Are You Man Or Earthworm?
“Milo…please provide evidence that men mated like earthworms. Also, please explain why and how evolution changed the mating system, if things were humming along with that method. Thanks”
- Ray Comfort, Atheist Central
“Milo…please provide evidence that men mated like earthworms. Also, please explain why and how evolution changed the mating system, if things were humming along with that method. Thanks”
- Ray Comfort, Atheist Central
I think this might actually be it. I think Ray Comfort is now so embarrassed of his own arguments, that he has created a “guest blogger” only mysteriously known as DJC, to take the blame for the clueless tripe he’s peddling. It’s a short post, so I’ll quote all of it here.
Look around the room you are in. Name anything that wasn’t made or designed. Unless you’re in the kitchen you’d be hard-pressed to argue that everything in the room wasn’t made or designed by someone (and even then only an atheist could put fruit or veggies on the list).
Yet atheists believe the whole world and everything in it, fell into place through random chance and was created by nobody. Yet we’re not just struggling life forms on a planet that barely has the necessities for life to exist. We have an abundance of natural resources, water, oxygen, countless varieties of food, happiness, love, the ability to continue our race through procreation. And that was just a short list. Our life is good, if not great, compared to what it could have evolved into. And it is believed that all this, evolved before (or as) we had a need for it.
So why didn’t the things in the room you are in (chairs, desks, pens, TV and even planes and cars) evolve too? After all, these items are used by nearly even human on the planet and some would say they are a necessity in life. They are certainly less complex than the items mentioned in the first list above. Is it not a fair question to ask of evolution and Mother Nature as to why we had to give up waiting and create them ourselves? DJC
Yes, this is actually what “DJC” wrote. He’s apparently serious.
A grown man (maybe that’s too much of an assumption) that actually argues that evolution is false because microwave ovens don’t evolve.
You know what? I’m not even going to bother commenting on this any further. The stupidity speaks for itself. This “guest blogger” couldn’t think himself out of a sandbox, not to mention grasp the general outline of the theory of evolution. I pity him, and I pity those who actually think this is a good argument.
“In the American vernacular, “theory” often means “imperfect fact”–part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is “only” a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can’t even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): “Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was.”
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, “fact” doesn’t mean “absolute certainty”; there ain’t no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution.”
Stephen J. Gould, ” Evolution as Fact and Theory”; Discover, May 1981
There’s a game that’s often played by skeptics. They create hypothetical scenarios so that they can (in their own minds) justify rejection of the gospel.
So begins another one of Ray’s famous analogies. In this particular case, he is responding to the argument that, according to the religious doctrine of Christianity, even Hitler could get into heaven by simply believing. Ray, having no clue how to respond to such a problem in a direct, honest way, goes off on a tangent regarding atheists(!), and not his own religion, which was what it was all about to begin with.
A drug addict is dying because of a disease that is related to his addiction. But when a faithful doctor takes the time to point out the evident symptoms that are all over the addict’s flesh, he responds by saying that the hideous spots are normal, and that all his friends have them.
The doctor pleads with him to listen, and says that a large drug company has developed a cure for the fatal disease. To which the addict says, “What if an elephant fell from the sky and swallowed it before I could get to it? Huh doc. Huh! What about that? You and your stupid pill! I don’t believe the drug company even exists. You idiot. Rather than talk about this so-called disease and your brainless drug company, I want to talk about the age of this medical building.”
What does any of this have to do with the obvious problems of the “gift of salvation”? How is it the atheist’s fault that Hitler could get a clean slate without doing anything in return? How does this even address the question!?
Regardless, this post is about the analogy itself, so let’s address that:
The germ theory of disease (remember, kids, it’s only a theory) is accepted as fact, by both atheists and (most, just to be safe) creationists. Therefor, it is not really valid to claim that a drug addict would absolutely deny even the possibility that his addiction had gotten him infected with a disease. In fact, I think most addicts are well aware of the risks, and choose rather to ignore it. Further, Ray is nothing like a medical doctor. A medical doctor can show evidence that the disease he claims the addict is infected with, actually exists. There isn’t just one, single book which vaguely mentions it, there are entire encyclopedias, libraries even, filled with information and scientific data relating to it. Oh, and an actually sick person would notice his symptoms himself, not having to rely on the doctor to point them out to him.
