Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Before we start, I would like to mention that I do not own this content. Evolution Vs. God
is owned by Ray Comfort.
I am only doing a commentary on it. .
Ray comfort has actually released his documentary, evolution vs. god.
For free, in the channel living waters.
The link will be in the description
So without further a due. Let's begin, shall we?
(Ray Comfort) You're an atheist?
I am definitely an atheist, yes.
(Ray Comfort) Why are you an atheist?
Why am I an atheist? Because there is no God.
Atheism assumes that you can disprove the existence of a God.
Agnostic is a more correct term, but I'm an atheist.
(Ray Comfort) Are you an atheist?
- Yeah. - I am an atheist, yeah.
- I am, yes. - I am.
(Ray Comfort) So you're not an atheist?
No, I'm not.
(Ray Comfort) So you're leaning that way because of evolution?
Yeah.
Nobody is an atheist purely by the cause of learning evolution.
For instance, I am an atheist.
Because I haven't seen any compelling evidence for gods existence.
How about that?
I don't believe in the, there's a guy in the sky
that lives in the sky.
- You believe in evolution? - Of course I do, yes.
(male narrator) "Live Science" says of Darwinian evolution
"It can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans
and amphibious mammals into whales."
This just shows the ignorance the creator has of the topic of evolution.
Evolution does not claim that it can turn dinosaurs into birds.
Apes into Humans, neither amphibious into mammals.
Evolution is purely a genetic variation through species over time.
What Darwin showed in his work on evolution
and natural selection is that we don't need to invoke
any supernatural force or power
to account for the development of life through time on earth.
The ongoing processes that are observable in today's world.
(Ray Comfort) Do you think it's a belief?
I think it's just fact.
I think more like facts.
There is too much evidence to ignore.
(Ray Comfort) Do you think it's a belief?
- No, it's science. - It's the way it happened.
It's logical.
You know, all the scientists pretty much agree with it.
It's more of a fact.
(Ray Comfort) When did you start to believe?
When I started to think for myself.
(Ray Comfort) When did you start believing?
Evolution is not a religion.
It is purely a theory that helps explain the world around us.
Evolution does not depend on people believing in it.
Evolution is a fact.
If I managed to convince everybody in the world that evolution didn't happen.
It wouldn't anything, as the same as if I would convince everybody in the world that
gravity.
Didn't exist, it wouldn't mean that people would drift into space.
When I took my first biology class.
It all started to make a lot of sense.
The teacher made it very easy to understand.
I generally trust the scientific community.
It makes more sense than any religion or anything.
The fossils they have found of all the cavemen,
the *** sapiens, dinosaurs-- it shows clear evidence.
I believe in science.
(Ray Comfort) What's your major here at this university?
Biology.
- You're a biology major? - Yeah.
- You believe in evolution? - Yes.
- What's your major? - Geology.
- Chemistry. - Biochemistry.
Environmental science and policy.
I'm a physicist.
Biochemistry.
(Ray Comfort) Okay, do you believe in evolution?
Yes, I do.
- Do you believe in evolution? - Yes, I do.
- Of course. - Yes, I do.
I do believe in evolution.
- You believe in evolution? - Yes.
For *** sake.
Evolution is not a world view.
It's something that you learn in biology class.
That's it!
- Are you a strong believer? - Yes.
- Are you a strong believer? - Yep.
- Yes. - Yes.
Absolutely.
(narrator) A Scientific method is based on "the collection
of data through observation and experimentation." -Science Daily
It sounds like he is trying to be scientific.
By using the using the words observation and experimentation.
You know what.
Evolution is based on observation and experimentation.
I think you are just mad because the evidence that has been collected in.
The past 300 years does not match with the ancient book.
Of fairy tales that has been written by 2000 year old ancient desert dwellers.
Who didn't even know that the earth was spinning around the sun.
Russel, what I am saying is this.
Apply the scientific method to that to what is around you.
Observe what is being made and you will come up .
How can I assign the scientific method when there is no observations.
There is no tests.
There is no kind of measurement that you could even propose that.
Would tell the difference a universe a universe.
With a god and one without.
Yes there is.
What is the test.
Common sense.
Emmm...
Is that really what you think the scientific method is?
That's what all you need to have is common sense.
And say look at this beautiful creation with its flowers and birds.
(Ray Comfort) Could you give me some observable evidence
that evolution is true?
Something I don't have to receive by faith?
- Yeah. - Some observable evidence?
It's not like this guy has this evidence in his pocket or anything like that.
It's just as easy to go up to a physicist on the street and say
Hey dude, do you have any observable evidence for the second law of thermodynamics
Of you wouldn't. He could give you some analogies. ¨But analogies are not a part of science.
You could prove or disprove anything you want with analogies.
And it has been disqualified a long time ago.
I mean, take a look at what happened Sixty Five million years ago.
(Ray Comfort) Hang on, I can't, that's Sixty Five million years ago.
I believe, yeah, millions of years.
(Ray Comfort) So that can't be observed.
Yes you can!
Science is not based on purely on what you can see with your naked eye.
There are other ways to find truths about the reality that we live in.
And just for the sake of argument.
Eye testimony is one of the most unreliable sources there is.
The police say it
The scientists say it
It's because people can see illusions.
People can be deluded.
People can be on substance, people can lie and people can excaudate.
So why are you using eye testimony as an argument.
We can trace the evolution through the fossil record.
(Ray Comfort) Could you be specific, just give me one?
Between Six and Seven million years ago.
Hundreds of thousands to millions of years.
- So it's quite a long time. - Yes.
- Millions of years? - Yes.
(Ray Comfort) So it can't be observed?
Evolution is not testable over time.
(narrator) "We are condemned to live only for a few decades
and that's too slow, too small a time scale
to see evolution going on," Richard Dawkins.
"We see nothing of these slow changes in progress,
until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages..."
Charles Darwin.
(Ray Comfort) You've got the canine kind: the coyote and the domestic dog;
and there's the feline kind: which is the cats,
the tiger, and the kitten; and you've got humankind.
So Darwin said there'd be a change of kinds
over many years,
so could you give me one example of observable evidence
of a change of kinds?
There are various ways of observing something without using our naked eye.
For instance, we observe atoms.
We don't really see them with our naked eye do we?
But we still know their function.
We still know how they work.
The same thing goes for evolution.
We could observe the evidence collected.
We can look at microorganisms.
And other data collected.
So for instance, the fossil record shows
the common ancestors of all carnivores,
that cats and dogs were once linked,
united by a common ancestor.
(Ray Comfort) How long ago?
This, I believe, was, like, Sixty million years ago.
Now, if you have noticed, he is being very unscientific.
Just because he didn't live 65 million years ago, therefore he claims
That whatever happened back then is not important.
Do you think scientists sit around and tell each other, you know what?
We didn't live 200 years ago so let's just not give a *** of what happened back then.
Secondly he is using analogy to disprove a point.
You can actually disprove any point you like with analogy
For example.
Have you ever seen an atom before?
And the person might answer "No"
Well then how do you know that it exists?
Do you take it on faith or is it something that someone tricked you into believing.
See what I did there.
You know. We know certain things based on evidence.
For example we know that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Because of the overwhelming evidence of
Geology, Cosmology, Paleontology, Chemistry, Astrophysics.
Geophysics, Stratigraphy and Biology, just to name a few.
Not because a ancient book of fairy tales tells us so.
The Ancient Book of desert stories is clearly outdated and has many claims about
Natural world that we now know to be false.
For example that fresh water and sea water don't mix.
That's how they used to explain the difference between oceans and lakes.
We now know how lakes are formed.
It's by raining clouds.
Of course this was not apparent back then.
Because people barely knew anything about the natural world.
And as humans we are curios.
So each culture came up with their own explanations. The
Muslims did, the Greeks did the Vikings did and so does the ancient book of
monkey text that the interviewer claim to be the word of god.
(Ray Comfort) I don't want something that I have to accept by faith.
I want it to be observable.
Observable evidence.
Well, I mean, if you're just asking me here on the street,
there's really not much I can tell you
in terms of observable evidence.
Like, we would have to really examine existing data
to draw conclusions of our own.
(Ray Comfort) We would have to have faith, then?
We would have to have some amount of faith.
(Ray Comfort) Can you think of any observable evidence
for Darwinian evolution,
where he said there'd be a change of kind?
(male) Like a monkey to a man, is that what you're talking about?
(Ray Comfort) Yeah, a change of kinds.
I don't really believe there's any proof for that yet.
Well, monkeys are the only ones
with the fifth digit like we have.
(Ray Comfort) Koalas have a fifth digit. Did you know that?
(female) I didn't know that.
(Ray Comfort) Do you think Kangaroos evolved from koalas?
No. Kangaroos did not evolve from koalas.
There is no scientist that claims so.
There is no one that says so.
You should seriously get your facts straight.
Go on the internet and look it up.
