makes total sense and people believe her.
I also have to work with people that never studied anything, the wierd thing is although they are completely ignorant of basic things, they can change their wording in such a way that they manage to even confince intelligent people with their logic.
I have been wondering a lot how it is possible that stupid people can follow the even more stupid people, and get them so set up that they will burn the one with the correct sollution on a staple while following the path to selfdestruction believing that they follow the right path.
A good example is the anti-vaccine people. People so afraid that the mercury might hurt them, but at the same time they inject botox as a hobby and smoke one packet of cigarets a day and eat tons of junk food. They will never die from mercury but from the cigaretes and botox posion or heart attack from the junk food.
> “I just don’t think that being opposed to something precludes understanding it.”
Agreed. However, it doesn’t really matter whether these people understand it or not when they’re not going to actually apply that understanding, except in a disingenuous way.
Ray Comfort has written before that there is no evidence that would make him accept evolution becasue it would make his “God” a liar.It’s that simple.
please post some evidence of how evolution started.
why don’t you do the research yourself, you lazy sob:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
Better yet, get a f*cking education.
Shawn and education don’t mix … Shawn and stupidy on the other hand get on like they where made for each other. Maybe that was god’s plan for him … not quite sure that plan is but it’s a plan.
Oh hell, another one? I followed your argument with this guy in another thread and he’s just…. A douchenozzle.
well if you going to insult me at least do it with some degree of originality. I was called a douchenozzle last week.
Well maybe that indicates something to you …
I woulf prefer the term c*ck spanner but yours is fine as well!
Please post some evidence of how “godidit”?
As usual no answer.
Silence is an appropriate rebuke to a nonsensical question. But, in case you are actually interested, abiogenesis is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution, so the question of “how it started” is not one which the theory is designed to answer.
In Shawn’s mind that means that evolution is somehow flawed and therefore his god exists.
Then answer it outside the theory. Life had to have started at some point. Explain how you think it did.
Do some research man, elmenope told you the name of the discipline if you want to read up on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB0
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
http://www.talkorigins.org
After critical study of the scientific literature I conclude that advances in our knowledge, with particularly exciting findings in the last decade, have now made the spontaneous origin of life a plausible assumption.
So in the last 10 years we now have a plausible assumption?
Indeed, even though it is commonly accepted that the RNA World presumably had played an important role in the development of life, it now seems clear that it must have been preceded by other steps, if life were to have arisen spontaneously.
Lots of other steps.
Other difficulties are that a ribozyme (catalytic RNA) that can copy itself completely has not yet been found, but this rather seems just a matter of time – so far, a 200 base ribozyme can copy 14 bases of its sequence. Also, “the formidable problem of separating the double-stranded product of the copying reaction so as to permit a second round of copying would remain to be solved” (Orgel 2004 review). Solutions for these problems of copying a long ribozyme sequence and of double strand separation have been proposed in the article “Synthesizing Life” (Szostak et al. 2001); experiments will have to show if they are feasible.
Again not feasible.
In any case, minerals most likely provide the clue to a lot of the answers regarding the origin of life. They have been demonstrated to allow for the prebiotic synthesis of nucleotide precursors that have so far proven elusive, for example, the synthesis of ribose in sufficient purity – borate minerals stabilize ribose (Ricardo, A et al. 2004; see also press release; however, for a possible stereoselective synthesis of D-ribose catalyzed by amino acids, see below). Minerals have also been shown to catalyze polymerization of nucleotide-like molecules (Orgel 2004). Vesicle formation is aided by them as well, and mineral particles could have wound up inside vesicles and there exhibited catalytic properties (Hanczyc et al. 2003, Hanczyc et al. 2006).
could have, may have, possibly.
Or we have faith that this is the way we think that this possibly could have maybe been the way it could have happened.
Its still all taken on faith. But yet others can not have a different view with faith that it was created as is. Or Goddidit if you like.
You always say do your own research. Dont assume that I havent. Dont assume just because I have a different view that I havent seen the opposing side. Your view isnt as cut and dry as you claim ( or have faith ) that it is.
Or maybe you should do more research.
Are you for real?? We have said you a hundred of times two things:
1.- Evolution doesn’t explain the arising of life. It was never his intention.
2.- The hypotheses about arising of life are not yet complete. Abiogenesys is not yet a theory.
So you followed the links Daniel provided, you found what we already have said to you, and you are deducting that “all” is based on faith? Scientists are working to solve the problems in abiogenesys so that it doesn’t have to be a matter of faith, we know that. Evolution was solved -in his basic points- long time ago, that’s why it is called a theory.
Moreover, if you are going to say that the fact that we can’t proof how life arised is a proof for your god -wich I think you are implying…
1.- It’s not. It’s not even a proof for Allah’s existence.
2.- More importantly, what will your god be reduced or limited to when (if) we got the answer?
Your god is the god of the empty spaces in science
Thanks Francesc for you comments. I am not saying that its proof of God I just want people to see that having faith is somthing we all do. What is wrong with having faith in somthing different?
To answer #2 I would be suprised if you could come up with the answer, since I think you are not willing to accept creation as viable. If my theory is correct you wont see it looking at biogenisis.
No, what you are trying to do is conflate Blind Faith aka Wishful Thinking with Evidence Based Faith.
A godbot who believes that some imaginary sky friend spoke everything into existence and then asks how evolution began is absolutely priceless.
Well he’s already claimed the have you ever seen a painting without painter as evidence for his god.
That is simply an analogy of how we dont get something that has order to it, painting, car, building, from nothing. These non living examples are so much less complex than a single cell. And yes we already know there is a painter. That is not the point and you know that.
I’m answering you with another analogy. If I see a snowflake, wich surely seems to be beatiful, I’m not gonna say that it is a proof of Jack Frost existence and he created the snowflake. Because I don’t have any proof of a Jack Frost and because there is a plausible natural explanation about snowflake’s existence and structure wich do not involve Jack’s Frosts
I understand that, although I dont put God in the same catagory as jack frost. ( I know that many do and that is fine for them ) The problem I have is many people here state that evolution is fact ( which the variation or micro part is fact no problem there ) when its not. They say take micro and give it time and you have macro. Macro just doesnt work it cant be proven, sure we have variation but that is it.
So let me get this right then Shawn, you can’t answer points given to you in one thread so you run off to another thread to start the same thing and just forget everything that has been said to you?
“That is not the point and you know that.”
So what is the point then Shawn, oh I know I’ve got not evidence that god exists so I’ll make stupid analogies (obviously I’ll ignore any attempt to point this out) and then ask dumb question about evolution over and over again until people get bored and then I’ll claim that evolution is incorrect so my goddidit.
Have I missed anything here Shawn, ah yes I have haven’t I … I didn’t put the part in where you lie repeatedly.
I would like to know why you are so angry
I would like to know why you lie so much.
Because he’s a creationist and basically that either makes you a liar or ignorant?
Angry … er no. I’m just wondering why you can’t present any evidence for creationism.
I’d like to know that too – I mean, Sean keeps claiming that such evidence exists after all – surely he wouldn’t make a spurious assertion to back up an otherwise ludicrous belief? I can hardly believe that….
@Custador
Shawn believes that if you repeat something often enough and in different threads it becomes true. Basically he has a bad case of anal lasers from the alternate universe of fcukwittery.
I have seen seveal quotes on this site that state how you want sombody to renounce thier faith on this blog. Then when sombody gives you the chance to explain why it is you believe what you do you just name call and dodge the question. Why is that?
One note, don’t confuse scientists with pesudoscientists which are fake scientists.
For example the electrict Universe scientists, these are the equivalent of the creationists and Inteligent design scienists. Just like the creationists these electric universe proponents spam science sites hoping to convert people with brainwashing techniques where a creationist would be proud of.
The pattern is always the same: “Science cannot explain xxx, so the yyy must be true”.
e.g “Science cannot explain gravity, so the electric universe must be true”.
The other pattern is that they explain the whole universe with their electric universe model, but have no basic knowledge of electricity.
So are all scientists that find that evolution has flaws “fake scientists”?
Nope. All scientists that don’t do real science are “fake scientists”. Obvious, isn’t it?
But I have to agree that there is an important correlation -wich doesn’t imply causation- between denying evolution and not being a good scientist.
“It is extremly improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structually complex, arose spontaineously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originatied by chemical means.”
Orgel, leslie E. (The orgin of life on the earth) scientific american, vol. 271 oct. 1994 p. 78
fake or real?
Melvin Cook
Ph D
nitro nobel gold medalist
chemistry pioneer award
e.v. murphree gold medalist
loomis award from yale
Fake?
