Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 99

Thread: Ray Comfort on the stupidity of atheism/atheists

  1. Top | #61
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    35
    Archived
    137
    Total Posts
    172
    Rep Power
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Atheos View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    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.

  2. Top | #62
    Shrunken Member WAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Posts
    2,479
    Archived
    2,174
    Total Posts
    4,653
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Atheos View Post
    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.
    If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to a library. - Frank Zappa

  3. Top | #63
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Port Clinton, Ohio
    Posts
    2,104
    Archived
    591
    Total Posts
    2,695
    Rep Power
    61
    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.)

  4. Top | #64
    Shrunken Member WAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Posts
    2,479
    Archived
    2,174
    Total Posts
    4,653
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Monkey View Post

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    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.
    If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to a library. - Frank Zappa

  5. Top | #65
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    5
    Archived
    1,825
    Total Posts
    1,830
    Rep Power
    53
    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.

  6. Top | #66
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    15,785
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    40,285
    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Aesthete View Post
    . 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.

  7. Top | #67
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    4,945
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    9,984
    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Aesthete View Post
    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?

  8. Top | #68
    Veteran Member Brian63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,066
    Archived
    8,911
    Total Posts
    9,977
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Aesthete View Post
    ...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.

  9. Top | #69
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,362
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    31,839
    Rep Power
    81
    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.

  10. Top | #70
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    4,945
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    9,984
    Rep Power
    73
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •