“Evolution vs God” ~ Ray Comfort ~ Now on YouTube

Advertisements

, , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by Rayburne Winsor on August 27, 2013 - 1:48 AM

    Honestly I found this video very amusing, but not surprising since I have encountered such “muddled” thinking many times in the past in my debates and discussions with skeptics and atheists. Typical is the failure to understand and distinguish between operational/experimental science (that can be observed, tested and repeated in a modern lab ) and historical or origins science that cannot be observed, tested or repeated today (i.e. biblical creation) , between genetic variations within kinds for adaptability and rapid speciation in isolated populations, both of which result in increased sorting and loss of genetic information and which creationists have always believed and taught, as opposed to the so-called upward change of “from the goo, through the zoo, to you” macro-evolution requiring increased complexity and genetic information–and which is nowhere found in nature. What we find in the fossil record is fossils that appear in the geological strata abruptly, suddenly and fully intact without any evidence of previous ancestors (transitional, intermediate fossils). . If “goo to you” macro-evolution were true, we would expect to find millions/billions of such transitional (intermediate) fossils, but all we find is a few highly disputed fossils thought to be transitional.

    What scares me is that these [students] and supposedly knowledgeable people are going to be the future leaders of tomorrow in their chosen fields. God help us!! I commend Ray Comfort for doing a great job in getting the people seen on this video to think critically about what they believe, especially about questions of origin, meaning, morality and destiny. God bless.

  2. #2 by Rayburne Winsor on August 28, 2013 - 5:56 PM

    Richard Dawkins said, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1). He enlarges on this thought: “We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose… any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21). In other words, when normal people see clear evidence for design, they conclude that evidence for design indicates design.

    Astrophysicist, Dr Hugh Ross, for instance, has identified 148 astrophysical parameters that must be ‘just so’ for a planet to exist that can support human life, yet the odds against this happening by chance are, he calculates, many times greater than the total number of stars in the entire universe! Given such facts, even so great an astronomer and former atheist as Fred Hoyle, has written: “I do not believe that any scientists who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars.” That and other such observations from Hoyle have prompted Harvard astronomy professor, Owen Gingerich, to comment: “Fred Hoyle and I differ on lots of questions, but on this we agree: a common sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a super-intelligence.” Or to put it even more plainly, consider the verdict of Robin Collins, an American scientist with three degrees and two doctorates in mathematics, physics, and philosophy: “The extraordinary fine-tuning of the laws and constants of nature, their beauty, their discoverability, their intelligibility – all of this combines to make the God hypothesis the most reasonable choice we have. All other theories fall short.”

  3. #3 by Rayburne Winsor on August 28, 2013 - 5:57 PM

    Richard Dawkins said, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1). He enlarges on this thought: “We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose… any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21). In other words, when normal people see clear evidence for design, they conclude that evidence for design indicates design.

    Astrophysicist, Dr Hugh Ross, for instance, has identified 148 astrophysical parameters that must be ‘just so’ for a planet to exist that can support human life, yet the odds against this happening by chance are, he calculates, many times greater than the total number of stars in the entire universe! Given such facts, even so great an astronomer and former atheist as Fred Hoyle, has written: “I do not believe that any scientists who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars.” That and other such observations from Hoyle have prompted Harvard astronomy professor, Owen Gingerich, to comment: “Fred Hoyle and I differ on lots of questions, but on this we agree: a common sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a super-intelligence.” Or to put it even more plainly, consider the verdict of Robin Collins, an American scientist with three degrees and two doctorates in mathematics, physics, and philosophy: “The extraordinary fine-tuning of the laws and constants of nature, their beauty, their discoverability, their intelligibility – all of this combines to make the God hypothesis the most reasonable choice we have. All other theories fall short.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: