Ray Comfort on the stupidity of atheism/atheists

[Infinite Monkey]

If it weren't for god's power how do you think a swallow could carry a coconut hundreds of miles during migration? Hmmmm?

Actually, that is a good question. How did they evolve the ability to do that? Did the earliest birds only carry the coconut a few miles and it gradually increased over time? Seems unlikely they woud have the ability to carry it hundreds of miles in the first generation.

It's been a couple years since I've been active on this forum, and when I come back I immediately see this exquisitely funny post? I should not have stayed away so long.

It's like how evolutionists can't answer, "How did pregnancy evolve?" Pregnancy is either all or nothing. You can't have a 3 month pregnancy, then the next stage a 4 month pregnancy. It's all or nothing. Seems very unlikely pregnancy evolved gradually step by step.

Well, if you would like actual answers to your questions, you should devise a scientific experiment to find them. A pregnancy study, perhaps with a sample size of eight-score young blondes and brunettes, all between sixteen and nineteen-and-a-half.

 

[WAB]

If it weren't for god's power how do you think a swallow could carry a coconut hundreds of miles during migration? Hmmmm?

It could grip it by the husk.*


*That's an African swallow, not a European swallow.

 

[ideologyhunter]

If it weren't for God's power, how did Trump's mother survive the birthing process? Consider that fat head, with the protruding lips, and the comb-over (present in utero.)

 

[WAB]

It's been a couple years since I've been active on this forum, and when I come back I immediately see this exquisitely funny post? I should not have stayed away so long.

It's like how evolutionists can't answer, "How did pregnancy evolve?" Pregnancy is either all or nothing. You can't have a 3 month pregnancy, then the next stage a 4 month pregnancy. It's all or nothing. Seems very unlikely pregnancy evolved gradually step by step.

Well, if you would like actual answers to your questions, you should devise a scientific experiment to find them. A pregnancy study, perhaps with a sample size of eight-score young blondes and brunettes, all between sixteen and nineteen-and-a-half.

That would be too perilous.

 

[Aesthete]

Well, I’m a Christian. I’ve watched quite a few of his videos. Recently, I watched one where he explained this whole “banana” thing, and it seems like he is being unjustly ridiculed. There’s a video of his called The Atheist Delusion, in which he confront numerous atheists and asks them whether a book could write itself. That’s basically what we’re dealing with here: can random processes give rise to information? The answer is no. If a book cannot write itself, then neither could a genome, which is far more complex. No amount of evolutionist sophistry can change this basic fact.

I admire his work in evangelism and his zeal for it, as he’s out there doing something I can’t imagine myself doing. To some, this preaching seems foolish. Nevertheless, the gospel message is indeed foolishness to those who are perishing, as God designed it to be (1 Corinthians 1:18-31). So preaching that seems foolish is not in any way necessarily deficient.

Dawkins insults him, but then Dawkins refuses to debate creationists. Dawkins would be demolished.

 

[Keith&Co.]

. That’s basically what we’re dealing with here: can random processes give rise to information? The answer is no. If a book cannot write itself, then neither could a genome, which is far more complex. No amount of evolutionist sophistry can change this basic fact.

How do you define information in this instance?
How do you measure complexity?
Which is more complex, a knofe switch that turns on a light, or the word switch?

I admire his work in evangelism and his zeal for it, as he’s out there doing something I can’t imagine myself doing. To some, this preaching seems foolish. Nevertheless, the gospel message is indeed foolishness to those who are perishing, as God designed it to be (1 Corinthians 1:18-31). So preaching that seems foolish is not in any way necessarily deficient.

But if you're using the product of several generations of genetic modification and saying 'when god made this,' that's foolish and deficient.

Dawkins insults him, but then Dawkins refuses to debate creationists. Dawkins would be demolished.

Creationists do tend to do well in debates, mostly because they dtick to friendly venues and throw just so much bullshit out that no one can address all of it.
But they tend to avoid online debates where their opponent would have the time to address each and every point made by the creationist.
...because the creationist's arguments always get demolished in post mortem.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well, I’m a Christian. I’ve watched quite a few of his videos. Recently, I watched one where he explained this whole “banana” thing, and it seems like he is being unjustly ridiculed. There’s a video of his called The Atheist Delusion, in which he confront numerous atheists and asks them whether a book could write itself. That’s basically what we’re dealing with here: can random processes give rise to information? The answer is no. If a book cannot write itself, then neither could a genome, which is far more complex. No amount of evolutionist sophistry can change this basic fact.

I admire his work in evangelism and his zeal for it, as he’s out there doing something I can’t imagine myself doing. To some, this preaching seems foolish. Nevertheless, the gospel message is indeed foolishness to those who are perishing, as God designed it to be (1 Corinthians 1:18-31). So preaching that seems foolish is not in any way necessarily deficient.

Dawkins insults him, but then Dawkins refuses to debate creationists. Dawkins would be demolished.

But yet he maintains, like all creationists, that there are these infinitely complex things called gods that just happen to exist abracadabra-style. Much less complex things, at least in his way of arguing, like quarks and plants and water and light, could not possibly exist because they're too complex! These much less complex things have to be designed and put together, but not his pretend creator. He doesn't address this contradiction.

So in the end he should be ridiculed and deserves to be ridiculed because he's actually ridiculing himself, he just won't admit it, either because of ignorance, arrogance, or some combination of both.

He just wants us all to keep believing in his Santa and Tooth Fairy. Why doesn't Ray just grow up?

 

[Brian63]

...the gospel message is indeed foolishness to those who are perishing, as God designed it to be (1 Corinthians 1:18-31).

(emphasis added)

God designed the gospel message to be foolishness for some of us? And then blamed us for reading it correctly? And then will punish us for reading it correctly?

Why did God not just design the gospel message to be wise instead of foolish? It seems the blame should be more on god's shoulders than ours.

 

[bilby]

A genome is very unlike a book, in that all genetic sequences code for something. Every possible combination of "letters" is meaningful.

The genetic 'code' is a human description of a chemical process. Analogies to things like books, blueprints, and codes can be a useful means to understanding some parts of what a genome does, but like all analogies they are limited, and treating them as literal and precise descriptions is a recipe for confusion.

And obviously random processes CAN give rise to information - as long as there's ALSO a selection mechanism.

Roll a hundred dice over and over, and the odds against rolling all sixes are tiny. You could do this all day and never come close.

But roll the same dice, but keeping any sixes and only re-rolling the non-sixes in the next round, and you'll almost certainly get all sixes within a dozen rolls.

Natural selection is much more closely analogous to the latter than to the former; Evolution isn't based on randomness; It's based on randomness PLUS SELECTION.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

To be truthful, Ray's argument is the argument from emotion. One's emotions are all one needs to understand and accept his message. It really is like when you were five years old and had Santa.

 

[Aesthete]

A genome is very unlike a book, in that all genetic sequences code for something. Every possible combination of "letters" is meaningful.

The genetic 'code' is a human description of a chemical process. Analogies to things like books, blueprints, and codes can be a useful means to understanding some parts of what a genome does, but like all analogies they are limited, and treating them as literal and precise descriptions is a recipe for confusion.

And obviously random processes CAN give rise to information - as long as there's ALSO a selection mechanism.

Roll a hundred dice over and over, and the odds against rolling all sixes are tiny. You could do this all day and never come close.

But roll the same dice, but keeping any sixes and only re-rolling the non-sixes in the next round, and you'll almost certainly get all sixes within a dozen rolls.

Natural selection is much more closely analogous to the latter than to the former; Evolution isn't based on randomness; It's based on randomness PLUS SELECTION.

According to the numbers, the odds are impossible, even if the earth were old. I disagree with Stephen Meyer on the age of the earth, as I believe he supports an old earth, whereas I believe in a biblical young earth (which science also supports - https://youtu.be/XAqzTuye4-g). Nevertheless, this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g) shows that even the supposed billions of years cannot produce functional, self-replicating genetic information--the odds are against it by many, many orders of magnitude.

...the gospel message is indeed foolishness to those who are perishing, as God designed it to be (1 Corinthians 1:18-31).

(emphasis added)

God designed the gospel message to be foolishness for some of us? And then blamed us for reading it correctly? And then will punish us for reading it correctly?

Why did God not just design the gospel message to be wise instead of foolish? It seems the blame should be more on god's shoulders than ours.

Because God does not owe men truth, and He reveals truth to whom He chooses. Those who do not approach Him with humility will be blinded and confused. "Goo to you by way of the zoo" abiogenesis and evolution is a perfect example. A very simple mind could see that this is impossible, yet this is totally lost on the well-educated. God is sovereign and does what He pleases. He works all things according to the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11), and He hides from the wise and prudent that which He reveals to mere babes (Matthew 11:25).

 

[Keith&Co.]

