EVOLUTION VS GOD? ANOTHER FUNDAMENTALIST FAIL – LEAVING RAY COMFORT UNCOMFORTABLE

EV VS GOD

Introduction

The following text follows an analysis of the video made by Ray Comfort in which he sets a series of relationships between concepts as: Darwinism, atheism, faith, evolution, Christianity, morality, and intelligent designer. Here we see that many of the allegations of Ray Comfort seem much more decontextualized with what actually occurs in the academic environment. Already, leave the space open so Ray can manifest after these criticisms.

It is advisable first to watch the video

 

– Author

Raymond Marshall Comfort is a Christian, was born in 1949 in New Zealand. Comfort says that the main reason the Christian Church exists is evangelization, and that many of evangelism methods used over the past century have produced false conversions to Christianity. He often uses the Ten Commandments to speak about sin before presenting the gospel of Jesus. Comfort speaks professionally at churches and evangelism seminars, and preaches in Huntington Beach, California. It is co-host of “Creationism Examiner”

– False relationship between Darwinism and Atheism

Comfort starts your video making a false correlation between Darwinism and atheism. There are many evolutionists who believe in God, as Francis Collins. Although many people have a perception of God that does not seem to be related to Christian theology, but still live with this interpretation is sound and should be respected. The idea that atheism and Darwinism are directly related is false. Being an atheist is not necessarily linked to Darwinist and Darwinian is not every atheist. In fact, neither intellectuals leads to atheism. There are people in our social circle that don´t believe in God and has no academic training, or even working in the area of ​​science. Atheism is a position that is independent of scientific claims. Science only explains the universe and the diversity of life forms in a naturalistic perspective. She never killed God. Being an atheist is more than believing that the universe and life are the result of natural processes. Requires much more philosophical and historical arguments than scientific.

It is how to establish a false correlation between atheism and communism, and communists even though there are Christians and atheists are not communists. So Ray Comfort agenda is extremely positivist perspective, that every atheist are Darwinist Communist necessarily.

– Darwinism is a kind of faith?

Postulate that species change over time and that this is a natural process does not require faith. To say this is to demonstrate the fragility of a maneuver cowardly people who want to establish equality in how we conceive of two systems of knowledge construction. Science from its methodology, limited but still coherent and playful. Religion presents binding to moral, religious dogma and how can they assured us eternal life beside a creator. Science explains the physical nature of heaven (the sky, space, cosmos), religion as if going to heaven (paradise). Both create knowledge interpreting the world in different ways according to their methodology. Therefore, transport settings distinct areas only because conceptual conflicts. It’s like believing that science works with dogmas and not explanatory models passive changes. Now, paradigm is a concept extremely distinct from dogma.

Faith is the firm opinion that something is true without any proof or objective criterion of verification. Exactly the opposite of the scientific proposal. The expression is semantically related to the verb believe, confiare, bet, although the latter three not necessarily express the feeling of faith, since it can embed doubt partly in recognition of a possible mistake. The relationship of faith with other verbs, is to foster a feeling of affection or even love, a hypothesis which it believes, or trusts, or bet be true. Therefore, if a person believes, trusts or bet on something, does not necessarily mean that she has faith. Belief refers to belief, and derives from the word Creatore.

There is no believer in evolution, is betting that the current model within evolutionary biology is valid because it explains well such diversity of life forms on earth today in the fossil record.

– Evidences of evolution

The fact that we can not observe the scale of millions of years of geological time doesn´t mean it does not exist. If so, could not believe the theory of gravity, because we do not see physically, would not believe in bacteria, atoms, molecules, air or anything that we can not see with the naked eye, even God. The idea that God is there, and must be supported by faith, absolute belief of its existence. The Christian attempt to relate science to religion (called creationism) is a conceptual chimera self-destructive because it replaces belief in God by faith by an absolute need to see, to prove that God exists and so believe in him, and on the other hand mischaracterizes what is meant by scientific methodology as it hurts assumptions Popper and not able to test God in a test tube in the laboratory. The science is methodologically blind to the existence of things that can not be falsified, and God can not be falsifiable. Therefore, the belief of God Ray Comfort is merely intuitive.

The fact that we do not see geologic time does not rule out evolution, it is a false argument called ad ignorantium (appeal to ignorance) and refers to justify that accept a certain proposition since it can never have been proven false in the case of God. If evolution is disproved does not automatically mean that creationism becomes effective. God nor a scientific hypothesis. In other words, for Comfort, the fact that he does not believe that we can see the entire geologic time and basic transformations of life now validates creationism. Reductionist dichotomy. Do not think so is science, so little philosophy. It is a superficial argument, based on common sense, the belief by elimination.

In analogy, the fact that the police do not catch a killer in the act does not mean that there was no crime. However, the evidence of a crime scene point to the crime, this is logical, as well as in biological evolution is presented. A crime scene where a gun trail of blood on the floor and carvings in the choir of the victim provides clear evidence that there was a crime. With luck, and if done competently, scientific analysis can also discover the motivation, the cause of death, the stages of death and perhaps even draw a psychological profile of the author.

The same thing occurs with evolution. The fact that we can not see with the naked eye whole groups of living beings arise in geological time does not rule out evolution. There is clear evidence, gaping in our face that this process occurs macroevolutionary. DNA, behavior, morphology, anatomy, developmental processes, fossil, dynamic intra-and inter-species claim that daily in front of biologists.

The study with the various Stickleback species mentioned on video by Paul Zachary Myers, University of Minnesota, as cichlid fishes show that Ray Comfort accepts the notion that these fish now make new species, even if they still continue to fish .

The fact continue being fish does not imply that evolution does not, after all, there was no origin of species. The Stickleback Gasterosteus microcephalus species is a sister species of Gasterosteus wheatlandi continuing and even fish. A species barrier was transcended by natural processes and in a few million years these new fish may (or may not) give rise to new groups.

Galapagos finches cited by the great anthropologist Craig Stanford birds remain, but show different species rising from a common ancestor, therefore, species evolve…evolve and are potentially capable of generating new groups. To the naked eye certainly will not see it happen, but the fossils are natural portraits that change. As well as changes in specific regions of DNA also show that, etc…and such developmental processes. Even in post-catastrophic periods where niches are open to quick fill takes about a few million years. After the KT extinction mammals and insects have undergone processes of speciation and radiation which took a few million years, although the rate of diversity has increased dramatically.

None of those interviewed in the video made ​​any mention of saltationism that Ray Comfort would like to hear to ask how we could be sure of geologic time if we can not see. After all, say a group of fish as Stickleback is capable of giving rise to a new group full of new life in a tiny space of time would be to saltationism. A quote from Darwin in the video makes it clear, these processes are gradual, and therefore may take thousands or millions of years to occur. Thus, it is expected that jumps groups are seen. As Darwin said, and so many others before him; Natura non facit saltum.

But even then Ray Comfort shoots himself in the foot. By accepting you are new Stickleback species already considered that evolution occurs and that groups can arise. Do not see them with the naked eye does not mean they do not occur, especially considering the fossil evidence showing transition between different groups; whales, bats, tapirs, tetrapods, birds and butterflies.

The fact that we do not see butterflies emerging as a group from moths does not mean that this has not occurred. There is evidence that the same way with the analogy mentioned above relating to forensic science.

Here’s an example of how the evidence points to the origin of different groups. Biologically it is believed that the Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies) are a sister group of insects of the order Trichoptera. That’s because fossils show this relationship. Especially the fossils of extinct family Necrotaulidae.

There are several characteristics that relate Lepidoptera and Trichoptera. The group of butterflies seems to be formed by a mosaic of synapomorphies and apomorphies. Apomorphy is a set of features derived from a primitive characteristic. In this case, the group is sinapomorphies Trichoptera, and may be called autapomorphies of both groups (Amphiesmenoptera).

 According to a study by researchers at the Natural History Museum of Denmark published in the journal Zootaxa autapomorficas the characteristics of the group are:

Adult: Prelabium fused with hypopharynx (I). Lower rear corner of laterocervicale produced towards the prosternum (II). Pronotum setose paired with ‘warts’ (III). Prothoracic episterna with unique suture pattern (IV). Secondary furcal arms of pterothorax fused with posterior margins of Corresponding epimera (V). Metathorax with setose, presumably proprioceptive, wing base sclerite in membrane behind / below subalare (VI). Pretarsus above claw with ‘pseudempodium’ (strong arrow on socket) (VII). Wings with dense vestiture of setae (forerunners of the lepidopteran scales) (VIII). Fore wing anal veins looping up into double-Y formation (IX). One ventral (tentorial) neck muscle Originating on fore leg (X). Conical furcopleural muscle in mesothorax with broad end on pleural ridge (XI). Paired glands opening on sternum V (XII). Male segment IX with tergum and sternum fused into closed ring (XIII). Anterior margin of female segments VIII and IX with long rod-like apodemes accommodating insertions of protractor and retractor muscles of extensible oviscapt (XIV). Note: recent work shows que the interpretation of the female postabdomen in the lowest Amphiesmenoptera is more problematical than hitherto Believed, and the apodemes in question may not all be homologous (Kristensen 2003), the Particularly intriguing question is Whether the three-apophysis-pair configuration (with Both dorsal and ventral apophyses on Originating VIII) Could prove ancestor in Amphiesmenoptera, since three pairs are present in Agathiphaga as well as in the recently described enigmatic Fansipangana caddisfly (Mey 1996). Ventral diaphragm muscles inserting on the nerve cord (XV). Female fri heterogametic (XVI). Unusually high chromosome number (basic number 30-31), and chromosomes holocentric oogenesis achiasmatic (XVII). Spermatozoa with outer accessory filaments thickened, filled with proteinaceous and glycogen-like materials (XVIII). Larva: stemmata each with one crystalline cone cell transformed into primary pigment cell, HENCE transverse section in the cone is seen to be only tripartite. Prelabium and hypopharynx fused into composite lobe with silk gland orifice on apex.

Moreover, comparative studies of DNA, metaphase I, spermatocytes of spermatogenesis establish the relationship between parental Lepidoptera and Trichoptera being that the common ancestor of the two groups must have lived in the Jurassic about 190 million years, according to dating and DNA estimates from fossils.

For Ray understand evolution you need to let him know that when a researcher says that groups derive from a common ancestor they are saying this based on evidence. So although you can not see in person all the geologic time, that is no excuse for that disposal evolution, and yet it fills all the methodological requirements of pure science, measurement, physical evidence, trial and Popperian falsification. There is not a fossil that breaks the sequence of biological groups found in geological stratigraphic layers. Never found a fossil rabbit in the Cambrian.

Still, it is possible to establish a correlation between two other distinct groups, butterflies and moths whose mtDNA, comparative analyzes of genes Wing-less, CO I and II as well as fossils and primitive groups Butterfly (Hedylidae) clearly show this historical relationship shared between these two groups.

The fact moth always be moth, bactéria always be bacteria or fish always be fish does not mean they can not evolve, evidences (not faith) point to the idea that groups like these can give rise to new groups on scales great time and from mutations. There is no biological evidence, even that foster historical fixism or essentialism that both Ray Comfort seems to idolize.

Let’s see a a sociological example; women in the 30s did not vote. Fortunately, today and properly can vote. Maybe none of us have lived here in the 30s, but we know from reports and historical documents at the time women could not vote. We don´t live in the Middle Ages, but we know that Europe had moral rules, sociological different from today, with customs, doctrines and its own lines of thought. The societies of the Middle Ages had political economic management systems quite different from their current, or why did not exist. The fact that we can not see doesn´t mean that there is no clairvoyance to prove that the past was real, the scars show that the past is real and this is different from the past and the future. Things change.

When it is skeptical of the biological changes that occur over time, this skepticism is extended to other processes that become similarly over time, society, people, customs etc and such.

Ray Comfort proves extremely unclean to ask “Could you give me something I can see, observe and test the scientific method to the change of new groups in Darwinian evolution?”

Certainly not, the question is biased because it asks an evolutionary leap. The origin of a group from another in a short period of time. This has nothing to do with blind faith. Even the blind belief in Christ is called blind faith. There is a basic difference between faith and fideism that Ray hits without any mercy.

– Intelligent Designer

Intelligent designer is the ability to create a rose out of nothing? There is a difference between being smart and gifted with supernatural powers.

The nothing physical and nothing philosophical are completely different. The universe does not come from nothing physical. From the perspective of quantum physics, which is the responsible for the explanation of the origin of the universe, it comes from an oscillation of the quantum vacuum. Even the vacuum or matter annihilation by antimatter emits light, photons, electrons are elementary particles of matter. The fact that the universe exists doesn´t imply a divine creation or that has a special origin. If there is a divine being that has always existed is perfectly acceptable that the universe also always existed. Thus, neither God nor the universe need creators and scientifically significant is the idea that the universe has no relation with the divine aspects. Much of the cosmological argument is defended by William Lane Craig creationist although it has been rejected by philosophers and scientists. Beltrand Russell questioned with great class in his book (Why I am not a Christian). Universe seems to be the effect of a quantum phenomenon explains Laurence Krauss below:

– Vestiges of evolution

The remaining features are evolutionary remnants that reach adulthood body. Are homologous features that were fully formed in a common ancestor.

There are many examples of traces in nature, they include reduced wings from birds as the penguin, reduced fish eyes and habits animals cave. There are also pelvic bones of whales, the pelvis bone and limbs in snakes.

Generally, traces are non-functional, but in birds, which have reduced wings, like the ostriches, emus, cassowaries and kiwis such vestigial appendages acquire functional roles in balance and communication. The penguins and cormorants use their wings in a locomotor function for propulsion as submarines. The pelvic bones of whales can be used in the reproductive behavior, and in the case of ostriches, the wings help to balance the body and reproductive behaviors.

Thus, a vestigial trait may have a distinct function of the natural condition showing the evolution of the ancestral level vestigial and exaptative. These evolutionary events such as the rudiments and vestiges may arise from the accumulation of neutral mutations by genetic drift. Can allow the structures and behaviors lose their complexity in association with positive selection for other functions.

An example is the concomitant reduction of the eyes and the enhancement of lateral line nerve and its ganglia that form the lateral line on blind cave fish as observed in some members of the genus Astyanax.

There are animals that carry both vestigial features as rudimentary. This is the case of the serpent Python. The limb buds in embryos of Python reticulatus are rudimentary, but some elements of the bones of the hind arrive eventually affect adults, featuring traces. This is because snakes evolved from an ancestral tetrapod and totally because their structures are homologous to them. They are still present in the charge closely related, such as lizards, or even of all other tetrapods.

The claws that make up the traces of snakes pitons can be neomorphic structures that disappear and may reappear in any accidents with a new morphology. It is difficult to say as indeed were the claws of their ancestors since in this case there is no evidence that the fossils. It is common these traces neomórficos in mammals.

Within the group of lizards squamata a limb reduction occurred about 62 times in 53 distinct lineages. Skinkid been shown in lizards size reduction and loss of the elements forming members. Skink lizards in Australia (Hemiergis peronii) occurred 31 times in 25 lineages, some presenting digits until adulthood, a trace of additional digit in the fifth finger. In butterflies some researchers accept that butterflies have eyespots (different from ocelares spots that usually occur in the wings) in the upper portion of the head, since it can only be seen with histological examinations. There remains external and as little of these functional ocelos, only part of tissue in the internal portion of the head.

– Morality.

Many other creationists establish a bridge between morality and corruption of Darwinism. As if it were unique moral status of the Protestant Christians.

Ray really don´t known the work and the life of Darwin. Darwin condemned slavery in Brazil when passed, will never foster any kind of atrocity as occurred in communist Russia or the Holocaust. In fact, doesn´t make sense to use Darwinism to justify Communism or Nazism because they are clearly antagonistic ideological.

In a text called Modernity and the Holocaust from Zygmund Bauman and another texts from Hannah Arendt shows exactly the opposite of what Ray Comfort says in his video. When trying to establish that moral concepts are established by law it shows you do not know exactly the difference between legality and morality.

Morale is not established by government mandate. Nazism made this clear, as Arendt puts it very accurately in his text. In the text, she points out that although the Nazi political regime has established that it would be immoral to keep any kind of emotional bond with Jews. The German people could not suspend his friendly relationship with the Jews, considering that most Germans were neighbors or even relatives of Jews. The German people could not suspend relations emotional, social, she had with the Jewish people in the face of a totalitarian government determining what is moral and what is immoral.

Morality can manifest itself in insubordination before principles socially sustained. The binding force between good and evil can not be dictated by social powers. The individual conduct should be moral. Nazi regime made a duel between Intellectual stereotype amd personal relationship. Morality was not following what the Nazi policy determined as morality. Morality is not established by law, are simply ways that are naturally adopted by the dynamics of society through changes in the social fabric. Just like the example cited above on the right to vote for women in the 30s in Brazil, which was seen as something absurd.

Science explains phenomena, doesn´t justify acts of barbarism. Thinking about the Holocaust as the result of an expression of Darwinian ideas is an opportunistic maneuver merely reducing to absurdity really what Darwin meant by survival of the fittest.

Likewise with that used concepts from biology to justify acts of barbarism in the Holocaust, used the name of God and the Catholic church and Protestant, the works of Wagner and the concept of the superman Nietzsche which is nothing more than overcoming the weakness human, and become a superman who understands his finitude and determines its own destiny. There is no relationship with the concept of racial superiority, but so distorted and decontextualized was used to justify barbarism.

If this serves to justify atrocity in the name of science, or philosophy worth remembering no one was more cruel than Christianity with its performance in the dark middle ages, the Taipin war, promoting racist ideologies with the Ku Klux Klan. Thinking reductively as Ray usually do in your video should repudiate Christianity as a symbol that brings a person crucified and God killed all mankind drowned. Nothing more cruel to a religion that usually give moral lessons. Ray becomes a typical false moralizing, judging people by what they believe rather than what they really are.