I dare you to find a respectable scientific website that says that kangaroos evolved from
koalas.
Or vise versa.
I went to, like, Washington, D.C.
I saw they had a whole exhibit just on the--
- In the Smithsonian? - Yeah, in the Smithsonian.
(Ray Comfort) I went to that. It's just like some stuffed dummies,
like standing around a fire.
I know that everyone talks about the missing link
for humans and whatnot.
I believe that there are connections that are out there
that we haven't found yet.
I'm going to trust what those experts did,
those experts came up with.
I have a strong trust in evolutionary ideas
based on the evidence presented.
(Ray Comfort) Can you think of any observable evidence
for Darwinian evolution, a change of kinds?
I haven't seen it myself,
but I believe what the textbooks tell me about it, so.
(Ray Comfort) You've got faith in the experts?
I have faith in the experts, yeah.
I guess similar to how religious people have faith
that God actually exists, I have faith in the experts
knowing what they're talking about.
(Ray Comfort) The scientific method is it must be observable and repeatable,
so could you give me one piece of observable evidence
for Darwinian evolution?
Okay, I would point to-- there's one great example
is look at the genetics of the stickleback.
(Ray Comfort) What's that?
So stickleback fish are a very interesting collection
of species that were recently isolated
after the end of the Ice Age.
(Ray Comfort) What have they become?
They're various species of sticklebacks.
(Ray Comfort) They stayed as fish?
Well, of course.
(Ray Comfort) Can you think of any observable evidence
where there was a change of kinds?
Fish.
Human beings are still fish.
(Ray Comfort) Human beings are fish?
Why, yes, of course they are.
(Ray Comfort) How long did that take?
Couple billions of years, millions.
- Couple millions? - Yep.
- How is that observable? - It's not.
Just because we don't see the changes doesn't mean that they don't happen
In fact we have seen some small changes in bacteria for example the micro organisms
Because they copulate at a very fast rate, we have also seen some minor changes in bird's
dogs and reptiles
It's almost the same thing as saying.
After a *** has happened, why do the police bother looking for evidence?
I mean, they weren't there were they?
They don't have any observable evidence of what happened.
Not everything is based on observable evidence.
There are other ways to get evidence.
For example:
Blood traces, DNA, Hair, other thing that will point to the killer without observing
the event.
We came out of the ground as a mammal,
and one mammal created--
(Ray Comfort) Come out of the ground?
Didn't we come out of the sea?
Huh? Well, initially in the beginning,
we came out of the ground and the sea.
After the great destruction of the--
(Ray Comfort) So did we have lungs or gills when we came out of the sea?
You want to know something?
Those that were in the sea I guess had gills,
and those that were on land had lungs.
(Ray Comfort) But if we came out of the sea, we had gills in the sea?
You want to know something?
Who knows that we came out of the sea or we came out of--
we evolved from mammals?
- So you don't know? - Huh? Of course I don't know.
I'm accepting that they did their science correctly.
(Ray Comfort) Could you give me an example of Darwinian evolution,
not adaptation or speciation, but a change of kinds?
[laughing]
These are changes of kinds.
(Ray Comfort) They're still fish.
They're distinctly different fish.
We have thousands of examples.
(Ray Comfort) Can you give me one?
- I can give you thousands. - Just one.
I can give you one. How about the evolution of the horse? Let's
start with that shall we. If you actually wanted to find the truth,
if you actually cared to look, this would have been apparent by now.
But let me explain to you how it works. Keep in mind that my explanation is just one in
many, there are more ways using various methods
to come to the same conclusion.
Let me fist explain how carbon dating works: Since this is something
that creationists seem to be really obsessed with.
The earth's atmosphere is constantly being bombarded by radiation from the sun. So when
a neuron hits a nitrogen atom in the atmosphere it turns it into carbon. However
the carbon is a bit unusual to the normal carbon atom.
That's why they call it Carbon 14 or C14. The most common carbon atom
is C12, or carbon 12. C14 is an isotope because it
has 2 extra neurons in its nucleus and therefore it makes it very unstable.
Later on the carbon mixes with oxygen to make carbon dioxide which is then
absorbed by plants. And also into the bodies of animals that eat plants. However the ratio
of these C14 isotopes is the same as in the atmosphere.
But when the animal dies it can no longer absorb the C14 atoms so all that is left is
for them to decay over time which eventually reverts them
back to nitrogen. So compared with C12 which doesn't change, the c14 decays at
a constant and measurable rate. Scientists look at the plant or animal and can figure
out the ratio of the c14 to c12 and can to some accuracy find out when a plant
or animal died. Carbon dating is an accurate method but it
doesn't however always show accurate results(Most of the time it
does). This can happen if it has been contaminated with a bacteria fungus or dead skin.
however, scientists are aware of these factors and can eliminate them with highly précised
machines. Contamination can happen in any kind of sampling, DNA contaminations
don't refute the principle of DNA testing, in fact these are very understood topics.
Humans have gathered a lot of fossils throughout the past 150 years or so. And It didn't come
as a surprise that horses as we know them today cannot be found in the fossil records
a million years ago. How could this be? Well the horses that we know today haven't evolved
yet. However their ancestors were alive at that
point in time. And the closer we get to the modern era the more the fossils look
like the modern horse. Eohippus didn't turn into a horse. There are verities of animals
created by that branch, *** and donkeys just to name a few which all have
the same and common ancerter. However some of the sub species were not "Good enough"
they were not fast enough and couldn't for example escape predators and easily or
couldn't perhaps adapt to the rapid climate changes. And each sub species found it's
own way to gather food and escape predators. Of course
those that were eaten did not get a chance to pass on their slow genes. One of the very
early cousins of horses are giraffes. They found it easier to eat food
from the trees rather than grass. and the longer neck one had the more food he could
consume. That meant that there was essentially more time to procreate and make babies so
that the long neck gene was an important aspect to the giraffes. As it started to get common
to have long necks the gene started to get dominant and the females found it more
attractive, which also made their neck even longer. It's not like this happened over night.
This process took millions of years.
Now back to your question. you asked to see evidence for one species transforming to the
next. First off you did not specify what you meant
by different species. Is a Labrador and the German shepherd considered to be different
species, even though we know that these raced didn't exist, they popped into
existence a few 100 years ago. In science that is called a variation within a species
But I am assuming that you had in mind the scientific term for when two sub species become
so distinct and their genetics gets so different that they
can no longer copulate with one another. And the answer is yes. Giraffes and horses
cannot copulate anymore. They settled in different environments and adapted to it and they became
so distinct that they can no longer make babies. For god sake. This
doesn't mean that giraffes came from horses. or that horses came from giraffes. Because
neither of them existed at that time. But what I can say however and what has been confirmed
genetically is that they have a common ancestor. They gradually became different
to one another and marched off in different directions. Just like on with us humans today.
Asians look a little different to Europeans. Africans have a darker skin because they have
been adopted to their environment with a lot of sun. This is not
a difficult concept to understand.
As in humans and other animals evolution still occurs to this very day. To see this lets
have a look in the past shall we? people lived in Tiny villages with a population
of 150 or less about 10000 years ago. Now, looking at the fossils, we know
that us modern humans are much taller than our ancestors. How can this be? Well, if you
ever have had any children you may have noticed that not all of them inhibit
the same size. Some are taller than others. And let's just assume for the sake of argument
that the average height back then was 1.5 m within males. The taller you were the more
noble you looked and the more attractive you were to females. Because at that time
it was a matter of life and death, so the females chose strong tall guys that could
protect them rather than midgets. Another factor is that shorter Legs made it
harder for you to escape predators, every month when people died the chance of short
males dying was higher. Therefore after a few generation, (Considering the fact that
girls had kids at the age of 13) the tall males got more babies and their tall
genetics got passed on more. After about 50 years the average hight might have grow
from 1.5 to 1.6 m. Now THAT'S evolution, it's not some sort of Whale give birth to a snake.
All evolution is, is a change over time. And this is just a small time scale. Imagine
what millions of years can do. There is surly more to the concept than I
have just recently explained and there are more Sources that come to the same
conclusion. Unfortunately I do not have the time to cover all of them as this is not a
lecture.
There is your evidence and that is just ONE of thousands in a very well established theory.
Why are you ignoring it? Do you have access to some information that
The world scientists don't?
No you preach and ridicule people that find truths about the natural world because this
happens to make money from gullible people who have no concept of science
or the scientific method. Convincing someone that something is true
does not make it true. We know, through various tests that people can be
convinced to believe just about anything, back in the days it was hard to distinguish
fact from fiction. That's why some intelligent people came up
with the scientific method. And so far it has been shown to do a great job at.it has
boosted the industrial revolution, cured previously incurable diseases, Doubled our life expectance
and started off the computer revolution just to name a few. How
dare you question science that gave you the camera and microphone you are using
to film your pathetic documentary. If you want to question science then, please do.