Ray isn’t offering a pill. If Ray were a doctor, his remedy would be to just go home and hope the disease goes away by itself. The very act of merely showing up at the doctor is what Ray believes can heal people. It doesn’t work that way in real life, and you and I both know that.
Atheists don’t deny the existence of the “medical companies” representing Christianity. We are painfully aware of your religion. We just don’t agree that you have the only, unique cure to a disease no one but you even knows exists.
The “age of this medical building” is obviously a reference to the numerous attempts to have Ray clarify whether he is a Young-Earth or an Old-Earth creationist. While I agree that it is not technically important to the discussion, it would greatly serve to clarify whether he ignores all scientific methods and conclusions, or just the ones that most directly conflicts with his beliefs. Then again, we’re all more than reasonably sure that if Ray were ever to be infected with a disease, he wouldn’t stay home and pray, but get himself to the nearest doctor, and ask to be given a pill.
Nothing like a hypocrite to present an analogy that makes more fun of himself than anyone else.
Lately, the internet has been a-buzz with the news that Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron – the bananic duo – plan to distribute special editions of Darwin’s On The Origin Of Species. The actual text is left (I hope) untouched, but the book has been gifted with a special, 50-page foreword by Ray Comfort. In it, he attempts to slander Darwin’s person by attaching him to racism and nazism, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a CrocoDuck or two thrown in for good measure as well.
While they’re right in that the copyright of Darwin’s original text has long-since expired, this is a textbook example of what is popularly called “a dick move”. They don’t expect anyone to actually read the book, but they do hope that people will believe their ridiculous diatribes on “paintings and their painters” and the eternal love of their particular variant of an omnipotent Sky-Daddy (oh, and his zombie son as well).
Most of us realize how pathetic this all is. However, what most of us don’t realize is how great it is to emphasize this by satirizing it all with the help of two crabs in some sort of forest. Behold!
At least Ray is dependable. You know he won’t let us down by not bringing us more stupid analogies…
It was only those who believed that the Titanic was sinking that got into the lifeboats. Had they not believed, they would have stayed on board and gone down with the ship. The atheist says that he believes that he has no beliefs, but he his own mouth betrays him. He has strong convictions (beliefs) that this great ship isn’t going sink. So he stays with his beliefs. Water laps around his neck and he says all is well. Death has him marked, and he refuses to even put up a fight. Don’t be like them. God has provided a lifeboat for those who believe, repent and trust the Savior.
No, Ray. This is one of your more over used analogies, and it’s still as false as it ever was. You see, the poor people on the Titanic (once again you show you have no qualms using the tragedies of others to further your own cause) didn’t have to rely on the words of other people that the ship was sinking. They were perfectly capable of noticing their physical ship sinking in this very physical reality. That’s why they did jump into the life boats (the few of them that were available, that is). Tell me, Ray: if I were on a cruise ship with you and suddenly ran up to you, shouting “the ship is sinking”! Would you simply take my word for it and head straight for the life boats? Or would you dismiss me because you could see for yourself that the ship isn’t sinking at all?
In fact – and this is the rather ironic part – I would bet good money that, should the scenario that Ray painted for us ever occur, Ray would be the one who stayed behind. Why? Because, damnit, unless God himself told him the ship was sinking, he would refuse to believe it!
Well, folks, it’s time for another installment of Rayologies. This week, God is like a father giving his son a red bike for Christmas:
Imagine a father tells his beloved son that he was going to buy him a bike for Christmas. The father carefully explains that it would be a red bike, with gears, high tech wheels, and that it would be extremely light-weight. He explains to the boy that it’s completely paid for and says that he will get it as a gift first thing on Christmas morning. What would you think if the son says, “How do I know this will happen?” Such a question would be an insult to his father’s integrity. It means that he doesn’t trust his own father.
