gdp's Comments

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : Genesis on Trial

Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:38:55 +0000

He'll probably count to ten - or twenty at best, if he uses his toes as well - and then say that there are only as many integers as God defined by giving us that number of digits. Just like "kinds" of animals, the integers are limited only by Ray's imagination.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : Genesis on Trial

Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:52:03 +0000

And you're right, Rachel - earth and life are far more complex than watches or any other man-made thing, which is why it's so ridiculous for Ray to try to contain the entire rich diversity of life within the confines laid out in a prescientific man-made text.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : Genesis on Trial

Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:48:16 +0000

Speaking of sounding intelligent to someone who hasn't done their homework...no, actually, Ray, you fail there too. The trouble with your simplistic notions of everything fitting into "kinds" is that you ignore so much of the diversity that exists within what you apparently define as kinds - 'animals', birds, fish, etc. Such a broad brush is bound to miss the details. So...are geckos and crocodiles both examples of "lizard kind"? How about ants and rhinoceros beetles both being examples of "insect kind"? And where do millipedes fit in? Or guppies and whale sharks both being examples of "fish kind"? What about lung fish? Not to mention the platypus and echidna, which both lay eggs yet also feed their young on milk...what "kind" do they fit into? Not to mention the fact that mammals, birds, reptiles and fish are all animals, but then we can hardly expect you to countenance such absurd notions as biological accuracy, now, can we?

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : Gensis on Trial

Sun, 24 Apr 2011 04:02:01 +0000

Translation of Rayspeak: The only way to appreciate the beauty of nature is to try and squeeze it into a little box as the invention of an anthropomorphic deity. Otherwise you might have to think about where it really came from, and that might be a bit too much for you. So just let the Bible do your thinking for you, mmmkay?

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : Atheism and the Age of the Earth

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:17:54 +0000

Such a revealing post, Ray. You say that scientists are not absolutely certain of their findings, so you'll call everything they say bunk. That's a bit like saying that if your grocer stocks eggs in cartons of ten instead of a dozen, you'll do without eggs altogether. More seriously, though, I've noticed that a lot of you evangeloonies like to claim certainty in your 'knowledge' of your God and the veracity of a literal reading of scripture. It's a shame, really, because if you think you already know everything you need to know, you're depriving yourself of the joy and excitement of discovery - something which motivates a lot of scientists. It's funny, too, how you claim that evolution by natural selection - one of if not the most well-supported and powerfully explanatory scientific theories there has ever been - is "ridiculous and unscientific beliefs that turn people from God to a childish and unthinking fable", and then, presumably with a perfectly straight face, go on to claim, I will continue to challenge anyone and everyone as to what they believe, and present the truth of Holy Scripture—that God created the world, made male and female--with the amazing ability to reproduce after their own kind. And I will be sure to add that He (in His loving mercy) provided a Savior who defeated death, and that He offers everlasting life to all those who repent and trust in Jesus Christ. That's a fact, not a fable. I think we can all see who's living in a childish fantasy land here, folks...

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : The Atheist\'s Refrigerator

Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:30:09 +0000

You don't think the ancestors of grasses had seeds? Clearly you subscribe to the Ray Comfort school of evolutionary biology, which teaches, among other things, that the first male dog to evolve had to wait for female dogs to evolve independently in order to reproduce, and that any species of animal - or plant, presumably - must be observed to produce offspring of a completely different species in order for evolutionary theory to be true. It's an odd but easily explained phenomenon, that it seems to be so difficult for some people - in particular Christian fundies, but that's a bit of a special case - to grasp the implications of gradual evolution. We're used to seeing species in discrete forms, because all the intermediate forms are extinct (although you may want to read up on what are called ring species - it's fascinating stuff). But the thing is, evolutionary change across generations is simply an ongoing accumulation of minute changes, resulting in larger changes over time. What this means is that every generation of a population will sufficiently resemble the previous generation to be classified as the same species. But multiple generations down the track, the offspring might not be much like their great-great-great-great...etc grandparents. As far as grass is concerned, we'd be hard put to pick any precise moment where plants that were not grasses became plants that were grasses. The seeds of the first grasses, then, came from plants that were very similar to what we know as grasses today, which in turn had come from plants very similar to those almost-but-not-quite grasses, and so on back along the chain of the evolution of plant life. It's such an elegantly simple explanation that I'm continually surprised at people's failure to understand it. But there you go.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : Protestant Atheists