Get some evidence for the your gods existence and show where evolution is wrong(Which
just to mention is nearly impossible at this point), and not by using
Analogy, because we both know that it is not scientific.
So either you present some evidence for your side of a talking snake or you *** off and
leave the experts to do what they do best. Um...
We know to the extent to that we can know anything
That a.. for example Spanish and Italian are both derivatives from Latin
Um... I suppose so I trust you
Well... That will be your wrong doing
Hahahaha But I.. ummm..
We have, we are able to trace back the origins of these languages, we categorize them
We understand that these came out of Latin And you can see it the difference amongst
Different English languages But Spanish and Italian are different and
they both derived from Latin Find me....
There is no mother who gave A Latin speaking mother who gave birth to
a Spanish speaking child.
Some people continued to speak Latin Some people moved and their Latin and their
Latin became Spanish over time Some people moved and their Latin became Italian
over time And at no point was there this
The Crocoduck of language, the Latin, the Latin spanaduck
Or whatever. People gave birth to kids that spoke a language
within their region And over a great deal of time and a separation
regionally, they became Different distinct languages, which is directly
analogist to what happened to species in evolution
For instance,
I would say look at Lenski's experiments in bacteria, then.
(Ray Comfort) So what have the bacteria become?
The bacteria are still bacteria, of course.
(Ray Comfort) So that's not Darwinian evolution.
That's not a change of kinds, is it?
It is a change in the genetic makeup of the bacteria.
(Ray Comfort) But they're still bacteria.
Of course they are still a bacteria, they are not going to turn into a dog or a sheep
So what have the bacteria become?
A new kind of bacteria.
(Ray Comfort) It's still bacteria. There's no change of kinds.
To summarize, the observable evidence that you give me
for Darwinian evolution is bacteria becoming bacteria.
And let's be honest some cutting was made whist making this documentary.
There may have been a couple of scenes that were not particularly pleasant
for the documentary that you managed to cut out.
That is called editing. Just ask Penn and Teller. Cause they
happen to know a lot about it. Camera tricks don't present evidence for anything.
It's just a persuasive technique.
And don't tell me that none were used. Someone had to do the editing.
No, it is bacteria acquiring new metabolic capabilities.
Now the professor has been observing bacteria's in a petri dish for a day or to and has noticed
some very
dramatic changes within the bacteria's
Please keep in mind that thins it has gone a day or two which is just a couple of hours.
Please also do have in mind that the bacteria's reproduce at a very fast rate.
(Ray Comfort) You said before that there was lots of evidence for evolution.
I just want one observable evidence
for Darwinian evolution. Just one.
But I gave you some. You don't want--
(Ray Comfort) Not some. I want one.
If he actually wanted to see some proof, all he had to do is just to open his open his
web browser and go to a page like Google and just Google it.
Or if he could just get of his lazy *** and go to a museum
For example The National Museum of Natural History would be a great idea
It has a collection of 3D skulls
Different kinds of behaviors, human fossils, genetics and all kinds of dating that proves
the evolution of the human race
But of course, he doesn't want the evidence because it conflicts with his 2000 year old
book of ancient monkey text.
All kinds of things that you said you didn't have presupposition and you are saying that
you don't believe the
Evidence and now you are saying there is no evidence because you already believe what
the bible says about Origin,
Yeah absolutely
Ok that's called a presupposition
Ok if
Are you infallible?
God is
Ok
But are you?
Of course not
Could you be wrong about god?
I could be wrong about but god is not wrong
Ok, if you could be wrong about god and you are necessarily contingent on your personal
experience how do you know you are right.
Wait, you don't want that.
(Ray Comfort) I want one. Yes, I do.
I'm pleading with people.
You asked me to tell you-- you asked me to tell you
when I've watched one species evolve into another.
Isn't that right?
(Ray Comfort) No, one kind into another.
There's Fourteen different definitions of species,
so I want a change of kind.
When you're talking about kinds or change in families,
you're actually talking about macroevolution.
You're talking about changes on the level that separates,
say, cats from dogs.
(Ray Comfort) So could you give me any examples of Darwinian evolution?
Our life spans are not long enough to see one species evolve to the next.
Well, when you say examples of that,
then you have to sort of look at it over a longer time frame.
It has nothing to do with faith.
Faith is something that I have to--unseen,
I have to believe it.
(Ray Comfort) That's it, unseen.
Look, do you believe evolution?
Of course I do.
(Ray Comfort) Are you a believer in evolution?
Yes, I am.
(Ray Comfort) When did you start to believe evolution?
I started to believe evolution
when I started to think for myself.
(Ray Comfort) Is evolution a belief?
Evolu-- well, you know something?
Evolution is a thought process.
It's this coming-to-terms
and checking out all the alternatives.
Like, taking a looking at the religion, man-made religions.
(Ray Comfort) Let me ask you again. Is evolution a belief?
Evolution is not a belief; it's not a way of looking at life.
All evolution is, is a scientific theory that helps explain the origin of species.
No, evolution is-- well, yeah.
In a word, yeah, I could say it could be a belief.
Evolution does not require people believing in it.
If people stopped believing in it, it would still be a fact.
If everybody in the world were convinced that gravity didn't exist.
It wouldn't mean people would just suddenly
Drift into space and fly around the planets.
When you say change of kinds,
do you mean the evolution of one species
from another or to another?
Yes, we have that in action, actually, in the Galapagos.
(Ray Comfort) Could you give me one instance?
Yes, we have an example from a group of birds
called Darwin's finches.
You take a look at the difference between
the finches on the islands that all started out,
I mean, that's very, very observable.
(Ray Comfort) But that's not Darwinian evolution.
There's been no change of kinds.
What have the finches become?
They become genetically new and anatomically new,
recognizably different species.
And that is just in a couple of years.
Imagine what thousands, if not millions of years could do to these finches.
(Ray Comfort) So they're still finches?
Well, of course they're still finches, yes.
(Ray Comfort) So there's no change of kind.
Little birds that he had observed that--
(Ray Comfort) What did they become?
Their beaks, their beak shapes, they're--
- They're still birds. - Yes.
Of course they are birds;
there are different kinds of birds.
And there are different kinds of animals as well.
Three finches that turn
into different types of birds, based on--
(Ray Comfort) They're still finches.
Well, for example,
Darwin and his study on evolution
of the birds on the island that he went onto there.
- Their beaks changed? - Their beaks--
(Ray Comfort) But they're still birds. There's no change of kinds.
That's within the kind.
No, no, no, it's just evolution on the beaks.
(Ray Comfort) So that's called adaptation.
That's not Darwinian evolution.
There's no change of kinds.
There's no different animal involved.
I want something that shows me
Darwin's belief in the change of kinds is scientific.
Darwin spoke of a change of kind.
Can you think of any observable evidence
for Darwinian evolution where there's a change of kind?
Does this guy even have a definition of Darwinian Evolution
In case not.
Darwinian Evolution:
A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others,
stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection
of small,
inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete,
survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian Evolution
Now, nowhere here does it say that a snake will give birth to a panda or something like
that
So you should seriously look up the definitions before you say anything else.
Change of kind, change of kind...
I'm going to have to think about that one a little longer.
(Ray Comfort) Can you give me anything that I can see, observe, and test,
which is the scientific method, for Darwinian evolution,
a change of kinds?
Test and observe...
(Ray Comfort) Could you give me observable evidence,
which is the scientific method, for Darwinian evolution,
a change of kinds?
Okay, I got to think about it.
So you want the evidence of it?
I would say...
[sighing]
I cannot, I think.
It's a hard question, actually.
I would like to go around his church and demand evidence for a talking snake.
So, can you repeat the question again?
(Ray Comfort) Could you give me any observable evidence, just one,
for Darwinian evolution?
Let me think about that for a sec.
(Ray Comfort) Observable evidence,
something where we don't have to exercise faith?
Something that can be observed,
like the scientific process, observable?
That's a good question. That one I'm not quite sure.
(Ray Comfort) So you can't think of any
observable evidence for evolution?
- No. - How do you know it's true?
I'm not sure.
(Ray Comfort) So Darwinian evolution is not observable?
It's not scientific?
I guess so.
(Ray Comfort) So it's unscientific. You can't prove it.
It is scientific actually. You could prove it.
It could be proven, just--
(Ray Comfort) Do it for me.
Ah, that's hard.
I don't-- that's just too broad of a--
(Ray Comfort) It's unobservable, that's why.
You need millions of years.
Yes, exactly.
(Ray Comfort) You're trusting the biology majors
and the biology professors
know what they're talking about,
and they can't even give me evidence of a change of kinds.
Well, then, there isn't one.
If they don't give it, then I wouldn't say there was.
I just go on what I've seen
and what I've learned from class.
- So you believe? - Yeah.
- You know what that's called? - What?
- Blind faith. - Blind faith.
