gdp's Comments

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : Evolution and blood.

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:28:46 +0000

Quotes from John Having established the fact that abiogenesis is proven to be mathematically impossible due to the 2LOT… Apart from the fact that the 2LOT would still be a demonstrably insurmountable force working against the amoeba to man progression No such finding has ever been established. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that, in a closed system entropy, or energy that is unavailable for useful work, must always increase. A closed system is one that neither gains nor loses energy from any outside source. The Earth does have an outside source of energy, it’s called the sun. Therefore the Second Law does not apply either to abiogenesis of to evolution. It never ceases to amaze me how eager creationists are to display their ignorance by trotting out this tired old canard time after time. Incidentally, nobody thinks that amoebae evolved into men, or any other mammal, we share a common ancestor but are on completely different evolutionary paths. .., how does a Creator fit into an atheist’s reasoning?</> An atheist, by definition, does not believe in the existence of God or Gods. Therefore notions of a Creator are irrelevant. I admit that we have been unable to duplicate abiogenesis in the lab but give us a few thousand centuries and we will Wehave only been investigating abiogenesis for a short time. We have several promising leads, but much work needs to be done. However, lets assume for the moment that we never find out how life arose. This would only mean that we do not understand the origin of life; it would not, in any way, be evidence for the Christian God, or any other divine Creator.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : Evolution and blood.

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:45:32 +0000

Quote from Kiwisceptic and BuzzardSays Doesn't that just completely sum up the creationist mindset? Yes indees, but not quite as succinctly as:- In summary: I am an ignorant clod and proud to remain so.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : Evolution and blood.

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:34:26 +0000

Reply to AnswersNOW The whole point that Ray is trying to make in his post is that the blood clotting system in humans, and other mammals could not have evolved because it is irreducibly complex; hence an ‘Intelligent Designer’, or a God. Kenneth Miller describes a possible scenario describing how this system could have evolved, thus refuting Comfort’s argument. We have abundant evidence that evolution has occurred, and that every organism on earth is related to every other. Therefore it is reasonable to posit an evolutionary path that gave rise to the blood clotting system. It is entirely possible that, with new evidence, a different evolutionary path could be found in the future. This is why Miller’s paper, in common with all scientific writings, uses the language that it does, to allow for the discovery of new evidence in the future. We have no evidence of an ‘Intelligent Designer’, only ancient writings and faith. Therefore, until and unless such evidence is presented, it is not reasonable to posit that living things are supernaturally designed.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : Evolution and blood.

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:41:57 +0000

Quotes from LukeMD Yes, the bacteria was able to adapt through a spontaneous mutation in response to its enviornment and the new existence of nylon This change, and the ability of the bacteria to pass it on, was due to a change in the DNA of the bacteria. In other words, it was due to a change of the allele frequency in the population of bacteria. This is evolution by definition. ...but it still is a bacteria. Yes, of course it is. What did you expect? That a dog, cat or some other complex life form was going to crawl out of the test tube? (I’ve a nasty suspicion, given your woeful lack of understanding of evolution, that the answer to that question is ‘Yes’.) If this is your argument for the evidence of evolution it is an epic fail. Ray’s point, such as it was, is that complex systems cannot evolve. This is an example, observed both in the laboratory and in the field, of a complex system that has evolved. The only epic fail is on Ray’s part.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : “Your religion is all about faith.”

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:05:43 +0000

Quote from Atheists Lie City officials in San Juan Capistrano, Calif. say Chuck and Stephanie Fromm are in violation of municipal code 9-3.301, which prohibits “religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods without a permit. I have no idea what the ordinances passed by the City Council of San Juan Capistrano are. However, from your description it appears that they apply to all organizations, not just Christian ones. I would guess that the aim is to prevent a nuisance in a residential neighbourhood; when a meeting breaks up it is liable to be noisy, if this happens late at night this could cause a nuisance. No matter, the rule, good or bad, has been enacted by the citizens of San Juan Capistrano. They apply to Bible study groups as well as everyone else. Why did these people not apply for a permit, and thus avoid the fine? Do they arrogantly think, just because they are a Christian organization, that they are above the law? Apparently the answer is Yes. It’s an incorrect answer, and it has cost them a well-deserved $300 fine.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : “Your religion is all about faith.”

Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:51:16 +0000

Quote from Piltdown Superman How about "The Big Bang Never Happened"? The book, "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric J Lerner (with whom I am not immediately familiar) puts forward his alternative to the Big Bang theory. This is not merely his right, if he has found new evidence it is his duty to publish this so that other scientists can check his findings, and if they are found to be valid, our knowledge may be increased accordingly. Scientific findings are not religious dogma, if new findings are valid they are incorporated into our knowledge (although this may take some time).

