Comment by Robert Karp on October 5, 2011 at 12:27pm

I agree with Kris.

 

I think what is important here is to give people the ability to answer his questions with reasoned answers.  If we try to specifically answer his points, like that young woman, he can keep asking questions that can make the answers seem more and more like we are trying to so desperately answer that we are willing to stretch the truth.  Again, in agreement with Kris, unless you are an evolutionary Biologist, answering his questions point for point would be difficult for anyone.Therefor, when we see videos like this, I think the best thing to do is provide a way of answering that would make every follow-up irrelenevant. For example in answer to the fish leaving the ocean with gills questions there are two ways to go:

1) Actually know the answer, which I don't but perhaps a couple of our TA scientists here can let us know. I am assuming the lungfish has something to do with it.

and if you do not have a clear cut answer the response could be:

2) I am not actually an evolutionary biologist, however I deduce my opinion based on years of well documented scientific evidence and studies that are accepted as common knowledge throughout the world. No, at this point and time I cannot sight a single study, but I'm sure you have the ability to research these studies as well I as I am. I have accepted the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun, but I cannot point to a specific study that I can show you.  Do you feel the earth revolves around the sun?

 

The point is, do not get lured into an argument that makes you sound like you have no answers to simple questions. The questions are not simple but the idea of common knowledge is.  And you must cut off someone like Comfort before he manipultes you into falling into a trap.

 

I would love some our or debaters and students of philosophy and logic to give us other ways to answer these questions.

Comment by Michael on October 5, 2011 at 12:54pm

As an engineer I have no problem with evoluton existing as a supposition. My problem as an engineer, is giving some aspects of evolution credibility.
Only a fool would say that all aspects of evolution are incredible.

I insist that given trillions of free parameters, mutations and survival of the fittest is insufficient to produced the mathematically will ordered designs, functionality, efficiency and nonlinear control systems. As engineers we go through painstaking calculations using matrix algebra to arrive at our designs. The mechanisms for evolution could conceively arrive at that which is minimal to survive but certaintly not with the beauty and elogence of that which is apparent in nature, to calibrate these trillions of parameters through helter skelter mutation is just incredulous

Comment by Marc Poulin on October 5, 2011 at 12:56pm

5:00 mark- What do you say to your child? "I'm so proud of you".

Comment by kris feenstra on October 5, 2011 at 1:29pm

I insist that given trillions of free parameters, mutations and survival of the fittest is insufficient to produced the mathematically will ordered designs...

 

They aren't mathematically "will" ordered or 'designs'. That doesn't even appear to be a logical construction; it's just words that sound nice together.

 

not with the beauty and elogence of that which is apparent in nature, to calibrate these trillions of parameters through helter skelter mutation is just incredulous

 

If we derive our sense of beauty and elegance from nature, it follows that we will find beauty and elegance in nature.  This is the major shortcoming of such anthropocentric arguments.  They just don't resolve to any objective point.  That said, anyone who has actually studied biology is well aware that there are many inelegant systems out there, as well as countless brutal failures, defects and deficits in living organisms.

Comment by wisp on October 5, 2011 at 2:38pm

I got through 6 minutes of this drivel and had to stop. Ray Comfort pisses me off so much. 

Comment by Tex on October 5, 2011 at 3:49pm
Ray is living proof some people actually evolved from Jack-Asses.
Comment by Jon van Rooyen on October 5, 2011 at 4:32pm

I still find it hard to believe this dude is not trolling... It boggles my mind!

Comment by matt.clerke on October 5, 2011 at 7:46pm

I can't believe Pat Robertson doesn't believe in evolution, he even LOOKS like a monkey! Furthermore, I am certain Ray Comfort, and the majority of evangelical preacher-types are trolling, they have had evolution explained to them so many times now that they can't possibly believe the things they are saying.

Comment by matt.clerke on October 5, 2011 at 7:48pm

Oh for crying out loud! Ray, don't forget we eat babies too!

 

Show me a building, that didn't have a builder

A cave....gosh your stupid, Ray...

Comment by Michael on October 5, 2011 at 8:16pm

"If we derive our sense of beauty and elegance from nature, it follows that we will find beauty and elegance in nature.  This is the major shortcoming of such anthropocentric arguments.  They just don't resolve to any objective point.  That said, anyone who has actually studied biology is well aware that there are many inelegant systems out there, as well as countless brutal failures, defects and deficits in living organisms."

Show me one example. I studied biology, nowhere do I see the almost, half baked in the process of evolving, just can't do it, almost systems that you speak of. They simply don't exist. Every species is  well suite for its particular environment with great efficiency. You can not down play the great efficiency of nature and its well  (not will) ordered systems.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service