Friday, March 13, 2009

Ray Comfort and the fantasy version of reality

Ray comfort is going back home to New Zealand to debate his insane view of creation. And boy howdy he's got a loaded gun filled with arguments... that have been soundly refuted time and time again on his own damned blog. Here's the outline he posted on his blog annotated with my responses:

1. An atheist is someone who believes nothing created everything. If he denies that and believes that “something” created everything, he’s not an atheist.
  • Wow Ray. Still believing the "Nothing Created Everything" argument. Most cosmologists and atheists believe that the universe as we know is was created in what is called the "Big Bang." This is where all matter in the universe exploded in a singularity which is still expanding. However what caused the Big Bang is currently an unknown factor. There is a possibility that the universe is in a constant state of expansion and contraction and it could have happened billions of times already. We don't know the cause. Yet. This doesn't mean God is the culprit. I can still be an atheist and not know. I don't know, 100% positive there's no God. But I'm damned near sure, enough to say I do not believe there is a God, and take me out of the agnostic ranks.

2. Man can't create a grain of sand from nothing. How intellectually dishonest is it then to say that there was no Intelligent Designer?
  • Cosmological theory is that all matter that is and ever will be in our universe has been there from the beginning. Once again, we don't have knowledge of initial cause, but that's not relevant here. That said, a grain of sand formed on this planet and any planet in the formation stages of the planet when various atomic particles came together. Through billions of years, water and wind erosion, chemical reactions etc we end up with sand. Its not that complicated and was certainly not an intelligent process that came up with sand, but a natural one.

3. Where did females come from (in every species)?
  • Let's ignore the patriarchal condescension of the words used, implying that males are the default and females therefore secondary and address the actual non-issue at hand. I will refer readers here for basics on the evolution of sexual reproduction. Ray demonstrates here his absolute lack of understanding regarding evolutionary theory here. Speciation is not spontaneous. We don't jump straight from, say Australopithecus Afaransis straight to Homo Ergaster. One species does not give birth immediately to another. It is the gradual changes over many many generations that change a species into another, and the newest members of the species are compatible with previous members of said species until the genetic differences diverge too far. Normally in a continuous population, evolution will occur while all members o f said population being compatible indefinitely. It is through long separation and genetic change that things evolve along different lines. Males and females don't "evolve" seperately. The population's males and females are not some seperately evolved phenomenon.

4. Which came first? The blood, the heart or the blood vessels?

5. There are variations within species, but no species to species transitional forms in the fossil record.
  • Disproven so many times that its almost insulting to address this. Firstly, there's Tiktaalik the fish with leg-like protrusions and which may have been partially amphibeous. There's Ambulocetus which is an obvious ancestor to modern whales. And let us not forget Archaeopteryx, the hybrid bird-lizard. You got some 'splainin to do Ray. And don't try the crocoduck line, its not cute, its actually rather pathetic.

6. God made Archaeopteryx with teeth and a tail. It’s a bird, not a dinosaur. He made many weird animals. There's a huge mouse with a pocket in its front that hops all over Australia, horses with stripes, weird desert animals with humps on their backs . . . and He made some birds with teeth.

  • Nice assertions Ray! Care to provide any evidence that God did this? All you've proven is that there are many different types of animals on this planet. You haven't proven that God made Archaeopteryx a bird with teeth and a tail. the trouble with this argument is its a complete non-sequitur. It proves nothing, and adds nothing to the debate. Bald assertions are not evidence of God. find something scientific if you're trying to disprove science. Wow. novel idea.

7. Paleontologists have a huge incentive to twist the truth, just a little. If they can find a bone with a lump on it, theorize that it was a limb or a feather, give it an impressive name, say it is 73 million years old, and suddenly he has his picture on the cover of National Geographic magazine, has a book deal and lectures for life. The human propensity to gullibility is evidenced by evolution's many believers. Malcolm Muggeridge: "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution . . . will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future." Evolutionists have done to science, what hypocrites have done to religion. We have men who call themselves scientists, when they should have instead got a job with Disney as imagineers.

  • Let me state first, that scientists don't normally get on the cover of just about any magazine. Scientists are rarely well known enough outside their own field to be a draw for magazine sales, even for national geographic. What Ray's forgetting is that any scientist who could disprove evolution would want to do so. He would be immediately famous and a scientific icon with... well, book deals, lectures for life, and probably a nobel prize. the incentive is certainly there. Why hasn't anybody done it? Because with the given evidence they can't, and having seen the evidence it is fairly certain they never will.

Ray, if these are really your best, i have all confidence whoever you debate in NZ will stomp on and humiliate you.


  1. Scientists and their book sales! What Ray is pissed off about is that Dawkins not only gets more respect than Ray, he clearly gets paid more, too.

    Man, that must really chap Ray's ass!

  2. Awesome responses.

    First cause arguments always kill me. It doesn't get you anything other than a "First Cause." lol Who's to say that cause wasn't a sneeze, and the sneezer no longer exists?

    Also, modern physics has shown that some things are uncaused. According to quantum mechanics, subatomic particles like electrons, photons, and positrons come into and go out of existence randomly (come into and out of existence within a vacuum) see article here:

    So we don't need a first cause.

  3. I'm actually glad to see evidence that a first cause is completely unnecessary as I had not read that before. That said, however, quantum physics are probably well beyond what I'll ever understand of science.

    Always glad to have new people commenting!