Say that Darwinism is based immoral behavior is a mistake triple of social Darwinism. 1) is to dilute the specificity of human nature to a generic nature, disregarding the fact that we are nature with its own attributes that define us as a species (culture, work, history, etc.) 2) ends up forcing the ideological discourse of liberal orientation that is a natural evolution for the elimination of the weakest, ie, what is ethically valid socioeconomic inequality and poverty. Generally creationists do not know what Darwin meant by evolution by natural selection as their claims to lead an anti-ethical and decontextualized. 3) ignores the historical context in which Darwin formulated the dominant paradigms that moment expansion of capitalism, European culture as the only valid and affirmation of positivist approaches Cartesian. Distorted “biologization” of politics and politicization of biology in Nazism, a biased use of anthropology to justify the existence of races or inequalities. Even so, during the debate was that creationists claiming Eugenia promoted Darwin’s ideas when in fact the Eugenics was a term coined later Darwin’s ideas. Historically it is clear that there was decontextualized use of science to foster such atrocities.

– Dilemma dog and neighbor

If atheists are pressed against the wall by choose save option A or B and that makes a false or immoral evolutionary remember that the God of Ray Comfort killed mankind with a flood. A Great example morality!! Wars in the name of Christianity were established. What Ray would be in this dilemma constituted an atheist and a Christian drowning. Who did he save? What action he would take to decide what is morally right to do that split second he has to choose between who lives and who dies?

– Spirituality

According to Ray, the fact of being alive is because you have a soul. If we use the same technique of questioning where Ray Comfort arrive? How to prove that the soul exists? Considering hypothetically that creationism is a science, which fits the scientific method? How to prove that out of the scientific method? Where the personal intuition of separating the theistic belief in God in such a way and create reliability in your premises? Finally, how can life exist without the biological apparatus?

The fact of being alive doesn´t say whether the person’s soul. How to define it scientifically? How to use the scientific method to say that the fact that this person is alive especially on the soul? You can live without a biological apparatus and only the soul? Real examples that we have of this?

Let me put the question to Ray Comfort; is there any being who is alive without a biological apparatus and that you can be proven?

– Are are a good person?

Concept of goodness varies individually and socially. In Amazon forest is common in the group of Yanomami indians reject the first child if it is female, or if the mother has twin, one should be abandoned in the woods, because according to his betrayal one has a good spirit and an evil spirit another. If the child is born with congenital malformation is abandoned in the woods.

Ray Comfort, it would be correct to impose the rule of the white man on the cultural system of the indians Yanonamis?

That is a question that maybe Ray would propose an indigenous indoctrination, mischaracterization of alien culture and impose their false Christian moralizing. How can we be sure that the moral system proposed by Ray really is correct? Criteria which it has or we have to try this way of life as correct?

The fact that these written in a sacred book simply means nothing. Bhagavad Gita, Koran and Torah books are also endowed with sacred truths absolutist concepts of morality and peppered with barbarism.

What is heaven? How can we define the existence of paradise? How do we guarantee that this place exists according to the Christian conception? Being a good personal morally speaking is defined as? What is the concept of kindness to Ray Comfort? It is the one defined by the bible? By the bible?…he same book that making apologies to atrocities, or underlying radicalism? Spare me please! Your religious conduct must talk less and listen more.

Nobody accepts absolutely all moral aspects defined by the dynamics of changes in society. There will always be differences between what is morally correct individual point of view with what is morally accepted by society. Simply is a transformation that occurs naturally. The fact that there are women exercising family role, voting, or having a higher family income than men may be morally wrong for the religious who follow the letter I Timothy 2 verse 11 and 12, in the same way that the Catholic Church condemns condom use.

Ray Comfort is not morally right or can accept as morally perfect. Maybe for him to be morally perfect is basically following (in extreme radicalism) what the Bible tells you to be morally correct. Maybe it God acted correctly killing humanity in the flood, and Moses did right to kill those who worshiped the golden calf. Would it be morally acceptable in a Christian society today? We must kill the wicked? Or will it become another phrase that needs to be interpreted metaphorically in an attempt to mask the atrocities committed in the name of God?

As Ray Comfort would fare on this question?

Set a good person is a personal advice. A Christian would define myself as a good person I do not even believe in God, because he sees the values ​​that have sound similar to his. In his view, the educational and moral aspects that make me, make me a possible person to get along despite differences. Someone could say I’m a bad person because they do not believe in God and say that I am morally corrupt, as suggested indirectly con Ray Comfort. That´s the boundary between what we call tolerance and intolerance. The fact that Ray Comfort being a Christian does not make you a bad person, maybe if he will awaken this latent fundamentalism that comes with expressing this video. Perhaps the fact that he judge people by what they believe endorsement for people to judge their way of analyzing others.

Some certainly would evaluate for their belief, as someone who follows a religion whose symbol is a crucified person and intolerant God to mankind. I certainly do not judge him by the latter. If this makes me a good person, and I just really don´t know. It will depend on my circle of friends and how they evaluate my position and my attitudes.

Lies and the name of God.

Fake moralist!!! Ray Comfort has never lied? The simple act of asking if we speak the name of God in vain is to be speaking the name of God in vain. The problem is that it doesn´t characterize blasphemy.

To blaspheme is to use God’s name to justify things that are not his. Example “Hitchens died of cancer as a punishment from God.” Is God so bad?

Say the name of God in vain is different to defame the name of God. Ray Comfort not define blasphemy correctly. Was he a bad Christian?

Now if pornography and lusting neighbor’s wife is immoral (and actually is) then Christians are immoral too. In Brazil there is a group of evangelical politicians that trumps secularism federation. In this group there are pastors involved in sexual scandals, corruption, and pastors using their political influence to make money illegally and maneuver the people according to his will. Christians have sex outside of marriage or have extramarital affairs. If we flatten the people for what they have bad as Ray Comfort wants to propose, then Christianity is as corrupt as atheism. The fact that I do not believe in God allowed me to see many of these fake Christian moralists in hell. Worse are the lies in the name of God!!!

– The Ten Commandments

Really need 10 commandments to be morally well regarded in the eyes of God? Perhaps in the eyes of Ray yes! How a society would become a doctrine respecting theocratic? Any Christian could explain to me how this would be possible from the sociological point of view? There is not much difference between the theocracy of a Muslim country and certain American states. Fundamentalism is the same.

If the ten commandments work, so why we have to create laws? Because society is dynamic, things change, until the Christianity changed. Does Ray Comfort knows differentiating legality of morality and specifically what is morally right in front of what the Bible says?

And how to make Muslim countries? We catechizing them as the Jesuits did with the Indians of Brazil? Converting others would not be hurting his free will?

Much of this discourse fake Ray comfort fundamentalist expresses a desire to make the world a single nation, a world Christian, disregarding not only atheists, but all the world’s religions. It’s called imperialism. Almost makes up in God’s name they call Jesus Christianity when other motivations do they call new world order. The belief Ray not only teaching people, she tames people like animals.

Creation proves creator?

The first question is; Everything was actually created?

How can we be sure? And what can prove that the world was created?

If it was really, who’s to say it was the Christian God? It is not our faith or Christian historical contribution that makes us feel it? It was actually created or always existed? According to the religion of Buddha everything always existed. Because then it is not the creator? If Ray was born in Yemen would certainly be presenting a speech honoring creation of Allah five times a day. The U.S. is a Christian country because its colonization. If the Islamic empire had colonized Britain today Ray possibly be defending a mosque any. These issues seem useless, but were never answered. Alias, were cowardly forsaken by Thomas of Aquin assumed that everything was created according to the conception of the Christian God. The philosophy must return bases Tales of Millet, back issues Greek; God exists? Soul exists? is eternal?

religion

Part of the video where Ray Comfort says blatantly not talking about religion

What follows after the video of Ray’s old speech conversion, jargon Christians that Jesus died on the cross to save us and assumptions of universal morality. Just note that the supposed video that should be a critical theory of evolution becomes a religious sermon, a speech that can not even be called theological, but first of all, proselytizing ultra-conservative.

In the end, still follows with the audacity to talk about the Bible and say that this is not talking about religion. Tries to project equality between science and religion claiming that biological evolution need for faith, when in fact what we see above is that has nothing to do with faith. For faith, has a proper sense, exclusive to religious issues. So, evolution is not against God, by a sake methodological she is blind to it. Science is only explaining the phenomena of nature by its nature empirically. It just shows that the diversity of life forms is the result of natural processes and not supernatural.

Just below, leave a participation of Ray Comfort on a program called “The Atheist Experience” so you draw your own conclusions:

 

Scritto da Rossetti

Key Words: NetNature, Rossetti, Brazil, Ray Comfort, Evolution, God, Crationism, Fundamentalist, Christian, Morality

 

References

* MARK RIDLEY. EVOLUÇÃO. 3A. ED. PORTO ALEGRE: ARTMED EDITORA,2006
* ALAN C. LOVE. FUNCTIONAL HOMOLOGY AND HOMOLOGY OF FUNCTION: BIOLOGICAL CONCEPTS AND PHILOSOPHICAL CONSEQUENCES. BIOL PHILOS (2007) 22:691–708
* BRIAN K. HALL. DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION: THE UNITY UNDERLYING HOMOLOGY AND HOMOPLASY AS SEEN THROUGH AN ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT AND EVOLUTION. BIOL. REV. (2003), 78, PP. 409–433.
NIKLAS WAHLBERG, JULIEN LENEVEU, ULLASA KODANDARAMAIAH, CARLOS PEÑA, SÖREN NYLIN, ANDRÉ V. L. FREITAS AND ANDREW V. Z. BROWER. NYMPHALID BUTTERFIES DIVERSIFY FOLLOWING NEAR DEMISE AT THE CRETACEOUS/TERTIARY BOUNDARY. PROC. R. SOC. B (2009) 276, 4295–4302
NIELS P.KRISTENSEN, MALCOLM J. SCOBLE & OLE KARSHOLT. LEPIDOPTERA PHYLOGENY AND SYSTEMATICS: THE STATE OF INVENTORYING MOTH AND BUTTERFLY DIVERSITY. ZOOTAXA 1668: 699–747 (2007).
KLAUS WERNER WOLF, KAREL NOVÁK AND FRANTI EK MAREC KINETIC ORGANIZATION OF METAPHASE I BIVALENTS IN SPERMATOGENESIS OF LEPIDOPTERA AND TRICHOPTERA SPECIES WITH SMALL CHROMOSOME NUMBERS. NATURE. HEREDITY (1997) 79, 135–143; DOI:10.1038/HDY.1997.136 
MICHAEL FRIEDLÄNDER. PHYLOGENETIC BRANCHING OF TRICHOPTERA AND LEPIDOPTERA: AN ULTRASTRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ON COMPARATIVE SPERMATOLOGY. JOURNAL OF ULTRASTRUCTURE RESEARCH. VOLUME 83, ISSUE 2, MAY 1983, PAGES 141–147
Bauman, Z. Modernidade e Holocausto. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Jorge Zahar. 1ºed., 1998.
Silva, F. L. . Política como moralidade: a banalização da ética. In: Adauto Novaes. (Org.). O Esquecimento da Política. 1 ed. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Agir, 2007, v. 1, p. 127-137.
Dawkins R. Deus um Delírio. São Paulo:  Editora Companhia das letras. 1ºed., 2007.
Gould. S. J. A falsa medida do Homem. São Paulo: Editora Martins fontes. 1ºed., 1999.

3 thoughts on “EVOLUTION VS GOD? ANOTHER FUNDAMENTALIST FAIL – LEAVING RAY COMFORT UNCOMFORTABLE

  1. Torna-se repetitivo comentar neste site bobagens da discussão entre evolucionistas e criacionistas, mas como os textos continuam fluindo, sinto o comichão de repetir as mesmas coisas nos comentários a respeito.
    Há várias questões no texto que merecem comentários, e vamos por parte.
    a) DARWIN E O EVOLUCIONISMO.
    A humanidade pode ser entendida em dois estágios básicos:
    – a do “homo-sapiens” e a do “homem adâmicou na versão religiosa ou agrícola na versão científica”, e se tratam de duas “espécies humanas” até completamente diferentes, mas é claro que a evolução de Darwin não tem como explicar isso, PORQUE APENAS ANALISA OS RESPCTIVOS ORGANISMOS, que no caso, ainda são os mesmos. DUAS ESPÉCIES COM O MESMO ORGANISMO faz parte da “ideologia evolucionsita”? Mas fato é fato, e pouco importam os palpites e teorias.
    O que “classifica” algo como espécie? OS EVOLUCIONISTAS QUE ESCOLHAM O CRITÉRIO E OS APLIQUE AOS DOIS “HOMENS” QUE SURGIRAM EM DUAS ÉPOCAS DIFERENTES, e em sequência claramente “evolutiva”!
    – O “homem adâmico ou agrícola” que teria surgido na Terra por volta de 10 mil anos atrás, enquanto seu “antecessor” por volta de 150 mil, e ambos como que “de repente”, nada dos milênios para a tal evolução, mas a evolução do “homem adâmico” também teve vários pontos de inflexão como espécie na Terra, e vamos apenas mencionar algumas: O HOMEM “PATRIARCAL”, O HOMEM RELIGIOSO OU LEITOR, O HOMEM SÁBIO POLÍTICO NA GRECIA E O CRISTÃO NA MESMA ÉPOCA, O HOMEM FEUDAL DA IDADE MÉDIA E POR FIM O HOMEM CAPITALISTA COMTEMPORÂNEO. É claro que do ponto de vista de comportamento, SÃO TAMBÉM COMO QUE ESPÉCIES DIFERENTE, AINDA COM O MESMO CORPO OU ORGANISMO DO “HOMO-SAPIENS”, e no evento da morte, isso se torna constatável e claro: OS ORGANISMOS MORTOS SE COMPORTAM DE FORMA EXATAMENTE IGUAIS, diferente de enquanto vivos. Então, o grande problema evolucionista é entender o que seja o “ser-vivo”, e não APENAS SEU ORGANISMO MATERIAL. Há algum evolucionista que pode explicar de forma consensual, o QUE SEJA O SER-VIVO E PO REXTENSÃO, A PRÓPRIA VIDA? Se tiver, que apresente a explicação, que nos livros que rodam por aí, NÃO ENCONTREI ATÉ HOJE.
    – Então Darwin não estudou o “ser-vivo”, mas o “organismo enquanto vivo”, mais ou menos como o mecânico de automóvel que estuda o automóvel enquanto está sendo usado pelo motorista. Nenhum mecânico vai estudar o carro num cemitério de sucatas, CLARO COMO ÁGUA. Isso significa “entender algo” que só precisa da evolução da inteligência, outra coisa é saber sobre esse algo, ou mais inda, FAZER ESSE ALGO. O mecânico apenas entende do automóvel quando está “rodando” e para, não entende de projeto, de fabricação e muito menos do motorista que o dirige. DARWIN FOI DE FATO UM “MECÂNICO AMADOR” do organismo enquanto vivo, e nisso foi de fato um gênio, SACOU REVELAÇÃO QUE AINDA NÃO EXISTIA PARA O HOMEM DO SÉCULO XIX. Seus seguidores o transformaram em dogmas de fé, apenas isso é que se pode interpretar até agora.
    – Darwin observou que os seres-vivos se reuniam em grupos “smilares” batizados de “especies”, e que esses grupos tinham um “aspetco evolutivo”, nada além do que poderia também concluir um mecânico de automóveis. Claro que o Ford T como projeto, não difere muito da Ferrari deste ano, mas do ponto de vista detalhes, sãu duas espécies completamente diferentes. Com “espírito científico”, Darwin entendeu a Árvore da Vida”, que os químicos através de Mendeleev na mesma época, também “sacaram” a Tabela Periódica dos Elementos. Do ponto de vista de “classificação”, são ambas exatamente iguais, APENAS EM ÁREAS OU CAMPOS DIFERENTES. Os químicos muito mais evoluídos na época do que os ‘bíólogos’ que sequer ainda existiam, não deram “palpite algum” sobre como um elemento Hélio se transformou num elemento mais complexo, por exemplo, Sódio. Mas Darwin foi mais longe, E DEU O PALPIETE QUE AS ESPÉCIES SURGIAM POR “SELEÇÃO NATURAL”, sequer explicada de fato o que seria. Supõe-se que seria a “adaptação” ao meio ambiente, mas é claro que Darwin não sabia ainda que meio ambiente e vida, na Terra, são apenas faces de uma mesma moeda: A VIDA, e como também sequer se aventurou a dar palpites sobre a “vida”, tratou-se na realidade de “mero palpite de gênio”, como Aristóteles dois milênios antes observando que ‘tudo caia para a Terra”, sacou que a Terra era o Cento do Universo, palpite que apenas dois milênios depois Newtou provou estar errado, MAS SE TORNOU DOGMA DE FÉ DE FANÁTICOS, como também se tornou o palpite de Darwin sobre a tal “seleção natural”.
    – Então, o evolucionismo darwiniano tem dois aspectos, um claramente “científico” de observação similar à Tabela Periódica dos químicos, e outro claramente doutrinário de mero palpite, TOTALMENTE EQUIVOCADO COMO SE VERÁ A SEGUIR. O Evolucionismo fanático embarcou na “seleção natural” como dogma de fé, pois até hoje não se constatou um único exemplo de como uma espécie surgiu de outra por “seleção de porcaria alguma”. Mas é dogma de fé. A única coisa que se conhece de uma espécie produzir outra, SÃO AS EXPERIÊNCIAS HUMANAS NA AGRICULTURA, CIRAÇÃO E LABORATÓRIOS, mas nada por seleção natural, decorre da evolução da inteligência do homem mesmo!
    b) EVOLUCIONISMO x CRIACIONISMO
    No final do século XIX, havia uma única versão no Ocidente “digna de fé” da origem dos seres-vivos e do próprio Universo:
    – A VERSÃO BÍBLICA RESUMIDA NA GÊNESIS. Deus teria sido o criador, o arquiteto, o engenheiro, o feitor e o próprio “operário” de onde se orignaram o Univeso e os seres-vivos na Terra, em linguagem típicamente pictórica, MAS SE TORNARA DOGMA DE FÉ da Igreja Católica, que até o século XIX, de fato comandava os governos na Europa. Darwin ‘sacou’ que os seres-vivos não se encaixavam direito nessas “doutrinas religiosas”, e sua evolução batia de frente com os dogmas católicos e religiosos: INICIOU-SE UMA BRIGA DE CACHORROS GRANDES, que até hoje não se chegou a conclusão alguma, como se depreende do texto. Darwin, que era religioso, mostrava que na origem e constituição das diversas espécies, NÃO TINHAM DEUS ALGUM NA SUA ORIGEM, mas como sequer definiu e entendeu o que fosse a própria “vida”, sacou que tudo seria algo de um “acaso natural”, que a própria natureza produzia, AINDA QUE SEM SABER COMO, como é até hoje o “evoucnionismo científico”: A BRIGA FOI DE DOGMAS DE FÉ QUE NÃO SE ENTENDIAM, e até hoje a briga continua a mesma, FANÁTICOS DOGMÁTICOS DE UM LADO, E OUTROS DE OUTRO.
    – Então, a discussão evolucionismo contra criacionismo, é uma discussão inútil e supérflua de “sexo de anjos”, e o texto mosta isso com clareza.
    c) A QUESTÃO DA VIDA
    Evidentemente toda a discussão se resume em entender o que seja a “vida”, um mistério para os religiosos, e uma enigma para os cientistas, pelo simples fato que não se chega a um acordo sobre o que seja o “ser-vivo”. Darwin estudou os “organismos” enquanto vivos, sem sequer deifinir que entendia por isso, e toda sua conclusão foi sobre esses organismos materiais, enquanto vivos. Isto é, estudou ORGANISMOS MATEIRIAIS, como um mecânico estuda um automóvel enquanto “vivo”, isto é, USADO PELO HOMEM. Nenhum mecânico que se preze vai estudar automóveis num cemítério de sucatas, como Darwin também não foi estudar seres-vivos num cemitério. Então, o primeiro equívoco de Darwin foi “confundir organismo material”, como “organismo vivo”, e de fato postulou dois “palpites de gênio”:
    – UM QUE AS ESPÉCIES SE CLASSIFICAVAM NA “ÁVORE DAVIDA”, com o critério disponível da observação pessoal, que ainda hoje é o mesmo entre os biólogos, mas que aos poucos ira´melhorando com o estudo do DNA. Algo semelhante aos químicos que na mesma época sacaram a Tabela Periódica, que muitos mais adiantados “cientificamente”, usaram o critério do átomo, nada subjetivo. Imagine pela observação “sacar que água, vapor e nuvem fossem a mesma coisa” chamada quimicamente H2O!
    – Pelas suas próprias observalções e conhecimentos da época, sacou que as espécies se apresentavam em claro sistema de evolução, e FAZIAM ISSO POR “SELEÇÃO NATURAL”, TENDO COMO REFERÊNCIA O MEIO AMBIENTE como objeto de “adaptação”. Claro que eastava “descrevendo” o que via, a outra explicação existente era ser “obra de um Deus Infinito” que tivera o “capricho” de vir aqui na Terra soprar vida num boneco de barro! Claro que seu palpite era muito mais “racional” que o primeiro, que vingava ainda sustentado como “dogma de fé”. Darwin que era religioso, FICOU NUMA SINUCA DE CANTO, sabia que era mais racional, MAS COMO ENFRENTAR O CLERO AINDA DONO DA EUROPA? Isso delongou, como presunção, a publicação de seu livro, QUE SÓ SAÍU PORQUE OUTRO “EVOLUJCIONISTA” ESTAVA PRESTES A PUBLICA O SEU, e como todo sistema capitalista de concorrência, QUEM SAI NA FRENTE GANHA. Então, a seleção natural foi um “mero palpite” de Darwin para explicar como uma espécie “surgiria de outra”, e isso virou doutriina que tansformada em dogmas de fé, DEU ORIGEM A DISCUSSÃO INÚTIL E SUPÉRFLUA ENTRE EVOLUCIONISTAS (que depois se confundiu com ateus) e CRIACIONISTAS, hoje considerados “crentes”. Na realidade, grupos fanáticos de dogmas de fé que não se sustentam por nenhum critério de objetividade de crenças.
    O fundo da questão ainda é a definição e entendimento do que seja a Vida na Terra, e or extensão, os seres-vivos também na Terra, pois sequer podemos constatar que haja vida em outros lugares, AINDA QUE RELIGIÕES JÁ DIGAM HÁ SÉCULOS QUE A VIDA NÃO É PRIVILÉGIO DA TERRA, mas isso fica por conta de “crendicices”. Se o cientista não consegue encontrar com seus instrumentos tecnológicos, a Vida alhueres é mera consequência de lógica apenas, e os cientistas estão procurando com seus instrumentos e até veículos espaciais, OUTRO EQUÍVOCO EVOLUCIONISTA, que não faz parte dos presentes comentários.
    Darwin não estudou “seres-vivos”, estudou os “organismos dos seres-vivos”, por isso o cemitério não foi objeto de suas considerações, ainda que o organismo vivo antes, é o mesmo depois de morto, pelo menos naquele instante. Os evolucionistas podem explicar qual a diferença entre o mesmo organismo vivo antes, e morto depois? SE PUDEREM, COMEÇAMOS A ENTENDER O QUES EJA A VIDA. Claro que ainda não encontrei nenhum evolucionista que se aventurasse a dar seu “palpite” sobre a Vida, aliás, nenhum cientista sequer, e para os religiosos principalmente fanáticos, a Vida tanto quanto a Morte são apenas “desíngnios de um Deus” cheio de vontades!
    Darwin, e por extensão prática os médicos, SÃO MECÂNICOS QUE ESTUDAM OS ORGANISMOS FEITOS DE MATÉRIA “ORGÂNICA”, e que circunstancialmente, se tornam vivos. O mecânico não estuda carros “mortos na sucata do ferroi-velho”, apenas o que estão em “uso”, por seus motoristas, mas é claro que não estuda também os “motoristas”, porque teria que ser também “médico”. Como se vê, estudar organismo material, é muito difernete de estudar “ser-vivo”, muito claro para qualquer inteligência desligada de dogmas de fé até infantis.
    d) GRANDES TEÓRICOS DO EVOLUCIONISMO
    Vou isolar o grande teórico Dawkins, que se tornou de fato o guru do evolucionismo, principalmente ateu! Ainda não sei o que uma coisa tem a ver com outra, MAS O TAL DAWKINS FAZ UM BALAIO DE GATOS MISTURANDO TESES EVOLUCIONISTAS COM TESES ATÉIAS, e seus livros são um rosário de repetições enfandonhas de filosofias baratas, não se criticando seus exemplos de “bíologias e zoologia” cheios de curiosidades principalmente para os leigos nas áreas, pois o tal guru confunde conhecimento profissionais nas áreas de sua profissão, como filosofias baratas de ateismoe evolucionismo. E assim como ele, há vários outros, alguns mostrados no texto. A PERGUNTA AINDA SEM RESPOSTAS AOS ILUMINADOS EVOLUCIONISTAS É DEFINIREM DE FORMA CONSENSUAL, O QUE ENTENDEM POR VIDA, E POR EXTENSÃO OS SERES-VIVOS, e depois, se discutir os equívodos mútuos dos fanáticos criacionistas e evolucionitas. Como “mecânico de automóveis”, a única coisa que se pode discutir a respeito é se o mecâncio entende os defeitos do carro, ou não! Vamos dizer que a discussão no nível em que se coloca, seria melhor uma discussão sobre planos de saúde e de hospitais, que ainda tratam o homem, como mero ORTGANISMO MATERIAL que os aparelhos eletrônicos podem conhecer melhor do que o próprio médico! Claro que o próprio médico mais atualizado, já começa entender que “doenças” são também “mentais”, nada a ver com organismo material de absolutamente nada, ainda que se coloque a mente como objeto dos neurônios e suas ligações, como se as ligações eletrônicas de um computador, fosse de fato a “sede de sua inteligência” que sequer existe como fato!
    Mas o automóvel tem um projeto, é feito numa fábrica, para ser utilizado por um profissional chamado motorista, com alguma utilidade clara e compreensível, para atender necessidades de transporte do próprio homem, ainda que de forma ainda equivocada, etc. etc. Que tal os evolucionistas levarem a discussão para coisa similar, COMEÇANDO POR EXPLICAR QUAL SERIA A UTILIDADE DE UM SER-VIVO? Um biólogo ateu disse que o ser-vivo não tem utilidade alguma, e deu como exemplo a barata, procurando diferenciar um artefato humano, de um ser-vivo. Com imbecilidades dessa naipe, fica difícal até entender uma discussão como essa. O próprio guru Dawkin em seu Livro “O Relojoeiro Cego” diferencia o artefato do ser-vivo, porque um é feito de “carne e osso” e outro não! FILOSOFIAS TÃO RASTEIRAS NÃO DÁ DE FATO PARA DISCUTIR.
    Com conclusão, a discusão é um debate de sexo de anjos de pessoas fanatisadas nos seus respectivos dogma de fé. O organismo de um ser-vivo é algo que pode ser estudado à parte do próprio ser-vivo, coisa que o mecâãnico de automóvel faz de forma “profissional”, tanto um médico ou veterinário. Mas sem considerar de fato o que seja o ser-vivo, E O AUTOMÓVEL COM SEU RESPECTIVOS MOTORISTA É DE FATO UM SER-VIVO COM A INTELIGÊNCIA DO PRÓPRIO MOTORISTA, estamos misturando alhos com bugalhos, nessa discussão insonsa e sem sentideo de crianistas e evolucionistas, principalmente ateus! O QUE DEUS TERIA VER COM ESSA DISCUSSÃO DE SEXO DE ANJOS, exceto as crenças fanatisadas de um e de outro lado?
    Fica aí o desafio já feito neste site que os evolucionistas se disponham a discutir o que ENTENDEM POR SER-VIVO, pouco importa se na Terra ou em qualquer outra parte do Universo. Daí se chegaria ao tal evolucinismo darwiano, ainda hoje mero dogma de fé de crenças absurdas.