Sun, 20 Mar 2011 04:12:18 +0000

Fair call. Having ideas requires thought, and I'm pretty sure Ray has never engaged in that sort of thing - his religion demands repression of the intellect, after all.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : Protestant Atheists

Sat, 19 Mar 2011 11:59:41 +0000

Earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc., aren't nature doing anything. They are evidences of the Genesis curse. We live in a fallen creation that is also evident by disease, suffering, and death. Then again, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes and tsunamis might just be nature doing its thing. Ever consider that, Ray? Disease, suffering and death are facts of life in a natural world, not evidence of any deity's displeasure with the actions of humans. Arrogance and servility all rolled into one twisted and deluded worldview. And our death will be the damning evidence (the smoking gun) for sinful humanity. It will be the final nail in our coffin. God, the Supreme Judge of the Universe, will have the last word. Or, alternatively, death will just mean that our life has run its course, and the collection of matter and energy that was us will eventually go on to make up other bodies and sustain other life. I think that's rather beautiful, really. Then again, you don't need to wait until death comes to you. Instead of living in atheistic denial, you can have the courage to face it head-on, by trusting in Jesus Christ—"who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." Believe it; appropriate it, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. Or, again, you could choose genuine freedom over man-made, dogmatic religious belief, and pursue your own life instead of debasing all your faculties and denying reality for the sake of hanging on to a failed hypothesis that only becomes more and more mangled and convoluted as evidence continues to pile up against it.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : Protestant Atheists

Sat, 19 Mar 2011 11:12:55 +0000

However, we know that evolution believes that after the Big Bang, the earth became multifarious--with seasons, clean air, tall trees, and diverse foods, etc., until the planet could sustain life. And so Ray's ark of ignorance sails on, unaffected by the onslaught of reason. Do you ever even cast an editorial eye over your posts before publication, Ray? Evolution doesn't believe anything. Evolution is a process, not a thinking entity. Furthermore, you seem to be implying that there was a plan involved somewhere along the line - that the formation of stars, then planets, then the development of earth and life were following some kind of premeditated script. The earth didn't evolve because it needed to sustain life, Ray - life evolved because the conditions on earth happened to allow it to do so. And apparently you think that trees and the vast majority of food sources don't constitute life. Weird.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : The Atheist\'s Refrigerator

Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:31:27 +0000

AThe apostle Paul, who knew the resurrected Christ, answered your demand for evidence of God when he wrote, and I paraphrase, "The evidence of His power and Godhead is in His CREATION..." Nowhere in Paul's epistles does it attest to Christ being an actual, physical human being that could be 'known' as such. Paul is making stuff up, like all the others.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : The Atheist\'s Refrigerator

Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:11:44 +0000

Grass once again appears, with even more fruit trees, vegetables, dinosaurs, and all sorts of other strange and wonderful animals. Blimey, Ray - you don't even know enough to realise that grass didn't exist in the time of the dinosaurs! Even flowering plants are a relatively recent innovation, coming into existence around about the time of the last hurrah of the dinosaurs, in the Cretaceous period. How, then, are we supposed to trust any of your 'scientific' pronouncements?!

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : The Atheist\'s Refrigerator

Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:02:17 +0000

My worldview says that we live in a fallen creation, evidenced by earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, hurricanes, suffering and death. I know there are already loads of comments that I haven't read yet, but I've just gotta ask - how do you make these things evidence of a fallen creation when they're already evidence of a world governed by impersonal, natural laws?

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : The Atheist’s Explanation for Killer Quakes

Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:39:53 +0000

Wow, this is so full of wrong, Ray, it's hard to weed out any particular instance of wrongness. But here are a few. Atheists don't believe your God is responsible for natural disasters. We simply point out that were the God you believe in to actually exist, it would indeed be responsible for earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, wildfires, storms etc etc. It's just that you and many other believers repeatedly fail to acknowledge this unpalatable yet logically sound aspect of your God's claimed characteristics. Secondly, you speak of nature "improving" things, when such natural forces as the wind and weather, or convection currents in the magma beneath the earth's crust, act without consciousness, without intention, certainly without any awareness of making any kind of 'improvement' to the way things were. Finally, you seem to be claiming that a finite life is automatically a meaningless life, just because it will end one day. How exactly does this follow? I don't need to feel that my life has some kind of cosmic significance in order to find meaning and create purpose for myself. Nor, for that matter, does my eventual death do anything to change the fact that I am alive here and now, with the ability to affect the lives of others - my existence, however finite, will always have been a fact of the world.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : Imposing the Atheist Worldview

Sun, 13 Mar 2011 06:16:37 +0000

We have a generation that has given themselves to blasphemy, pornography, fornication, homosexuality, adultery, and every other dark sin their heart desires. As opposed to believers, who have historically given themselves to 'righteous' slaughter, self-harm, repression, and death-worship.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : Are Atheists Children of God?