Of course Francis Bacon developed the scientific method also had problems with the theory.
There is a long list of very decorated people that have problems with the theory.
And yes I know that disprooving one doesnt mean the other is right. You seem to all go back to that.
“And yes I know that disprooving one doesnt mean the other is right. You seem to all go back to that.”
Even though you’ve clearly stated many times that this is basically what you believe. So let me guess you’ve just said this so that no one asks you for evidence of your mumbo-jumbo version of creation. Have you got a special version of the commandments with only nine points not the normal ten?
Hi jabster how are you doing today, nice to here from you.
maybe you would like to pull the post that I stated if evolution is not real my God exists.
“You also say that evolution being wrong doesnt prove creation. Do you have another viable theory to bring a DNA chain into existance. If so post it I would like to hear it.”
Would you like me to post anything else or are you just going to lie again and claim that’s not what you meant becuase that is exactly your point isn’t it?
I love when you call me a liar : ) I suppose for you to understand I should have put a question mark at the end of that question. I figured the “do you have” at the begining would have been your first clue. Of course disproving one doesnt automaticaly prove the other. But you would have to come up with another explanation from nature ( maybe that electric universe model lol.) Oh wait maybe you could go with “the aliens brought the life here”. Or find bigfoot he is the missing link to make it all work.
As far as evidence I have already posted it in the last thread. I mean come on the cambrian explosion is enough by itself to disprove gradual variation and point to creation. The DNA chain had a maker it just too complex to happen otherwise ( hey that could support the alien theory ) Your evidence doesnt support your theory it supports mine.
darwin would have given up by know and been looking somewere else.
you love to say my questions are stupid. Maybe its because you have no airtight proof for your theory.
I’m just so happy to be here telling lie after lie
by the way have fun mocking me I will be out of the country next week. See you when I return.
choose JOY jabster and sunny!!
“Of course disproving one doesnt automaticaly prove the other. But you would have to come up with another explanation from nature ( maybe that electric universe model lol.) Oh wait maybe you could go with “the aliens brought the life here”. Or find bigfoot he is the missing link to make it all work.”
This is why I call you a liar … yes you do believe that dis-proving evolution proves your version of mumbo-jumbo. You’re not even a good liar as you go on to contradict yourself in your post, and that’s why I call you stupid.
“As far as evidence I have already posted it in the last thread.”
No you haven’t as has been pointed out to you many times but you keep repeating this lie.
“I mean come on the cambrian explosion is enough by itself to disprove gradual variation and point to creation.”
Please explain how this points to creation. Oh you can’t can you so yet again you’re trying to show that dis-proving evolution proves your version of mumbo-jumbo.
“The DNA chain had a maker it just too complex to happen otherwise …”
Please explain how this is true and what you believed caused it. Maybe you can claim that you had read it someone but you can’t remember where … I mean what sort of person would act like that?
“Your evidence doesnt support your theory it supports mine.”
Please explain what you theory is and the evidence for it. Hint: repeating the same lies over and over again isn’t evidence/proof and nor is assuming that you book of myths is true and then using it to prove that it’s true.
“Maybe its because you have no airtight proof for your theory.”
It’s irrelevant whether I do or not it’s the evidence for your theory, and indeed what your theory even is, that counts and clearly you have no evidence; your theory is goddidit and not just any old god but your particular version of god.
“I’m just so happy to be here telling lie after lie”
Well clearly as you have lied on multiple occasions. Oh and telling a lie and then when it’s pointed out that it’s a lie just saying oh forget I ever said that doesn’t mean you’re not a liar.
“choose JOY jabster and sunny!!”
Wishful thinking does not make something true.
You returned yet Shawn as you’ve had all week to come up with some answers. I’m sure you won’t disappoint me …
@Shawn Abbott
“by the way have fun mocking me I will be out of the country next week. See you when I return.”
Well yes I did have fun mocking you, I mean who wouldn’t … oh and the second part yet another one of your lies obvioulsy.
@ Shawn Abbot:
““Of course disproving one doesnt automaticaly prove the other.”
Er – yes it does! If you accept the normal definitions of creationism and evolution, then if one is true it automatically excludes the other. That’s why fundies are so rabbidly anti-evolution; if it’s proven that speciation and genetic diversity really did occur then that means that life cannot have been created in its current “final” forms. Since it has already been proven to a standard at least as high as the proofs for the germ theory of disease and the theory of gravity (we’ve SEEN species mutate into new species at the bacterial level – quite literally watched it happen – among a mountain of other proofs), Creationism has been comprehensively proven wrong, therefore so has ID (they’re the same thing after all).