    arioba.

  2. There is a relationship between Darwinism and atheism. If you think there isn’t, find an atheist who thinks life is designed and tell me how strong their atheism is. Its not an absolute must be atheist to believe in evolution, its just a relationship. Darwinism makes atheism less stupid, though it is still pretty darn stupid.

    There is a problem for theists and evolution but its not a complete non-starter. I do think that less theists/christians would believe or care about evolution if it wasn’t something pushed on everyone at some point. If the theory were rejected only the most questionable (psychologically) theists would still defend it.

    Faith is not essentially religious. I am not sure saying Darwinism is a kind of faith really matters. Science requires faith already. Non-issue. “Faith is the firm opinion that something is true without any proof or objective criterion of verification.” – this is a tricky definition of faith. It’s not true. Theists say it over and over when the topic comes up (WLC, Dsouza, Lennox). To understand “faith” you should go read or listen to people like those. Christianity is not dumb faith for example. But atheists will insist, since it makes them feel better.

    Evidence for evolution – – – – right… How is this “theory” still around? Oh right, its social value. The alternative would turn the world upside down.

    The rest is the rest. Probably can easily be responded to.

Deixe uma resposta

Preencha os seus dados abaixo ou clique em um ícone para log in:

Logotipo do WordPress.com

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta WordPress.com. Sair / Alterar )

Imagem do Twitter

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Twitter. Sair / Alterar )

Foto do Facebook

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Facebook. Sair / Alterar )

Foto do Google+

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Google+. Sair / Alterar )

Conectando a %s