According to the numbers, the odds are impossible, even if the earth were old.

Except the numbers are not terribly compelling.
For one thing, there is no firm agreement on what must have happened, so any attempt to figure the odds is even more guesswork than the hypothesis.
For another, the 'odds' of an event that happened in the past are 1:1.
And finally, whatever number you come up with for the chances of undirected life appearing on a planet, take that number and compare it the most conservative estimate of appropriate planets thst might exist. Your 'really really frighteningly big number' against becomes pretty much a certainty in that context.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

According to the numbers, the odds are impossible, even if the earth were old.

Except the numbers are not terribly compelling.
For one thing, there is no firm agreement on what must have happened, so any attempt to figure the odds is even more guesswork than the hypothesis.
For another, the 'odds' of an event that happened in the past are 1:1.
And finally, whatever number you come up with for the chances of undirected life appearing on a planet, take that number and compare it the most conservative estimate of appropriate planets thst might exist. Your 'really really frighteningly big number' against becomes pretty much a certainty in that context.

Well, what are the odds against levitating reindeer, Santa and infinitely complex, invisible, magical spacemen?

 

[Keith&Co.]

According to the numbers, the odds are impossible, even if the earth were old.

Except the numbers are not terribly compelling.
For one thing, there is no firm agreement on what must have happened, so any attempt to figure the odds is even more guesswork than the hypothesis.
For another, the 'odds' of an event that happened in the past are 1:1.
And finally, whatever number you come up with for the chances of undirected life appearing on a planet, take that number and compare it the most conservative estimate of appropriate planets thst might exist. Your 'really really frighteningly big number' against becomes pretty much a certainty in that context.

Well, what are the odds against levitating reindeer, Santa and infinitely complex, invisible, magical spacemen?

Yeah, no YEC cares about those odds. Just the OTHER guys' odds.

 

[Treedbear]

A genome is very unlike a book, in that all genetic sequences code for something. Every possible combination of "letters" is meaningful.

The genetic 'code' is a human description of a chemical process. Analogies to things like books, blueprints, and codes can be a useful means to understanding some parts of what a genome does, but like all analogies they are limited, and treating them as literal and precise descriptions is a recipe for confusion.

And obviously random processes CAN give rise to information - as long as there's ALSO a selection mechanism.

Roll a hundred dice over and over, and the odds against rolling all sixes are tiny. You could do this all day and never come close.

But roll the same dice, but keeping any sixes and only re-rolling the non-sixes in the next round, and you'll almost certainly get all sixes within a dozen rolls.

Natural selection is much more closely analogous to the latter than to the former; Evolution isn't based on randomness; It's based on randomness PLUS SELECTION.

According to the numbers, the odds are impossible, even if the earth were old. I disagree with Stephen Meyer on the age of the earth, as I believe he supports an old earth, whereas I believe in a biblical young earth (which science also supports - https://youtu.be/XAqzTuye4-g). Nevertheless, this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g) shows that even the supposed billions of years cannot produce functional, self-replicating genetic information--the odds are against it by many, many orders of magnitude.

That video doesn't make the point that "billions of years cannot produce functional, self-replicating genetic information". It begins half a billion years ago with the Cambrian explosion and claims that the great diversity of life forms couldn't have evolved over only 10 million years. And bilby is right. Genetic evolution isn't like typos in a book. And it isn't like a bicycle combination lock either. It's not goal oriented except as it favors survival of the species. The idea of writing a book by randomly stringing letters together entirely disregards the process. And the combination lock assumes there's only one goal that nature has in mind. It's bringing God in through the back door by implying that there had to be a plan in order for life to exist as we know it today. But that's an argument for people who can't bear to deal with the idea that the world could go on without them. Or without mankind.

(emphasis added)

God designed the gospel message to be foolishness for some of us? And then blamed us for reading it correctly? And then will punish us for reading it correctly?

Why did God not just design the gospel message to be wise instead of foolish? It seems the blame should be more on god's shoulders than ours.

Because God does not owe men truth, and He reveals truth to whom He chooses. Those who do not approach Him with humility will be blinded and confused. "Goo to you by way of the zoo" abiogenesis and evolution is a perfect example. A very simple mind could see that this is impossible, yet this is totally lost on the well-educated. God is sovereign and does what He pleases. He works all things according to the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11), and He hides from the wise and prudent that which He reveals to mere babes (Matthew 11:25).

At least we agree that knowing truth requires humility. On the other hand "You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know."

 

[bilby]

According to the numbers, the odds are impossible, even if the earth were old.

According to which numbers?

I disagree with Stephen Meyer on the age of the earth, as I believe he supports an old earth, whereas I believe in a biblical young earth

Reality doesn't care what you believe.

(which science also supports - https://youtu.be/XAqzTuye4-g).

YouTube is not "science". And science overwhelmingly supports an age of the Earth of about four and a half billion years.

Nevertheless, this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g) shows that even the supposed billions of years cannot produce functional, self-replicating genetic information--the odds are against it by many, many orders of magnitude.

No, they aren't. Your ignorance of statistics isn't science, any more than YouTube videos are.

The odds of self-replicating organic molecules arising in a planet-sized area containing water, carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia, and various sulfide and sulfate salts are extremely high. But of course your extensive training in biochemistry would have told you that.

And as soon as self-replicating organic molecules exist, natural selection will rapidly increase their complexity, and ability to scavenge resources from their environment (including each other). At which point, complex life is practically inevitable, in the absence of a planetwide catastrophe such as a nearby gamma ray burst.

Doubtless your undergraduate genetics courses would have covered this though.

Or are you perhaps spouting this nonsense from a position of almost total ignorance of what it is you are opposing?

YouTube University doesn't have a highly regarded biochemistry and molecular biology course, does it?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Bilby, clearly you're not feeling the Jesus.

 

[Gun Nut]

even the supposed billions of years cannot produce functional, self-replicating genetic information--the odds are against it by many, many orders of magnitude.

The odds of you being born as you are is impossible... just one gene out of place and you would be totally a different person. Therefore, I do not believe you exist..
Shuffle a deck of cards. The odds of that order of playing cards appearing in that specific order is 52 factorial. If you shuffle a deck of cards every second for trillions of years, you still would not scratch the surface of the odds of getting the same order of cards twice. Therefore, it is impossible to win a game of poker.

 

[Rhea]

Roll a hundred dice over and over, and the odds against rolling all sixes are tiny. You could do this all day and never come close.

But roll the same dice, but keeping any sixes and only re-rolling the non-sixes in the next round, and you'll almost certainly get all sixes within a dozen rolls.

Natural selection is much more closely analogous to the latter than to the former; Evolution isn't based on randomness; It's based on randomness PLUS SELECTION.

Oh great. Thanks for distracting me from my chores today, Bilby.
I had to go and get out my home-made Lego Dice Rolling Machine and toss in my son's collection of 37 dice over and over again to test this. Now it's 3 in the afternoon and I haven't done the dishes yet.

But... I do know that I can get all 37 dice to come up sixes in only 11 rolls when I am using selection, repeated twice, 11 rolls both times. By contrast, ones took 21 rolls the first time and 37 rolls the second time (includes 14 rolls where no ones came up near the end), and fours took 16 rolls.

Now, Aesthete, half-life and Learner can probably tell us all what are the odds of me getting all sixes with 37 dice, and I'd like them to do so, so that I can give them the actual answer, 1:1, obviously.

 

[Jarhyn]

Roll a hundred dice over and over, and the odds against rolling all sixes are tiny. You could do this all day and never come close.

But roll the same dice, but keeping any sixes and only re-rolling the non-sixes in the next round, and you'll almost certainly get all sixes within a dozen rolls.

Natural selection is much more closely analogous to the latter than to the former; Evolution isn't based on randomness; It's based on randomness PLUS SELECTION.

Oh great. Thanks for distracting me from my chores today, Bilby.
I had to go and get out my home-made Lego Dice Rolling Machine and toss in my son's collection of 37 dice over and over again to test this. Now it's 3 in the afternoon and I haven't done the dishes yet.

But... I do know that I can get all 37 dice to come up sixes in only 11 rolls when I am using selection, repeated twice, 11 rolls both times. By contrast, ones took 21 rolls the first time and 37 rolls the second time (includes 14 rolls where no ones came up near the end), and fours took 16 rolls.

Now, Aesthete, half-life and Learner can probably tell us all what are the odds of me getting all sixes with 37 dice, and I'd like them to do so, so that I can give them the actual answer, 1:1, obviously.

And, well, there are a large number of results that would qualify as "acceptable" for a dice to "lock it in" because of the Anthropic principle/fallacy: anything that CAN function as life qualifies. The "odds" they discuss are merely the odds of this specific life on Earth happening. The jury is WAY out on what else could have happened but no matter what did, it would eventually look back and see "long odds" against what did.