(narrator) "Faith is the great cop-out,
the great excuse to evade the need to think
and evaluate evidence," Richard Dawkins.
(Ray Comfort) Do you believe in intelligent design?
Of course not.
(Ray Comfort) Do you think everything is intelligently designed?
No, I don't believe that things are intelligently designed.
(Ray Comfort) Okay, you seem like an intelligent person,
so I'm going to ask you something.
I'd like you to make me a rose, okay?
How would you make a rose?
I don't have the capabilities to do that.
(Ray Comfort) No, hang on, now, it's not intelligently designed,
so you should be able to whip me up a rose real quick.
Do you believe a rose is intelligently designed?
Definitely not.
In order for me to know what to make,
I have to know what a rose is.
(Ray Comfort) Well, it's got a seed.
So you've got to start with nothing
and you've got to create a seed from nothing.
- Oh. - Can you do that?
No, I can't.
(Ray Comfort) Could you make a rose from nothing?
Sure people can produce roses out of thin air.
A couple of days back I saw a street magician do the same thing.
And how do I know that it's true...
Well... Observable evidence.
No.
Can't really make something from nothing.
It's just basic, you know, science.
- A rose from nothing? - A rose.
Just like-- I can't, honestly.
(Ray Comfort) Why not?
Me? I just have no supernatural abilities.
(Ray Comfort) All the geniuses in the world
can't make a grain of sand from nothing.
(Sigh)...
You know, I was actually kind of hoping that he wasn't going to go there
But since physics is my area of expertise, I am just going to comment on this one.
Just because we cannot create grains of sand yet, doesn't mean that evolution is false.
However such thing is possible.
I just want to make one thing clear. Matter is Not a CONSTANT in the universe.
In other words, the amount of matter in the universe constantly changes.
Matter can be created and destroyed. It Largely depends on the given definition
of matter. A definition that scientists often use and a definition that I will use in this
explanation is this: matter is anything that occupies
space and has a non-zero rest mass. In other words: In order to occupy space, the matter
has to be made up of particles with electromagnetically interactions
and also, they must be stable particles that do not abolish with
other, more or less stable particles. By using that definition, the whole amount of matter
in our Universe today would most likely include all
the stable atoms on the periodic table (we could as a matter of fact include all the
unstable atoms if their lifespan is thought to be less than 1.1 x 10^-3).
And since dark matter is composed of WIMPs ( AKA weakly interacting massive particles)
then it certainly satisfies the requirement of our definition
since it has a non-zero rest mass, However, dark matter does not take up any
space since it does not have any electromagnetic interaction properties
- therefore the dark matter would not be considered matter by the
definition we are using. As a matter of fact many WIMPs would be passing
through our bodies without interacting with us every second.
So in order to measure the "quantity" of matter there is in the universe right now,
we would have to add up the rest mass of all the atoms in our universe.
So the Major part of the question would be: is the total rest mass of all matter particles
a constant is the question I am posing? The answer to that is no
- inside stars, four hydrogen atoms are continually being Formed
in thermonuclear reactions or fusion to produce helium atoms
every second. For each helium atom formed,
the total rest mass Has put down by about 0.7%.
Since This type of mass has been converted into energy By Einstein's famous equation
E=m x C^2 (by E = m \times c^2 ). Other fusion reactions that produce other
stable nuclei will also produce energy by decreasing the total
mass of the matter in the universe. So to summarize,
the Absolute mass of all the matter in our universe will decrease
at a very slow rate with time. Where time is the independent variable and Matter is
the dependent one. Einstein's equation relates Matter and energy
Where c^2 is a very huge number. So a tiny amount of matter could be converted
into a huge amount of Energy. You may have heard some scientists using this
equation to convert mass into energy For example in a process called fusion and
when making nuclear weapons. But since this is mathematics whatever is
on both sides of the equals sign is symmetric, which means that it could go both ways.
Therefore it is theoretically possible to create mass from energy.
The way it is done in physics is that radiation can create particle and anti-particle pairs.
Particles must be paired with an anti-particles
so that in the end their quantum number zeroes out.
And since we know that a photon is not the same thing as a particle. Usually the particle
and the anti-particle will disappear and the particle and anti-particle can be created
infinitively as long as you put in some energy. Which means that the
E=MC^2 has the potential to create mass. Now, where did all the matter in the universe
come from you may ask? Well looking at the standard cosmological
model of theory of the big ***, when time was T = 0^+ seconds after the expansion
of space and time, our universe was made up of a highly dense energy
that would rapidly decrease over time. So When our early universe had a very high
energy density, there weren't any stable particles
and thus no matter. For as the energy density fell, the equal
number of quarks, anti-quarks, equal numbers of electrons and positrons (which are the
same thing as anti-electrons) would also have been produced. In the Present day matter consists
of protons, neutrons and electrons.
As we know, Protons and neutrons are made out of quarks.
So in order to explain the existence of matter itself with very little or no anti-matter,
the laws of physics must have had some intrinsic asymmetry that
produced slightly more quarks than anti-quarks or they could have just produced slightly
more electrons than positrons this is also called as leptogenisis.
This would have taken place in a tiny fraction of a single second after the big ***.
Lawrence Krauss Proposed that it is possible that if we were to measure the total energy
in the universe the sum could also have been 0. In other words, we
don't need supernatural aspects to create matter or energy itself.
It is physically possible using multiple theories to support such an event mathematically,
Some examples of the theories are the m Thory,Quantum field theory,
String Theory just to name a few.
However Most particle theories predict that the proton will eventually decay at a very
low rate. The experimental lower bounds done on its half-life is
about 10^{34} years (the universe is only 1.37 \times 10^{10} years old). So if these
particle theory predictions were to be correct, it is plausible that in the very far distant
future all the matter in our universe will eventually decay and begin to approach zero.
Another factor is the black hole: Black holes are pretty much stable and they
do take have a size, however they do not "take up space"
like a grain of sand would. So if you would consider them to be a form
of matter, then the absolute mass of all matter in our universe will
increase with time since photons and dark matter particles (which are not "matter" by
the definition of this answer) that fall into a black hole will increase its rest mass.
On the other hand if you do not consider black holes to be a form of matter, then the mass
of the matter of our universe will decrease whenever some sort of matter enters into a
black hole. So eventually it is theorized that even black
holes will eventually decay and disappear due to the Hawking radiation,
so if either the proton decay or black hole decay happens, the matter content
of the universe will eventually approach zero. We don't know much about black holes yet,
however some people theories that black holes act as worm holes
and can transport matter across the universe faster than the speed of light.
Where did the energy come from you may ask?
Well this question is tagged as general-relativity or a cosmology Type of questions since the
key principles of thermodynamics do not apply here.
there is not a general global energy conservation law in general relativity theory."
Therefore: The conclusion remains, whether we like it or not, it is unfortunately obvious:
energy in the universe is not conserved. And here is my bibliography
The universe consists mostly of dark energy, which is very consistent with the cosmological
constant Cosmological constant. In other words, as the universe expands,
the energy density stays roughly the same. So the energy density volume is growing exponentially.
Although the total energy is not well defined as the volume of the universe may be infinite,
the fractional rate of growth is certainly a nonzero quantity.
You might wonder how the total energy can grow without violating energy conservation.
The answer is that in general relativity, we just need the divergence operator times
absolute temperature to equal zero. so a cosmological constant is perfectly consistent
as long as divergence operator times the Cosmological constant G is equals to 0.
When the space through which particles move and interact is changing, the total energy
of those particles is not conserved. it's just that we have started off by considering
a more basic context than what was necessary under the Newtonian rules. That said that,
matter cannot be created nor destroyed There is still a single important equation,
which is indeed often called "energy-momentum conservation." But we will not go into that
now. In fact our universe could be one of many.
String theory tells us that the core of the atom and everything around us is made up of
tiny vibrating strings, therefore, if you can control the strings,
you can produce matter. To Master it precisely would take ages.
When Thomas Edison invented the light bulb it was hard enough to power one.
Now we have thousands powered uniformly on our computer screens each time our computer
is on. Just because science Or a random person can't make you
a flower doesn't mean that evolution is false or that a anything supernatural did and ***.
Just because you can't explain *** doesn't mean that
there isn't anyone that can, All you have to do is listen and stop being an ***
by asking reservedly stupid questions.
We don't know where to start.
- I can't. - Why not?
I don't have millions, billions of years.
That would be physically impossible.
I mean, I would have to-- that's not possible.
(Ray Comfort) So how could you say
everything is not intelligently designed?
Where does that leave you on the scale of intelligence
This guy doesn't even know the definition of intelligence.
if you say everything is not intelligently designed,
and you can't even make a rose?
Why do you think there's no one teaching
intelligent design at UCLA?
(Ray Comfort) 'Cause they're not allowed to.
No, you see.
In science class, we have this tendency to tech thing
That are related to... science!
