Atheists watch Ray Comfort's "Evolution vs God"

[Guy Threepwood]

I have to admit that I'm still not sure what your stance on this issue is. I've seen you make reference to dinosaurs going extinct 65 million years ago, so I know you accept an old Earth. Are you a theistic evolutionist of some kind? Progressive creationist?

I don't really give myself a label, I'm certainly a skeptic of evolution as taught

I think I'd agree with Darwin, that evolution driven by God isn't evolution at all. The whole essence of evolution, is that the diversity of species is driven primarily by accidental changes, not design- that would seem to be the most wide angle- fundamental difference to me- wherever the mechanisms, details, and labels go from there.

I consider natural history is something else again, it covers the more empirical observations of life that existed in various forms, without getting into conjecture of how they came to be that way

 

[Parsimony]

I don't really give myself a label, I'm certainly a skeptic of evolution as taught

I think I'd agree with Darwin, that evolution driven by God isn't evolution at all. The whole essence of evolution, is that the diversity of species is driven primarily by accidental changes, not design- that would seem to be the most wide angle- fundamental difference to me- wherever the mechanisms, details, and labels go from there.

So what aspects of evolutionary theory do you accept?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So what aspects of evolutionary theory do you accept?

As I said I don't accept it at all fundamentally. since the term itself was originally defined and is still taught to mean significant design improvements can occur spontaneously. I acknowledge what I see as the scientific aspects of natural history, that different species existed in different forms in different times and places, there were a series of design improvements that life acquired, many of them very suddenly as far as direct observation goes.

 

[Parsimony]

As I said I don't accept it at all fundamentally. since the term itself was originally defined and is still taught to mean significant design improvements can occur spontaneously. I acknowledge what I see as the scientific aspects of natural history, that different species existed in different forms in different times and places, there were a series of design improvements that life acquired, many of them very suddenly as far as direct observation goes.

But you are good with microevolution and speciation, though? Beneficial mutations? I'm just trying to get a hold on this because in the past I recall making an argument in your direction under the assumption that you were supporting young Earth creationism. I just want to avoid wrong assumptions in the future. Perhaps I'm getting too off-topic...

 

[viole]

Ray Comfort is a crank. I'm a theistic evolutionist. I agree with the Catholic Church's stance on it.

That one of your (and Pope's) ancestors was a fish?

Ciao

- viole

 

[fantome profane]

Watch this video, it has a very concise point by point rebuttal of Ray Comforts entire argument. I assure you it is worth your time.

And if you look closely you will notice that the second person to the right is Kirk Cameron.


https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=...JB6o_MwBcw9S7wv47Qda6g&bvm=bv.103388427,d.aWw

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But you are good with microevolution and speciation, though? Beneficial mutations? I'm just trying to get a hold on this because in the past I recall making an argument in your direction under the assumption that you were supporting young Earth creationism. I just want to avoid wrong assumptions in the future. Perhaps I'm getting too off-topic...

I'd think I have a fairly mainstream view, in being skeptical of both fundamentalist (no God) evolution and young earth creationism

God creating everything 100% in present form in recent history- and all life design being 100% accidental in design- are two minority extremes.
Most of us are somewhere in the middle- I agree that leaves a lot of room, and I don't pretend to have all the answers

But I don't think all the significant benefits in design, that led from single cell to mankind, came from random mutations no..

and to me that's really the essence of evolution as generally taught and perceived; chance v design. My money is on the latter

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That one of your (and Pope's) ancestors was a fish?

Ciao

- viole

That life evolved and continues to evolve through natural selection. The Catholic Church was one of the first Christian bodies to accept that Christian belief in Darwinian evolution is acceptable.

 

[Parsimony]

Did anyone watch the video? Not even when playing a game or doing something else as just something nice to have in the background? o.0

They do have good points. They say pretty much the same things that I was thinking when I first watched it, such as "kind" being defined inconsistently. If I remember correctly, Comfort implied that bacteria are all one "kind", which covers two whole kingdoms of life. Then you have Comfort falsely conflating ideas like atheism and moral relativity with evolutionary theory. If there is a God with absolute moral standards, then evolution would have no effect on that fact.

 

[metis]

As I said I don't accept it at all fundamentally. since the term itself was originally defined and is still taught to mean significant design improvements can occur spontaneously. I acknowledge what I see as the scientific aspects of natural history, that different species existed in different forms in different times and places, there were a series of design improvements that life acquired, many of them very suddenly as far as direct observation goes.

I have a problem with your use of the word "spontaneous" in the context of evolutionary theory because one could interpret that as meaning something just miraculously came into existence on its own, whereas the ToE posits cause-and -effect. Also, just a reminder that "design improvements" can be matched with "design flaws", so it's not like evolution always progressed in a helpful direction.

If one looks at what you post theologically, what could explain this "spontaneous" changes? According to Genesis, God stopped creating at the end of day 6, and there's nothing to suggest that God kept on creating afterward.