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : “Your religion is all about faith.”

Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:31:42 +0000

Quote from Piltdown Superman The most recent was the long-discredited Miller-Ulrey experiment. The Miller-Urey (not Ulrey) experiment tested the hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth were conducive to the production of organic compounds from inorganic sources. The experiment was performed in 1952 and used the best knowledge available at that time of Earth’s early atmosphere. It was an experiment to investigate life’s origins, that is Abiogenesis. It had nothing to do with Evolution. The only part ‘intelligent design’ played was to reproduce the experimental conditions. The chemicals reacted naturally under those conditions, with no input from the experimenters. It has not been discredited (except in the minds of AiG and their ilk.) On the contrary, after Miller’s death in 2007 sealed flasks from the original experiment were examined and even more amino acids were found than were originally reported. In other words, the experiment was more successful than originally thought.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : “Your religion is all about faith.”

Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:00:38 +0000

Quote from KP1986 …|I will continue to ask for evidence for color over and over and over and over again, just so I can reject it over and over and over and over again." But we have evidence that electromagnetic radiation comes in all wavelengths. In the visible spectrum these wavelengths produce the sensation in our eyes of different colours. Why would you need to ask for this evidence explaining colour more than once? Why would you reject it even once?

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : “Your religion is all about faith.”

Thu, 22 Sep 2011 10:54:43 +0000

Reply to Piltdown Superman Evolution, because of Natural Selection, is not chance.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : The Backyard Boys are Back...Ripping Up Bibles

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:06:53 +0000

Quote from Milocat People may associate burning or destroying books with the Nazi's but I associate it hateful stunts like the Terry Jones Koran burning. I don't want to be on the same level as that crazy preacher and his followers. I don’t want to be associated with either Terry Jones or the Nazi book burners. I think you have to be part of the older generation to have images of Nazi book burnings, it's no longer a common association. :) And there is the difference. I am 63 and grew up in post-war London. My parents, who both lived through the London blitz and the V weapons, often regaled me with stories of the Nazis, and their book-burnings. But we both agree it was a bad decision. So do I!

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : The Backyard Boys are Back...Ripping Up Bibles

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:55:00 +0000

Quote from Felix Whatever we might think of this event, the nazis were far from the first people who aimed to destroy opinion and knowledge and to terrorize the keepers of such. I agree; one only has to remember the works of antiquity that were lost with the Library of Alexandria. However, we now have mass printing and electronic storage, it is now virtually impossible to destroy a work and increasingly difficult, with the internet, to keep an idea censored from a population. As a matter of interest, have we lost any worthwhile work since Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press?

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : “Your religion is all about faith.”

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:22:20 +0000

I Quote from Ray Much of what we do in life has its foundation in trust. We trust our dentist when he drills, our taxi driver when he drives, our pilots when they fly us. We trust our history books, our teachers, and some still even trust politicians. Marriage is a trust relationship. So are business partnerships and friendships. We trust elevators, planes, cars, brakes, chairs, doctors, surgeons, brokers, and television anchors. We place our faith in these items and people based on evidence that they are trustworthy. This is why it’s hard to understand why skeptics mock the thought of trust in God. Let me make it easy for you. I know my dentist exists, I’ve met him, and he has a certificate on his wall to show that he is qualified as a dental surgeon. I know my taxi driver exists, he is someone else whom I have met, and he has his licence from Luton Council to show he is qualified to drive a taxi. When I have flown I know the pilots in the cockpit exist and that they are qualified to fly the plane. I could go on, but all the people and things that you list we have evidence that they exist, and we have evidence that they are capable of fulfilling the tasks claimed for them. You have yet to provide evidence for the existence for your, or any God.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : The Faith of the Skeptic

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:48:52 +0000

Quotes from Matt V. No one can give you evidence to what you refuse to see. It would be like proving that color exists to a blind man. Or that sound exists to a deaf man. If I wanted to prove that colour exists to a blind man I would explain light’s properties to him, starting with that of its wavelength. If I wanted to explain sound or music to a deaf man (assuming that the deaf man was not Beethoven!), I would explain pressure waves in the air. Now explain your evidence of God to this, what’s the term you theists use, spiritually blind man.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : The Faith of the Skeptic

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:05:14 +0000

Quotes from Matt V. and the Apostle Peter I'm not concerned about “demonstrating” the truth; So much for: 1 Peter 3:15 …and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: I am more concerned to know the truth. So Am I. So would you please quit stalling and tell me why you think what you believe is the Truth.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : The Backyard Boys are Back...Ripping Up Bibles