So if you want your *** ancient fairytale horseshit to be taught at our schools then
you better present some evidence for it rather than mocking other theories that don't agree
with your ancient book of monkey text.
We can teach anything we want.
(narrator) There's a reason intelligent design isn't taught
in our learning institutions.
Yes, and there is a pretty good reason for that.
According to physicist Victor Stenger,
"The legal staff of Freedom From Religion Foundation
[a church-state watchdog group]
has had remarkable success in convincing many institutions
such as school boards and town councils
that they are breaking constitutional law
when they sponsor sectarian activities."
That includes intelligent design.
"When the authorities can't be convinced,
Freedom From Religion Foundation sues,
and it wins more often than not."
I don't believe it.
I know you don't but Spanish and Italian
You have already told us why you don't believe it
Why don't I believe it.
You said that you don't believe it because you don't like to take things on faith
And I said that this isn't something that we are taking on faith
This is something that there is a massive amount of evidence for has you bothered to
It is evidence that you believe.
Yes I of course
And I don't believe that evidence.
Right and why.. why don't you believe that evidence.
Because of this
I know god since 1972 21st of April one thirty in the morning
His word tells me that he created men in his own image
So basically he rejects the theory of evolution just because it doesn't comply with his religious
believes
How scientific and he wants this to be taught at our public schools.
(Ray Comfort) There was nothing in the beginning.
Big explosion of nothing that became something,
and then it came into a rose,
and giraffes and horses and cows.
The big *** also doesn't explain how giraffes and horses were made.
I'm not saying that that's what happened.
I'm just saying I don't know what happened.
That's what scientists have theorized has happened.
(Ray Comfort) And you believe them?
- To a point. - So you've got faith.
That is true, yeah.
(Ray Comfort) Could you give me a definition of vestigials?
How does that back up evolution?
Vestigial is--it's like--
I'm not a biologist, so I'm kind of fuzzy here,
but it's like a remaining organ that is not used.
Like for instance, our appendix.
Rabbits have a huge appendix for digestion of grass.
We still have a vestigial appendix.
(Ray Comfort) You mean the appendix has no use?
Which we can think of right now.
Your coccyx bone that was, you know,
many people regard that as the tail of the humans.
(Ray Comfort narrating) The human tailbone is said to be vestigial.
That is, it's an evolutionary leftover
proving that we're related to primates.
However, it's not a tailbone, it's the coccyx vertebrae.
"The tailbone derived its name because some people believe
it's a 'leftover' part from human evolution,
though the notion that the tailbone
serves no purpose is wrong."
"The coccyx is an extremely important source of attachment
for tendons, ligaments, and muscles..."
Evolutionists also claim that the appendix is vestigial,
but it's not.
The appendix is actually part of the human immune system.
According to Scientific American,
"For years, the appendix was credited
with very little physiological function.
We now know, however,
that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus
and in young adults.
Among adult humans,
the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily
in the immune functions."
Look at a kid with a genetic disease and tell me that he was intelligently designed.
I would consider myself an atheist, yeah.
(Ray Comfort) Can you think of any famous atheists?
I believe Neil deGrasse Tyson.
(Ray Comfort) Neil deGrasse Tyson said
"I can't agree to the claims
by atheists
that I'm one of that community."
Basically, he's taking the good scientist approach and won't take the hardline "there
is no god" stance. Frankly, he's probably an agnostic atheist
but prefers to use the blanket term agnostic
"I think, based on all the folks who are agnostic historically, I come closer to the behavior
of an agnostic than the behavior of an atheist." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson
I am an Atheist agnostic too. I don't claim that there is no god. I just don't believe
that one exists because evidence for such being hasn't been presented.
Just as the fact that I don't believe in Unicorns. I am an "a-unicornist".I don't claim to know
that there are certainly no unicorns. But I choose not to believe
in them because I haven't seen them. And they may very well exist on some other planet or
perhaps in ours. And that they have been her all along
Just that we cannot see than and interact with them
(Ray Comfort) Can you name a few?
Famous atheists.
Apparently not.
Start with Isaac Newton.
First of all.
Isaac Newton lived a long time ago.
Second of all, he was a strong christen believer.
But he didn't believe that Jesus was the son of god.
Thirdly, he was an alchemist. He believed that he could use a wonderfull rock
To make things into gold.
But you do...
But you do agree.. you would agree with the statement wouldn't you
Although it is a fairytale for grown ups It's something that the vast majority of practicing
credentialed like PhD biologists would say is true
I mean ... I am not saying for you to say that evolution is true
You just agree that puts you with odds with the vast majority of the scientific community
It doesn't worry me I would stay with Newton and other folks like
that.
That believed that god created the universe.
Sure...
Are you bothered centuries and centuries ago and they didn't have the newer information
Umm... you are welcome to stay in the dark ages is that is what you are saying.
(narrator) Isaac Newton said,
"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets,
could only proceed from the counsel
and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
(Ray Comfort) Can you think of any famous atheists?
Yeah. No.
- A famous atheist? - Yeah, a famous atheist.
Yeah, my dad.
(Ray Comfort) He's not famous.
[laughing]
(Ray Comfort narrating) Skeptics' websites often include examples
of famous atheists in an attempt to win converts.
But more often than not, the famous personalities cited
are not actually atheists.
This is a popular atheist poster on which are Ernest Hemingway,
Abraham Lincoln, Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson,
Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein,
and Charles Darwin, along with the words
"Atheism, good enough for these idiots."
Clearly, atheism is for intellectuals.
But one moment.
Abraham Lincoln wasn't an atheist.
He said, "I know that the Lord
is always on the side of the right.
But it's my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation
should be on the Lord's side."
Neither was Carl Sagan.
He clearly stated, "I am an agnostic."
First of all.
Carl Sagan is an atheist agnostic.
He does not believe in god but he doesn't claim to have the answer to the question.
Determining whether someone
is an atheist is quite simple. If you are a theist you are most likely a part of a religion
and believe in a particular
god. If you aren't either of these two
then you are considered to be a non-theist.
Like a Non gold player.
Non Stamp collector.
Or as it is defined in the dictionary. An atheist. That's it.
He doesn't believe in a god but he is agnostic about it. Same as me
same as The famous Atheist Richard Dawkins. Guess what, he doesn't claim to know the answer
therefore he is an atheist agnostic. But he surly does not like religion.
In reply to a question in 1996 asked about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered,
"I'm agnostic but I don't believe in a particular god" Carl Sagan
Mark Twain hated religion, but he certainly wasn't an atheist,
saying, "None of us can be as great as God,
but any of us can be as good."
Benjamin Franklin said,
"God governs in the affairs of men."
You'll find Thomas Edison listed on Celebrity Atheists,
on Positive Atheism,
and other atheist websites, but he wasn't an atheist.
He said, "There is a great directing head of people
and things--
a Supreme Being who looks after the destinies
of the world."
Thomas Jefferson said, "Say nothing of my religion.
It is known to myself and my God alone."
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein was an intelligent man and religion was not important for him.
He was a pantheist.
He believed that god was not a person or that it were conscious
He rather believed the matter and the universe to be a god since he admired it so much. He
said it himself. God
does not play with dices'
And Don't get people that are a part of atheist history on your side. In fact it was your
bible Christian side that they left in the first place.
rejected the Bible as the Word of God,
and said that the Creator was unknowable,
and that God being personal was childlike.
He lamented, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I,
with my limited human understanding,
am able to recognize,
there are yet people who say there is no God.
Notice how they underline "Limited Understanding"
What Albert Einstein was trying to say in this sentence is that
He has a limited understanding as with other humans
And humans don't have the answers to everything
He finds it pathetic that some people can claim that god does not exists
When they don't have all the answers Now he thinks it's stupid that they use Albert
Einstein as an authority on the
Subject when he clearly doesn't have any stand on the issue.
But what really makes me angry is that they quote me
to support such views."
He categorically said, "I am not an atheist,"
and when referring to those who deny the Creator,
he used the term "fanatical atheists."
Charles Darwin said, "I have never been an atheist."
On the other hand, Charles Darwin was not Christian and far from it.
He was agnostic at some points of his life.
But did accept god right before he died.
It was very rebellious not believing in god back then.
But as for him and other people that are on the poster.
They are not there because they are hard core atheists.
They are there because they were a part of the atheist history.
Thomas Jefferson was one of the founding fathers;
he was a part of giving
us freedom from religion and separation from church and state. In fact he was a deist to
be precise. And his
literature was as close to atheist literature
as you could get at that time. He was a free thinker.
He is certainly against intelligent design, and he would flip in his grave if he ever
saw this documentary.
So out of the eight famous men on the poster,
there is only one who was an atheist: Ernest Hemingway.
According to his biographer, back in , Hemingway, quote,
"pushed two shells into the twelve-gauge Boss shotgun,
put the end of the barrel into his mouth,
pulled the trigger and blew out his brains."