Sat, 12 Mar 2011 02:23:00 +0000

Some people use their smarts to help others understand things clearer, others use their knowledge to muddy waters. I know which one Ray is. Someone who abuses his 'smarts' to help people misunderstand just about anything he turns his hand to, it appears. There's a difference between offering a simple explanation and a simplistic explanation. Ray - and perhaps yourself - might like to look into that. And if it was so tedious to read my comment, why did you?

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : Are Atheists Children of God?

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 17:41:23 +0000

If you lift your hand to strike your dog, there probably won't be any repercussions. Actually, Ray, depending upon where you live, cruelty to animals is a punishable offence - and rightly so, I believe. A dog is innocent in a way most humans above a certain age cannot be, and so cruelty towards it is commensurately heinous, at least insofar as it demonstrates the nature of the person inflicting the cruelty. You may find, if you look a little under the surface, that many laws have a foundation in virtue ethics, in that punishments are meted out accordingly as a person's actions reveal truths about their essential character. If a person is considered an ungovernable danger to the community, they are more likely to be locked up than another person who may have committed an identical offence but shown the kind of penitence that indicates that their crime was an aberration rather than part of what they are. Cruelty towards innocents - be they human or otherwise - is exactly the kind of offence that indicates a deep disrespect for others; and incidentally, cruelty towards other animals has been demonstrated to be a precursor to cruelty towards other humans. Try and hit a police officer and you may go to jail. Again, this is a reflection of what our societal laws are for. If you assault or otherwise interfere with someone whose job it is to enforce the law, you are not simply attacking the individual in question, but attacking an instrument of the law, and by implication, the law itself - of course such an offence is more weighted than attacking an ordinary citizen. Your analogy fails - as usual - because you misunderstand the reasoning behind the real-world situations you attempt to incorporate. The people you list in your post are not important because of who or what they are, but because of what they represent in terms of the broader society of which they are a part. Your God, if it is content to let humans do as they will (which appears to be so, even in your theology) is irrelevant to the way people live their lives. Police officers and presidents are not so irrelevant.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : The Atheist’s Invisible Father

Tue, 8 Mar 2011 05:09:17 +0000

So where are all the 'frogdogs'? Short answer - They don't exist, except in the mind of the Atheist. Actually, Keith, I think you'll find that such ill-conceived aberrations as "frogdogs" and "crocoducks" only exist in the minds of evangeloonies like Ray and Kirk who do their best to deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent evolutionary theory.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : The Atheist’s Invisible Father

Tue, 8 Mar 2011 03:34:10 +0000

Ray, do you have any understanding of what incremental change actually means? It happens in pretty much any field you care to study - history and culture (including religion - Christianity could be said to have evolved from an interbreeding of Judaism and pagan mystery cults, after all) geology, biology - and what it means is that accumulated small changes add up to big changes, over time. I mean, you don't look the same now as you did when you were 5, do you? You can choose to ignore vast swathes of real evidence for evolution, Ray. That's your prerogative. You can even assert that your God is a better explanation for the diversity of life - but the thing is that you can only assert it. You can't support your assertion with any relevant evidence for who or what your God is, or how he went about creating anything. Evolutionary speculation is not, unlike religious speculation, idle - it works from factual, material evidence. If your God is, by definition, immaterial, whence any useful evidence on which to base an explanation?

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : Please Convert me to Atheistic Evolution

Tue, 8 Mar 2011 03:16:46 +0000

Except if the Christian has had the misfortune to worship the wrong God...

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : Please Convert me to Atheistic Evolution

Mon, 7 Mar 2011 09:36:16 +0000

I'm a skeptic. Actually, my doubts go a little deeper than mere skepticism. I don't believe you. You are the one making the claim--convince me. Make me a believer. Back up your belief with more than conjecture. It's hilarious that you claim to be a skeptic, Ray. It really is. If you don't believe that, it still won't stop me laughing at you for making the claim. It would be a waste of time for anyone here to try and convince you of the fact of biological evolution. You have closed your mind to anything that doesn't agree with your favourite storybook. But since we're on the subject of people making positive claims, what can you offer by way of evidence for your God's creation that isn't better explained by evolutionary theory?