*occur as a result of evolution
@Custador
I think you missed the bit about disproving i.e. yes it’s true that if creationism is true then evolution is false but it doesn’t follow that if creationism is false then evolution is true. It’s not a binary choice of one or the other.
Evolution is considered to be true because of the facts that support it not because of the lack of evidence for a creationist view point.
No, that’s the opposite approach to what I’m saying: If evolution is true (it is) then creationism must be false.
@Custador
I agree with you but I’m pointing out to Shawn that *his* approach of if evolution is wrong creationism is right is not correct. Admittedly when you have no evidence in support of creationism is still probably the best way to argue in favour of it!
But he keeps telling us he has evidence! He’s not lying is he? Well, that doesn’t seem very Christian!
/sarcasm
Creationism is one of those strange parts of Christianity in that to support it, having looked at the evidence, you have to lie to yourself and others to make your case. Take Shawn’s continued insistence that he’s posted evidence when he hasn’t. Why does he do that; he knows what he’s posted can not be classed as evidence and he also knows that if what he posted was presented as evidence for a different faith then he would dismiss it. The probem with the likes of Shawn is that he knows he has no evidence and that’s why he wants to dismiss evolution with the same old dumb arguments that creationsists have used over and over again. Ask them for the evidence and what you’ll get is a bunch of handwaving coupled with assurances that they will post the evidence tomorrow. Shawn now claims to be going away so expect him to re-appear at some time and then start making the same claims having ignored everything that has been said to him. Most people don’t have a good word to say about people who act in this way but I do … tw*t!
Custador please post the where I can see a bacteria change into something other than bacteria. Thank you.
For someone who offers up not the merest shred of evidence for their views, you seem to demand so much more from others. Why is that?
Is it because you know deep down that you don’t have any?
That your “Faith Alone” is not enough?
Your faith, so tiny you hysterically lie, attempting reassure yourself of the validity of something you know to not be true?
I’m not a biologyst, but your “bacteria changing into something other than bacteria” is equivalent to saying “vertebrates changing into something other than vertebrates”. I mean, bacteria includes an awful lot of very distinct species, it would take millions of years to happen.
From talkorigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html)
[You can go to the source to follow the links to the papers.]
“Many organisms have been observed to acquire various new functions which they did not have previously (Endler 1986). Bacteria have acquired resistance to viruses (Luria and Delbruck 1943) and to antibiotics (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Bacteria have also evolved the ability to synthesize new amino acids and DNA bases (Futuyma 1998, p. 274). Unicellular organisms have evolved the ability to use nylon and pentachlorophenol (which are both unnatural manmade chemicals) as their sole carbon sources (Okada et al. 1983; Orser and Lange 1994). The acquisition of this latter ability entailed the evolution of an entirely novel multienzyme metabolic pathway (Lee et al. 1998). Bacteria have evolved to grow at previously unviable temperatures (Bennett et al. 1992). In E. coli, we have seen the evolution (by artificial selection) of an entirely novel metabolic system including the ability to metabolize a new carbon source, the regulation of this ability by new regulatory genes, and the evolution of the ability to transport this new carbon source across the cell membrane (Hall 1982)”
Some of those changes are equivalent to a lion evolving to eat cotton
I have no need to reassure myself. I know the truth already
What is funny is I say over and over I have no problem with variation (microevolution) then someone will say, its the same thing just add time and it will happen. Its not the same thing as macroevolution. You are not going to change that bacteria into anything other than bacteria. They were created bacteria and they will stay bacteria. Macroevolution does not work no matter how much time you add to it. Just add more time is just a cop out for we cant figure it out but I have faith that it works. I have faith too. They have tried for 100 years to turn a fruit fly into something other than a fruit fly, and guess what they are still fruit flies.
The evolution of bacteria is hard (probably impossible) to follow in the extreme long term outside a controlled lab environment. But there are plenty of other examples of transitional fossils which show how entire clades evolved (dinosaurs to birds, fish to tetrapods) or how genera involved inside orders (such as the evolution of whales, horses, humans).
You’re welcome.