There's your poster boy when it comes to atheism.
Keep in mind that even though some of these men
claim to believe in God,
it doesn't necessarily mean that they're believers
in the one true Creator revealed in the Scriptures,
or that they're genuine Christians.
However, when atheists use theists or agnostics
to promote their godless agenda,
they're being dishonest.
Then again, coming from those who claim
that morality is relative to each person,
convenient dishonesty should not be a surprise.
(Sigh)...
I was really hoping for his own sake that he wan't going to go there but not it's kind
of too late.
The topic has been debunked so many times on Youtube, that I really don't have time
to go over it right now.
You don't really need a source of morality.
You have your brain.
And if you are that mentaly retarded that you can't figure out right from wrong
Then why would you use the bible as a source of morality?
It's one of the worst sources of morality there is.
(Ray Comfort) Do you believe in moral absolutes?
No, I do not.
(Ray Comfort) Is *** wrong?
Well, according to the bible it's not.
Let's have a read shall we?
Here Moses commands his people to go into a town and kill all the people except for
all the virgins
Because they could apparently keep them for themselves.
They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people.
Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.
Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
Moral isn't it?
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.
If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve
you in forced labor.
But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.
When the lord your God hands it over to you,
kill every man in the town.
But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children,
livestock, and other plunder.
You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
What kind of God approves of ***, ***, and slavery?
If a man happens to meet a *** who is not pledged to be married and rapes
her and they are discovered,
(Cause he is clearly not an ***)
he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver.
He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never
divorce her as long as he lives.
Wow, talking about morality.
And whilst we are at it, why not continue?
If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as
male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for
himself
she must let her be redeemed.
What the ***?
Selling you daughter as a sex slave?
It seems pretty moral to me, doesn't it.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;
she must be quiet.
(doesn't sound too bad)
Whoever does any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death
All slaves should show full respect for their masters so
they will not bring shame on the name of God and his teaching.
It is actually from the New Testament
If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies
at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however,
he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
Owning people as property.
Sounds kind of moral to me doesn't it?
And for all of you *** out there who say
The Old Testament doesn't count. That's why it is called the Old Testament.
First of all I wasn't only reading from the Old Testament.
Second of all, it does count
Do you know why?
Because I have read the bible, I know and here is why.
Throughout the old and the New Testament
It is constantly being mentioned that god is eternal
He is a never changing god
He was the same yesterday as he is today and he will remain in the future
Which means they if he thought it was ok to sell you daughter as a
sex slave then it should be morally correct too
Second of all, when Jesus
Talked about it many times.
He said that not a single drop of the Old Testament was going to change until the end
of time
Come to think of it, he violated
A lot of the Old Testament rules
Thirdly
I am pretty sure that most of you christens believe in the Ten Commandments
Don't kill
Don't steel
Don't commit adultery
Guess what.
Old Testament
You can't pick and choose what kind of parts you do like from the Old Testament
And what kind of parts you are just going to say oh that it doesn't count anymore.
You must wind disgusting aspects of the entire book, the book that is called the good book
that we
Give to kids
And I find that kind of repugnant
The bible is full of violent acts
There are woman's having babies ripped out of their wombs
Yeah
People's heads cut off
It doesn't hide the atrocities of man
But it reveals then and says that god is going to judge the world
And in some cases god is commanding them
Yeah but so...
So you believe this really happened
No, but
What are you upset about
I am upset because there are people who believe it really happened and.. and because people
Are calling the good book and a moral code and handing it to children and the picking
and choosing
And saying these fist Ten Commandments are the divine law but the
603 that come after we can ignore.
*** is wrong in our culture, yes.
(Ray Comfort) Is *** always wrong?
Well according to the bible
*** is not always wrong
If you attack a village and you happened
To kill a whole family to a ***
You can actually marry her legally
And just like force her to marry you and have sex with her
Which is also considered to be ***.
It depends on your beginnings.
If you say that you have a respect for other human beings,
then yes, *** is always wrong.
(Ray Comfort) So there are moral absolutes?
Is *** absolutely wrong?
In my opinion, it is.
(Ray Comfort) So who makes the rules?
We do.
(Ray Comfort) So if Hitler made the rules and he had the majority?
If Hitler made the rules, yes,
we would be living in a society
that Hitler would consider moral,
but which I would not consider moral.
(Ray Comfort) Did Hitler put into practice survival of the fittest?
- No. - What was he doing, then?
He was murdering people.
(Ray Comfort) But that's survival of the fittest.
No, that's not survival of the fittest.
(Ray Comfort) It is, it's the lion eating the antelope.
No, there's much more to evolution
than just this kind of crude "kill and be killed" model
that you have in your head.
(Ray Comfort) But I have seen a quote from Richard Dawkins saying,
"Evolution in its rawest is incredibly cruel."
Evolution is cruel and it is also a fact.
Live with it.
It is, yes.
(Ray Comfort) That was Hitler putting evolution into practice.
That does not mean it was moral.
(Ray Comfort) It was immoral.
Nobody's claiming that evolution is a moral process.
Evolution is a very harsh and cruel process.
(Ray Comfort) Do you believe in evolution?
- Yes, I do. - Do you have a dog?
- Yes. - Love your dog?
I do love my dog.
Yes, I do. I love animals.
(Ray Comfort) Okay, well, your pet dog and your rotten neighbor
are drowning.
You can only save one of them.
Who would you save?
Hmm, that is a tough one.
I can only save one?
(Ray Comfort) Why are you hesitating?
I think I would save my dog.
I don't know why I'm really hesitating.
Because, I don't know,
I feel like people would see me as a bad person
if I said the dog.
I'll save my dog.
(Ray Comfort) So is your neighbor not worth saving?
Well, he's not worth saving more than my dog is.
I'd go with the dog.
We are all different and they don't represent us
Evolution is something you learn in Biology.
It doesn't represent what your moral view are.
I mean, you would want to save the animal.
So I would want to save my dog.
Well, we're animals. I believe we're all equal.
I don't think humans have like, a higher, like, place.
(Ray Comfort) So you think dogs are more valuable than human beings?
Do you believe in evolution?
Yes, I do.
(Ray Comfort) So it's just a matter of survival of the fittest.
Your neighbor's a primate, and you've got a canine,
and you like the canine more than you like the primate.
Would that be right?
Pretty much, yeah.
I think that guy is just *** with the dude for fun.
I mean, it's survival of the fittest, I mean--
- Survival of the fittest? - Yeah, pretty much.
(Ray Comfort) You said you believe in evolution.
So it's just a matter of survival of the fittest?
Yeah.
(Ray Comfort) If he drowns, he drowns, big deal.
Oh, well yeah, that is true.
- Are you an atheist? - Yeah.
(narrator) "Any fetus is less human than an adult pig," Richard Dawkins.
(Ray Comfort) So you don't think God exists?
More like I know.
(Ray Comfort) Are you comfortable talking about spiritual things?
I don't know much about them,
because they're not really capable of knowledge.
Once we're dead, we stop that, we stop actually living.
(Ray Comfort) How do you know?
We don't know actually, and we don't assert absolute certainty either.
Now there was a period when we didn't Quite understand what death was Exactly,
science wasn't there to investigate why a particular chunk of matter was moving around
and talking one minute and then it was not talking and getting cold and decomposing the
next minute. People back then had a very limited understanding
to the cause of this event. People just assumed that
whatever we were was something that inhabited this body for
a while. But when this body stopped working properly
we just kept going on without a body to actually impact this physical reality. But now scientists
have actually understood that what we are is contained inside your skull.
We are our brain. When the machinery there stops working then
the party is over.
There is no godly explanation. God is a word typically used by primitive minds to explain
the essence of reality. Why?
Well because ancient men were dumb, they weren't just dumb, they were very dumb,
even dumber than most creationist today. They were just monkey men with their
monkey brains living in the desert, riding camels and living in caves.
They did not however, know the simple answers about the world... and those answers were
nowhere to be found. So they got scared, They were really scared
Cause they looked around themselves and saw the nature and didn't understand how it operated.
So they made up stories to explain things that they previously had no answers for.
Each culture made up its own explanations. And these stories, for the time, were just
fantastic. Cause they explained everything, THEY JUST
EXPLAINED THINGS WRONG.
However now we have science. And the scientific method which, in fact is
proven to be one of the only methods that could distinguish fact from fiction.
So every time we reach a completely new discovery that we used to think was god driven, we find
that there is a natural cause for it. However what YOU don't understand is that
we are passed the dark ages now and creatures like men actually are a product of nature.
So when I die I will be as I was before I was born. I will seas to exist. I most likely
will lose consciousness and never regain it again.
You view the world through your sensory perceptions which are hooked up to your brain, not to
some immaterial soul. Your memory is stored in your brain
and can be lost on heavy impact. Your so called SOUL can be influenced by alcohol and shut
down to sleep by a heavy blow on your skull. Your soul also includes
survival instincts and gives you a gullible mind.