 

[viole]

They do have good points. They say pretty much the same things that I was thinking when I first watched it, such as "kind" being defined inconsistently. If I remember correctly, Comfort implied that bacteria are all one "kind", which covers two whole kingdoms of life. Then you have Comfort falsely conflating ideas like atheism and moral relativity with evolutionary theory. If there is a God with absolute moral standards, then evolution would have no effect on that fact.

Correct if destroying numerous species to give space to one satisfies that absolute moral standard.

Does it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Demonslayer]

Yes, Ray Comfort is the Banana Man.

I always wanted to ask him what he thought of the pineapple.

 

[Milton Platt]

An annoying guy who can't get facts or science right. I met him shortly once (lol, shortly... he's short ). He was handing out his edited version of Origin of Species.

I thought you were going to say he was handing out bananas....

 

[Milton Platt]

Yes, Ray Comfort is the Banana Man.

I always wanted to ask him what he thought of the pineapple.

He stated that the banana was round and that shows it was made to fit perfectly into your mouth. He forgot to mention that it would also fit into your rectum for the same reason.

 

[Ouroboros]

I thought you were going to say he was handing out bananas....

Lol. He could just as well.

 

[Mickdrew]

My opinion on Comfort is that I refuse to pay his arguments the least bit of consideration.
He is a noted charlatan that will go to any lengths to make his nonsense positions seem right.

It's incredible how some people parade their stupidity around like he does.

 

[Yorutenchi]

As long as you change the theory to fit the results, sure- and that's the problem with institutionalizing a conclusion

That is how science works. You have a theory supported by evidence. New evidence comes along so you change the theory to fit the new evidence.

I may be wrong, but I have read a lot of Darwin and I do get the impression that he was genuinely dispassionate enough about the theory, to be willing to change his mind, I think that's a very difficult but crucial aspect of us mere humans attempting to unravel creation's secrets. I don't think the same can be said of some of his followers today.

He was the first one to publish something on the scale that he did. He was also in a world that was very hostile to his theory. He was rather meek in the introduction because it was based mostly off of his own observations. Now we have more than a hundred years of continued evidence. Darwin got many things wrong. He got some right and the majority of the theory of evolution is so beyond Darwin that he didn't even touch on it. The evidence for the earth going round the sun is not question for the same reason.

If sufficient evidence was provided obviously there could be a revolution in the biological studies but as of yet nothing has come along. ID has attempted many things but this usually only ever convinces people who were not already brainwashed into it or had a poor understanding of evolution in the first place.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I would like to see creationists' responses and thoughts to this video, do they make any good points, or any bad ones in your opinion? What are your opinions on Ray Comfort and his work?

It is saying that freedom of opinion and religion is wrong, and that countries should change the laws on it to say that "Statements shall be forced by evidence to the conclusion, or else the government will put you in reform school."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That is how science works. You have a theory supported by evidence. New evidence comes along so you change the theory to fit the new evidence.

He was the first one to publish something on the scale that he did. He was also in a world that was very hostile to his theory. He was rather meek in the introduction because it was based mostly off of his own observations. Now we have more than a hundred years of continued evidence. Darwin got many things wrong. He got some right and the majority of the theory of evolution is so beyond Darwin that he didn't even touch on it. The evidence for the earth going round the sun is not question for the same reason.

If sufficient evidence was provided obviously there could be a revolution in the biological studies but as of yet nothing has come along. ID has attempted many things but this usually only ever convinces people who were not already brainwashed into it or had a poor understanding of evolution in the first place.

that's how science the institution works certainly, but there is a reason, that science the method, demands that predictions precede results, not just the other way around.

I take your point, but if the theory keeps having to change to adapt to it's own failed fundamental predictions- it's fundamentally not the same theory, anymore than a broom that has only had the handle and brush replaced.

And if an opposing theory did not have to change, had it's predictions validated all along- that's the better broom.. so to speak!

science certainly progressed since Darwin, and I think if he knew then what we know now, he would be skeptical of evolution by his own arguments against it.

I was never brainwashed into ID, I was born and raised atheist and taught only evolution as 'unquestionable fact' in school, not ID, and like many, did not question evolution until I delved deeper into the subject.

I always assume everyone here is capable of critical thought, at the very least it makes for a more interesting debate, and keeps away from boring ad hominem exchanges

 

[Yorutenchi]

that's how science the institution works certainly, but there is a reason, that science the method, demands that predictions precede results, not just the other way around.

I take your point, but if the theory keeps having to change to adapt to it's own failed fundamental predictions- it's fundamentally not the same theory, anymore than a broom that has only had the handle and brush replaced.

And if an opposing theory did not have to change, had it's predictions validated all along- that's the better broom.. so to speak!

science certainly progressed since Darwin, and I think if he knew then what we know now, he would be skeptical of evolution by his own arguments against it.

I was never brainwashed into ID, I was born and raised atheist and taught only evolution as 'unquestionable fact' in school, not ID, and like many, did not question evolution until I delved deeper into the subject.

I always assume everyone here is capable of critical thought, at the very least it makes for a more interesting debate, and keeps away from boring ad hominem exchanges

I don't know what you mean by institution and I don't know what you are implying beyond that. Can you re-state your point? Or was it just a comment?