Ok, let’s compare God with bicycles, since this is apparently what Ray wants us to do:
By this logic, if I promised that I would give you a trillion dollars next week, you would have to be thankful towards me. Anything else would be… Well, Ray explains it as well as always:
Even the most sinful of us is offended when a person doesn’t believe something we tell them. When we don’t believe someone it means that we think that they are a liar. They are devious, and they are therefore not worth trusting.
So, there you have it. Whenever someone doesn’t believe me, regardless of what it is, I have a right to be offended because the other person obviously thinks that I’m “devious” and “not worth trusting”. It doesn’t matter if what you promise is to buy back a beer on the next round at the bar, or eternal life in the heavens with almighty father God. It’s all the same to Ray.
YouTube user QualiaSoup has made another great video, this one dealing with the problems of trying to prove a baseless assertion to other people.
[youtube]5wV_REEdvxo[/youtube]
“Mystical explanations are thought to be deep; the truth is that they are not even shallow.”
- Friedrich Nietzsche
This is a re-post of a story that reddit user assfly0 posted in the atheism subreddit, which I thought was so good that I wanted to share it with as many more people as possible. Enjoy!
Today was a dreary, drizzly Sunday. Wet, cold and raw, it decided. I lounged in the house, eating breakfast, completing my easy homework assignments, looking outside at the rain, wondering about a good time to get a run.
Hours went by and the rain went on, unrelenting. Unbelievable, I thought. It cannot last much longer. It can’t! I have to go running. Running is the only thing that can remedy a spell of smashed asshole syndrome (SAS), which is what I felt like.
Eventually, the rain subsided into a mere sprinkle. I figured, Ah, it’s going away. I better run for it and take my chances before it’s too late. So I put on running pants, my black hoodie, my Nikes and my mp3 player and took off in the rain.
Pretty soon, I realized it was coming down harder than I thought. Fuck! It’s too late. Can’t turn back. I’m already running, and I’m only doing four miles. About two miles in, it really starts coming down, soaking my shoes, saturating my sweatshirt heavy. God! Cock! Shiiiittt!
This makes no sense. It was raining all day and then it lets down to make it seem like it’s going to stop. Then I decide to run and when I’m too far out on my route to justify going back, it begins pouring worse than all day. What the hell? What’s your god damn problem, God? Huh? Are you enjoying this? You slimy omnipotent turd!
This is what was actually going through my mind at the time. I really and truly felt as if there were some mocking entity out there doing this to me, if for only a brief moment. For that fleeting time, Descartes’ evil prankster was doing this to me.
Thankfully, a moment later, I remembered that I don’t believe in God. I’m a semi-Christian turned agnostic turned militant atheist. After I realized this, something remarkable happened: my anger evaporated, like steam off my hot face. There was nobody doing this to me, no reason to be angry; there is only apathetic, negligent mother nature—god bless her. There is no reason to take anything personally. It wasn’t my fault or anyone else’s; there is only circumstance, like everything in this world.
It was during this time I insighted why people believe in God. They believe in him because it is so fucking easy. It is automatic. It is so natural when feeling pain or hate or any strong emotion, to attribute human qualities to anything, even when it doesn’t make sense. It feels incredibly, extraordinarily good to personify things. We see faces in everything, in clouds, blankets, even three dots—two on top, one of the bottom—can make us think of a face. Our cars, computers, or anything that requires our input, has a “personality.” In a highly emotional state, cognition is hijacked by more primitive and dominant neural pathways, which negotiate social interaction. Personification reflects this regression or crosstalk of circuitry.
Much of our nature is defined by the environmental significance of the other. Our brains in particular, have evolved so quickly and to such great heights largely to accommodate for language ability, so to better anticipate and manipulate the other. Our brains are wired to understand the other and the extent that we do this is nothing short of remarkable.
Our brains are, thus, specially configured to understand phenomena in terms of humans. Of course, then, there is a God!
written by assfly0