No..... when you die, your brain shuts down and you lose consciousness. Sooner or later
your body will rot in the ground together with your brain that contains
your memories and emotions that you ones had. It may be a sad ending, but I am at least
being intellectually honest with myself. Rather than wishful peter pan thinking that
you do because you are simply afraid of what reality has to offer.
Because it's just what the facts are.
Like, if you stopped breathing right now,
you'd be considered dead.
(Ray Comfort) Jacob, if you were a car and your motor got turned off,
that would be right, that's inanimate.
But you're a living, biological human being
with the life of God in you.
We are a mechanical being
because we have different parts that--
- Is there no life in you? - Yes, there's life in me.
(Ray Comfort) That's your soul.
Okay, can you handle some questions?
They're pretty pointed questions.
- Sure. - Are you a good person?
(Ray Comfort) Are you going to make it to heaven?
I would like to think so.
Do I think I'm a good person? Yeah.
(Ray Comfort) Are you a good person, morally?
Yes, I am.
(Ray Comfort) Do you think you're a good person?
Yes.
I like to believe so, yeah.
(Ray Comfort) How many lies have you told in your whole life?
I wouldn't be able to count.
I don't know if I could remember.
(Ray Comfort) Can you be honest with me?
Yeah.
(Ray Comfort) How many lies do you think you've told in your whole life?
Oh, quite a few.
- Countless. - Uncountable.
(Ray Comfort) What would you call me if I told lots of lies?
Countless lies, you'd call me a liar, wouldn't you?
Of course.
(Ray Comfort) What do you call someone who's told thousands of lies?
Well, I mean
What I like to know is.
Have you ever told a lie.
I have told lots of lies in my life I have sinned many many times
So that must mean that Ray Comfort must really be...
- A liar. - So what are you?
I'm a liar.
(Ray Comfort) Have you ever stolen something in your whole life,
even if it's small?
Yes, I have.
(Ray Comfort) Have you ever taken something that belonged to someone else?
- Of course.
You could go into a church and ask Christians the same questions.
I am pretty sure you could get the similar results he did in this video.
- Sure.
Yes, I have.
(Ray Comfort) That's called theft.
- So what are you? - A liar and a thief.
I'm a liar and a thief.
(Ray Comfort) Have you ever used God's name in vain?
Oh, every day.
(Ray Comfort) Have you ever used God's name in vain?
Oh, all the time.
(Ray Comfort) Have you ever used God's name in vain?
[bleep] probably so.
(Ray Comfort) Have you ever used God's name in vain?
- Yep. - I have indeed.
(Ray Comfort) That's called blasphemy.
It's very serious to use God's name as a cuss word.
I don't believe in blaspheming, since I don't believe in God.
So if you don't believe in God, how can you blaspheme?
(Ray Comfort) Well, if I don't believe in certain laws
and still violate them,
ignorance of the law is no excuse.
So we're still guilty, even though we deny a law exists
or we even don't know about it.
One to go, and I appreciate your honesty, Jacob.
Jesus said if you look at a woman and *** for her,
you commit adultery with her in your heart.
I mean, what kind of stupid god is that.
He draws no distinction between thinking about doing something bad and actually doing it.
A law like that would never pass in the US or anywhere else in the world for that matter
as well.
Have you ever looked at a woman with ***?
Why, yes, I look at many women with *** in my heart.
Of course.
(Ray Comfort) Have you ever looked at a guy with ***?
Have you ever looked at a woman with *** in your heart?
Yeah but not deliberately, You know, I have
My eyes have wondered on to a bill board poster
- With ***? - ***.
- Oh, yeah. - Sure.
Not recently.
I have indeed.
(Ray Comfort) Are you having sex outside of marriage?
No, not yet.
(Ray Comfort) Are you looking at ***?
Yes.
(Ray Comfort) You're *** after women, you see.
Have you ever looked at a woman with ***?
Absolutely.
(Ray Comfort) So Peter, by your own admission, you're a lying thief,
a blasphemer, and an adulterer at heart,
and that's only four of the Ten Commandments.
What I'm saying to you is just not believing in hell
doesn't make it go away.
A judge must see that justice is done if he's a good judge,
and it's the same with God.
If we die in our sins, God will give us justice.
The Bible says no thief, no liar, no fornicator,
no blasphemer, no adulterer will inherit the kingdom of God.
So Julia, if you died in your sins and God gave you justice
because He's holy and perfect morally, you'd end up in hell,
and I'd hate that to happen to you.
Man, would you sell one of your eyes for One million Dollars?
- Probably not, no. - Both for Hundred million Dollars?
No, I value seeing too much.
(Ray Comfort) See how precious your eyes are to you,
how much more precious is your life, and you're saying,
"I don't care if I get damned from all that which is good"?
Of course you care. You've got a will to live.
Now, let me tell you something you know intuitively.
You know that creation is proof of the Creator.
God's given you that light.
We don't have proof of the Creator.
- Yes, we do. - We don't, actually.
(Ray Comfort) I have in inside story.
I have a whistleblower
and it tells me that you know God exists,
and the reason you choose evolution
is because it gets rid of moral accountability.
It does not get rid of moral accountability.
(Ray Comfort) It does, it means your primal instincts,
*** and ***,
and fornication, adultery, are all just primal instincts.
That's all. You're just an animal.
The Bible demands moral accountability
and says those things are wrong,
and that's why it's not acceptable to you.
That's why you're not seeking after truth.
Am I wrong?
Let's see.
- Am I wrong?
Yes you are wrong
Cause you are listening an outdated book
Written by ancient desert dwellers.
- I think you're wrong.
(Ray Comfort) I say that you know intuitively that creation
is proof of the Creator.
God has given you that inner light,
so when you look at the genius of God's creative hand,
you know He exists because of creation.
You are a unique human being, made in the image of God
with a sense of justice and truth and righteousness.
God gave you a conscience. It's inherent.
It's shaped by society, but it's inherent.
You know right from wrong.
You've violated His law,
and I don't want you to end up in hell.
James, if you put your finger on it, and see if we can,
your struggle at the moment is because of your love of sin,
because of the pleasure that sin gives you,
and you don't want to give it up.
You're like a man with a money belt filled with gold
who's just fallen into the ocean.
I'm saying if you don't get rid of that belt
that weighs Eighty pounds, it's going to take you under.
Doesn't matter how much pleasure it gives you,
it's not worth losing your life for.
Gail, you're not a beast.
You're a human being, created by God in His image
with dignity and worth and purpose.
Do you know what God did for guilty sinners
so we wouldn't have to go to hell? Any idea?
- Uh-uh. - No.
(Ray Comfort) Well, God became a human being Two Thousand years ago,
Jesus of Nazareth,
There is no evidence that Jesus Christ even existed
He pissed off the romans and the Jews at the same time
So they ended up crucifying him
And nobody even bothered writing his name down.
It was only decades after when people started writing about him.
Seriously look it up.
and He suffered and died on a cross,
taking the punishment for the sin of the world.
You and I violated God's law and Jesus paid our fine.
That means God can legally dismiss our case
because of the suffering, death, and resurrection of the Savior.
God can say, "You're out of here"
because someone paid your fine.
And then what God can now do
is clothe us in the righteousness of Christ,
so on Judgment Day, you're safe from God's wrath
and His justice
because of the death and resurrection of the Savior.
If you repent and trust in Him,
God will give you a righteous standing in His eyes.
He'll wash away your sins in an instant,
and He'll grant you the gift of everlasting life.
His last words on the cross were, "It is finished."
In other words, the debt has been paid.
He came to take our punishment upon Himself.
So because our fine was paid by another,
God can legally dismiss your case.
It's very hard to believe that someone would be willing
to pay off the debt that's not His own.
(Ray Comfort) The Bible says God is love,
In the old testament it doesn't, God is a vengeful god.
As Richard Dawkins put it.
Got is a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic racist, an infanticidal,
genocidal, phillicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic,
capriciously malevolent bully. you know,
and He's kind and generous and merciful,
and in His great kindness He became a human being
and suffered for us.
- Does that make sense? - That makes sense, yeah.
- How old are you? - I'm 22.
(Ray Comfort) When are you going to die?
I have no idea.
(Ray Comfort) Well, God knows exactly the moment of your death,
and it could be tonight, it could be tomorrow.
I'm not using scare tactics. This is just straight reality.
Hundred and Fifty Thousand people every Twenty Four hours die,
and they were all making plans for next week, no doubt.
So please think about this.
Do you have a Bible at home?
No.
(Ray Comfort) I'm not talking about a religion
that says you've got to strive to get to heaven.
I'm telling you the Bible says heaven is a free gift of God.
You cannot earn everlasting life.
Doesn't matter how religious you are, how good you are.