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:47:44 +0000

Quotes from Milocat Obviously, attention to their cause which I believe they achieved. There is good attention and bad attention; burning books has Nazi associations which makes it bad attention. Garnering bad attention is not the best way of influencing someone. however, it seems that the question of book-burnings, or even the mutilation and defacing of bibles is moot. All these people did was destroy photocopies of biblical passages For Ray to report this as ‘Ripping Up Bibles’ is both pathetic and dishonest, but it does show the eagerness of some theists’ to ‘become offended’ and besmirch the name of anyone who does not agree with them.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : The Faith of the Skeptic

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:34:40 +0000

Quote from Cyclo There is no fossil evidence that can't be easily explained within the paradigm of Genesis. We have known that Genesis cannot possibly be literal since the latter half of the 18th century. Structures found in the earth, namely the Hutton Unconformity, show that the earth is far older than the few thousand years calculated by adding up the biblical ‘begats’ This is something else you have been told before. I suggest that you Google James Hutton and the Hutton Unconformity for more information. CMI recently presented 15 questions for evolutions, received numerous responses from intelligent atheists, and demolished all of them with the greatest of ease. Then I suggest that CMI (who are they?) prepare a proper paper for peer review and get published so that everybody can benefit from their great insights.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : The Faith of the Skeptic

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:19:35 +0000

Quote from Cyclo There is no evidence that mutations are capable of producing the claims made by Darwinian evolution. That is a correct statement, and nobody says that mutations alone are responsible for evolution. They require the non-random effect of natural selection. You have been told this repeatedly. I know because I am one of those who have told you this repeatedly. Do you think that by ignoring Natural Selection it will go away? Sorry but it will not. Do you think that because it contradicts your favourite Holy Book, it does not really and truly exist? Sorry, but it does and your Holy Book is thereby contradicted. Or does the blindness inflicted by your faith really this total. If that really is the case, you have my sympathy and I hope you are able to shed your affliction. I did not bother with the rest of your post; because it is based on your opening egregiously erroneous statement there is no point in wasting my time.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : The Backyard Boys are Back...Ripping Up Bibles

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:53:05 +0000

I don’t know what these people did, but if they had paid for what they burnt or ripped up, they did nothing wrong. It is their property, they can do what they like with it so long as they do not cause a public nuisance or hazard. I don’t know what they hoped to achieve. Some of the ideas and passages in the bible are pretty revolting or ridiculous; its penalty of stoning for any infringement of a law that endorses slavery and marriage by rape, or Joshua’s (fortunately fictitious) campaign of conquest against Canaan, or it’s nonsensical history of the world as given in Genesis are just three examples. But all they destroyed were pages from a book; pieces of paper with printing ink on them. The ideas expressed on those pages remained untouched. It is embarrassing, but I am going to use one of Ray’s favourite devices and use the Nazis in their role of horrible example from history. This group have failed to heed the lesson of history and the Nazis. The Nazis burned many books that they deemed contrary to the ideals of Nazi Germany, these incidentally included the works of Darwin and Haeckel. How effective was this Nazi tactic? I contend that it was an exercise in utter futility. The ideas expressed in all those burnt books have endured. Nazi Germany has not.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : The Faith of the Skeptic

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:15:07 +0000

Quotes from Matt V. That's what a lot of atheists expect from Christians. Why? For me, knowing the truth is way more important than being able to convince others of it. I want to know why you think you know the truth. How did you come by it? Did a preacher tell you, and if so why do you believe him? Did you dream a dream? Did you read it in a book, the Koran, Bhagavad-Gita, the Torah or the Bible? If so, why did you decide that book was the one to trust over the others? Was it Divine revelation? How do you know it wasn’t a brain disorder? Is it mere wishful thinking? And if you cannot convince others, how do you know your ‘discovery of the truth’ is not merely self deception?

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : The Faith of the Skeptic

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 07:36:11 +0000

Quotes from Bit Faith is inevitable - all world views are chosen with it, including atheism. Atheism is not a world view; it is the rejection of (all) theist world views. Theists tell me that God or Gods exist, I don’t believe that is the case and reject that proposition.I do not believe a God exists, therefore I am an Atheist. Atheism must be accepted by faith that the universe began without cause from nothing Atheism says nothing about the origin of the universe, except that no Gods were involved, simply because they do not exist. With the removal of the Holy Baggage of a God we can now investigate the real origins of the universe.