Saying it again… a bacteria is not a specie. All living organisms are divided into three big groups, eukarya, archaea and bacteria. Eukarya includes algae, fungi, plantae, amoebozoa… and all the animals (I will repeat it for you: Eukarya includes you and a fungi), who are far more related between them than with bacteria. The change you want us to “see” in a lab is estimated to be a 3.000 million year evolution. Yes, it is impossible. But some of the changes talkorigins is referencing in my previous comment are not “microevolution”, only people who doesn’t understand anything about biology could think so.
only people who doesn’t understand anything about biology could think so.
Really so nobody that has an understanding of biology could possibly think that macroevolutoin has no basis in fact? Are you sure about that?
@Shawn
Just got around to looking up your Melvin Cook and I’m not sure why you think someone who was know for his work with explosives would be an authority on the start of life. Oh and a how is a Ph.D in Physical Chemistry awarded in 1937 relevant to your argument?
Is Darwin relevant to your argument? Do I need to post every scientist that doesnt believe in the crock of evolution? ( oh they are all fake scientists probably )( I will make sure to put a question mark so you will understand its a question ) Just because you dont like my evidence, such as the information in DNA doesnt me its not. You ask me for evidence and I post it then you call me a liar thats how this goes. You dont like it when I point to DNA as evidence, but evolutionists can point to it and say how it all evolved from nothing and thats not a lie to you. Well I say you are a liar passing off half truths as truths.
You didn’t provide any evidence. Just the traditional cretinist unsustained claim “it’s too complex”.
I mean come on the cambrian explosion is enough by itself to disprove gradual variation and point to creation.
No, it’s not. But I’d like to know how do you explain there are not vertebrate fossils from the Cambrian.
chance change over an unimaginable sea of time. Look at the explosion. spinal cords, different types of animals already devoloped, how is that a slow chance change? Its not.
WHERE ARE THE VERTEBRATES, SHAWN? How come there are no reptiles or mammals in those fossils, Shawn? How come the earliest reptiles apear 220 million years after the Cambrian explosion and the earliest mammals another 100 million years later? And how come those species were different from current ones, Shawn? How come nobody found a human, a horse, a bear, an elephant or any other modern species in the Jurassic, Shawn? Please explain.
Bender, don’t waste time on Shawn. He’s a zealous moron.
How about we stick to the subject. What is in the explosion. Its not gradual and you know it isnt.
“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time … The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” (Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65),
“And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987, p. 229),
“One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age.” (I. Axelrod, “Early Cambrian Marine Fauna,” Science, Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7),
“Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?” (Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,” Scientific American, Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84),
“There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.” (Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 348),
“Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time”
Uhu – that’s what you call slow for the convenience of your argument, is it? When most creationists can’t think in terms longer than 6000 years, boy have you got some front!
The rest of your post was some horrendous quote-mining. You posted a whole lot of questions from published work, and then failed to post the answers which also appear in those published works. That’s a bullshit way of arguing, Shawn, and it fools nobody here.
I really dont care if you like my way of showing truth. If I was to say something without a quote to back it up you call me a liar so I will go ahead and quote all day long.
There’s a massive difference between quoting and quote-mining. You quote mined. You took small parts of much bigger pieces and used them to try to support your argument depsite the fact that, in context with the rest of the pieces, they do the exact opposite. You’re not interested in truth, Shawn. You’re interested in preserving your own beliefs at all costs, even though they’ve been proven wrong thousands of times. Let go of the crutch, Shawn. It’s liberating.
Little bang, big bang, its all the same to morons lying scumbags like Shawn.
lying scumbags? I love you too sunny. Why dont you let me know how you really feel?
I have been liberated, thats what the difference is between me and you.
@Shawn
I’ll just repeat the questions which you ignored …
“I mean come on the cambrian explosion is enough by itself to disprove gradual variation and point to creation.”
Please explain how this points to creation. Oh you can’t can you so yet again you’re trying to show that dis-proving evolution proves your version of mumbo-jumbo.
“The DNA chain had a maker it just too complex to happen otherwise …”
Please explain how this is true and what you believed caused it. Maybe you can claim that you had read it someone but you can’t remember where … I mean what sort of person would act like that?
“Your evidence doesnt support your theory it supports mine.”
Please explain what you theory is and the evidence for it. Hint: repeating the same lies over and over again isn’t evidence/proof and nor is assuming that you book of myths is true and then using it to prove that it’s true.
Jabby it’s just an attention whore. A few days ago it posted something about liver just to try to whine.
I shall leave it to whine alone then!