"God commended His love toward us,
in that while we were yet sinners,
Christ died for us,"
and then He rose from the dead and defeated death.
This is how the Bible puts it
"For by grace are you saved through faith
and that not of yourselves,
it's the gift of God, not of works,
lest any man boast."
So eternal life is a free gift of God,
and it comes because of God's mercy,
not because of anything we do. Make sense?
Yeah, makes sense.
(Ray Comfort) Do you have a Bible at home?
Yes.
(Ray Comfort) I've been reading the Bible
every day for more than Fourty years.
There's no mistakes in it, Mike.
No mistakes in the bible?
You are a lying piece of ***.
The bible if full of contradictions
And is just a few of them.
It says that if you Yahweh you die
And it also says that you don't
It says that people say god face to face
It also says that no one has ever seen god
It also says that humans were created before the animals
It also says the opposite
It says that the earth will last forever,
It also says that it wouldn't
It says that Jesus healed one blind near Jericho
It also says that he healed two
Of course there are many more.
I would not however, call that a consistent book without any contradictions
You are liar
That's exactly what you are
You just broke the ninth commandment
Thou shault not bear false witness.
Hypocritical isn't it?
The truth is that the bible was written by anonymous authors
And no one has any clue to who they were, that's why they called them Mathew John and
luke for example
No one even has the copies of the originals.
No one even has the copies of the copied of the copied of the copies of the copied of
the copies of the copies of the original.
It's an unreliable book.
Any mistakes that we think are in it are our mistakes,
and you can trust God's Word.
I mean, think of how you trust professors and science books
that tell you you're a primate?
You trust and believe that.
So how much more should you trust a God who cannot lie?
Let me show you how fallible we are.
Spell the word "shop."
- Shop? - Shop.
S-H-O-P.
(Ray Comfort) What do you do when you come to a green light?
- Stop. - Green light.
Oh.
You know
That's the kind of things we did in preschool, I was expecting him to be more mature than
that.
(Ray Comfort) See, we're all fallible. We make mistakes.
So imagine if you're making a mistake
when you say this whole of creation came together
because some explosion
Correction, it was an expansion
You should seriously learn the facts before you make any assertions.
of nothing
that produced everything: seasons, the birds,
the trees, the flowers, the sun, the moon, the stars,
and the marvels of the human body?
Are you going to think about this?
I am not going to think about this.
I don't want *** stuck inside my head.
Oh, yeah, no, I think about this quite a lot, believe me.
My brother, like I said, he's a hardcore Christian.
He's going to Yale Divinity School right now,
so he talks to me about this all the time.
(Ray Comfort) So you've got to think seriously about this.
Life is full of decisions.
Soften your heart.
Don't have so much blind faith in what science tells you
and it's left you without any knowledge
of what was in the beginning anyway.
You haven't got a clue where you come from,
you don't know what you're doing here on earth,
and you don't know what happens after you die.
Peter, could you be wrong about God's existence?
Yes. And could you be wrong about God's existence?
Could you be wrong about God?
I could be wrong about god
(Ray Comfort) No.
Well then, I think you're rather closed-minded.
(Ray Comfort) Well, if I said to you,
"Could you be wrong about your wife's existence?"
you'd say "No, I know her."
You'd say, "Don't be ridiculous.
I know her and love her,"
and I know the Lord and I love the Lord,
and He transformed my life Forty One years ago,
instantly, overnight.
Forgave my sins and gave me new desires
when I had no desires or thoughts of God
for the whole Twenty Two years before I was a Christian.
Mike, thanks for talking to me, I appreciate it.
Yeah, of course, no problem. Thank you.
(Ray Comfort) One more thing, because you're a very intelligent man.
Spell the word "shop."
Shop?
Like, S-H-O-P?
S-H-O-P.
(Ray Comfort) What do you do when you come to a green light?
- You stop. - Green light.
- Hmm? - Green light.
Oh, ha-ha, very good.
(Ray Comfort) Peter, you've been a good sport.
Thank you very much for talking to me.
I generally don't engage creationists,
because it's not good for my blood pressure.
(Ray Comfort) So are you going to think about this?
Uh-huh.
I think about it a lot, actually.
I think about death and how fragile life is,
and how just in a second it could all be over
and there'd be nothing.
(Gail E. Kennedy, PhD) You know, the problem with those
who are unable to see evolution, I think,
is they don't have imaginations.
(narrator) "Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish."
Human beings are still fish.
(narrator) "Human ears evolved from ancient fish gills."
We came out of the ground as a mammal.
(narrator) "Heavier dinosaur arms led evolution to birds."
(Ray Comfort) Do you think we're related to pigs?
Do you think we've got a common ancestor in pigs?
Yes.
(narrator) "Proof that fearsome T-Rex evolved into a chicken."
(Ray Comfort) Do you think you're a primate?
- Yes, I am. - Are you a talking primate? - I am.
(Ray Comfort) Are you a cousin of bananas?
Why, yes.
(narrator) "When whales walked the land."
(student) I'm accepting that they did their science correctly.
I generally trust the scientific community.
I'm going to trust what those experts did,
those experts came up with.
Darwinian evolution rests on faith,
and once again, according to Richard Dawkins,
"Faith is the great cop-out,
the great excuse to evade the need
to think and evaluate evidence."
Darwinian evolution requires great faith.
The knowledge of God, however, is
(Sigh)
The video is actually over
But since it's copywrited I would have to show the credits.
If you enjoyed watching this video
Please like, leave a comment
And if you wish, do subscribe.
clearly seen by all mankind.
"For since the creation of the world
His invisible attributes are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made,
even His eternal power and Godhead,
so that they are without excuse,
because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God,
nor were thankful,
but became futile in their thoughts,
and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Professing to be wise, they became fools."
Let me get to this.
In the book.
Umm... You can lead an atheist to evidence but you can't make them think.
In the conclusion you start with the parachute thing
But the you say, think of the... the four major religions, Hinduisms Buddhism Islam
and Christianity
And you begin to assess them to determine to which one should choose
You are familiar
Yes
Ok, I wouldn't hammer on the fact that you .. you know you only
Picked 4 options that's all we need right now anyway, but you assess all four of them
With the preconception that Christianity is true
You fault Buddhism for not solving a problem that's intrinsic within Christianity you fault
Hinduism for something
not solving a problem, you say you know that the bible says this and Hinduism doesn't do
anything about this.
Buddhism doesn't do anything about this
Isn't that incredibly dishonest because a Buddhist could look at Christianity and say
it doesn't solve the problems
that are intrinsic within Buddhism and a Hindu could look at Christianity and say it doesn't
solve the problems that
are intrinsic with Hinduism
Choosing on me later when I only got one minute to answer.
How long have we got?
Well I thought it was a really easy answer
That you were just going to agree
No it's not dishonest.
If you look at it and understand Ten Commandments make all the difference
And that's what shows all those religions our works riotousness
You cannot earn everlasting life
It could only come as a free gift of god.
I really wish... I really wish
That we could demonstrate exactly why this is dishonest, but I think you just did
By making an appeal back to the bible.
Um... You got this presupposition which is what I Pointed out in the beginning.
And you are judging it based on you presupposition.
Thank you for taking the time to watch
"Evolution vs. God."
If you'd like to get more information about our ministry,
please visit LivingWaters.com.
Ray Comfort has written a number of books
on atheism and evolution to help further your study
on this incredibly important subject.
At LivingWaters.com you can also learn about
our online School of Biblical Evangelism;
our international television program,
"The Way of the Master";
our daily webcast, "The Comfort Zone";
and "Roots," a DVD series with Ray, Kirk Cameron,
and the Duggar family.
We're extremely humbled
to see how God has used our previous productions
to impact people around the globe
and to spread the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ.
We want to get free DVD copies of "Evolution vs. God"
into the hands of university students across the world.
To discover how you can help make this happen,
please check out LivingWaters.com.
Thank you so much for partnering with us
to inspire and equip Christians
in fulfilling the Great Commission.
(male announcer) The acclaimed Creation Museum,
♪♪♪
an outreach of Answers in Genesis,
is a one-of-a-kind museum
filled with animatronic characters, interactive videos,
a spectacular planetarium, a special-effects theater,
and many other world-class exhibits.
Since its opening in , the Creation Museum has welcomed
over One Point Five million guests at its Forty Nine-acre location
in the greater Cincinnati area.
The state-of-the-art Seventy Thousand-square-foot museum
brings the pages of the Bible to life,
helping answer the skeptical questions
that cause people to doubt that the Bible is true.
The dramatic finale of the museum is "The Last Adam" film,
where guests experience the glory of God's redemptive plan
and hear a clear and powerful presentation
of the gospel message.
Since the museum's opening, we have heard countless testimonies
from adults and young people whose lives have been changed
through a museum visit.
Now discover how it might change your own life for Christ.
Plan your visit at creationmuseum.org
and prepare to believe.