The apostle Paul often uses the term "son" for those whom he has brought to faith. To some extent, the person who brings you to saving faith is your spiritual parent (or maybe midwife is a better analogy).
That makes Ray Comfort (and Kirk Cameron) my spiritual father.
As I mentioned earlier, I grew up Catholic. Later, I spent about two years as a false convert (to Christianity - I "asked Jesus into my heart"). While studying the Way of the Master material, I discovered I had never properly heard the Good News.
Ray has a new blog! The man must never sleep! :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The banana guy?
That's him!
Sometimes he plays fast and loose with the assertions of evolutionary theory, and that makes me wince. But he is dedicated to "seeking and saving that which is lost". I'm sure God is pleased with him. And I'll be in Heaven instead of Hell because of him, so I'm not going to be embarrassed by him.
So, you don't think he is dishonest at all in his treatment of evolution and how he tries to save people, or do the ends justify the means?
I don't think he is dishonest. Evolutionary theory is so convoluted, rapidly changing, and divided it is hard to keep track of it all.
Much of the historic evolution/creation debate is just about rhetoric. Ray is not trying to persuade anyone on evolution. He is using the rhetoric as a means to attract a crowd and pick out a heckler.
The heckler is actually important to open air preaching (I believe they now provide a microphone for the heckler when they go out). He provides a sounding board for your ideas. So people see you are reasoning, and not just preaching.
"I don't think he is dishonest. Evolutionary theory is so convoluted, rapidly changing, and divided it is hard to keep track of it all."
There is no other word for it. He's been refuted, many times, and he knows it, yet he continues to deceive people as to the state of evolution, etc. He's a dishonest liar.
"Much of the historic evolution/creation debate is just about rhetoric. Ray is not trying to persuade anyone on evolution. He is using the rhetoric as a means to attract a crowd and pick out a heckler."
So, the ends do justify the means.
I haven't seen any reasonable refutation of creationism. Are you claiming to have developed a repeatable experiment in macro-evolution?
The ends don't justify the means. Ray is not trying to present a scientific challenge to evolution, because most people don't have a scientific understanding of evolution. If you get up and say "evolution is a fairy tale" then people will gather to listen. Macro-evolution (and abiogenesis) very likely are fairy tales. But they are also not provable (true or false). It takes "millions of years".
nedbrek,
"I haven't seen any reasonable refutation of creationism. Are you claiming to have developed a repeatable experiment in macro-evolution?"
A) It's not up to me or anyone else to refute your assertions, it is up to you to prove them!
B) Yes, macro-evolution has been demonstrated many times over. There's lots of literature on it.
"The ends don't justify the means."
Then, why defend Ray's dishonesty?
"Ray is not trying to present a scientific challenge to evolution, because most people don't have a scientific understanding of evolution. If you get up and say "evolution is a fairy tale" then people will gather to listen."
Except it's not a fairy tale and his exhortations that it is are nothing less than dishonesty.
"Macro-evolution (and abiogenesis) very likely are fairy tales. But they are also not provable (true or false). It takes "millions of years"."
Actually, abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory. Secondly, macro-evolution is demonstrable, and has been demonstrated. This has been pointed out to Ray numerous times, yet he continues to lie about it. Why do you defend a liar? Is it because he says things that you want to hear?
You can't prove or disprove history. There is no literature documenting reptiles becoming birds or mammals. The last evolutionist I debated said its not even possible today. That the "intermediate forms" had all disappeared.
Evolution is a story. A story that has been shored up and changed to remain consistent, but a story. Where is this macroevolution proof?
"You can't prove or disprove history."
We can get close enough for all intents and purposes. I don't think we can prove that Julius Caesar existed to 100%, but no one doubts the validity of his existence, because it's been proven to a high enough degree that we can say he existed with certainty.
"There is no literature documenting reptiles becoming birds or mammals."
Wrong. We have the fossil record, morphological studies, etc.
"The last evolutionist I debated said its not even possible today. That the "intermediate forms" had all disappeared."
We have fossils of intermediate forms, like Tiktallik, Archeopteryx, etc.
"Evolution is a story. A story that has been shored up and changed to remain consistent, but a story."
No, evolution is a scientific theory that is well supported by numerous hypotheses that have not been falsified and numerous lines of scientific inquiry (fields of science) that all independently converge on the same conclusions. And, of course it has changed over the years. That's how science works. As more data comes in, we re-assess what we think and update our conclusions. This works quite well in the real world, as opposed to the way religion works in that nothing ever changes and facts and evidence are shoe-horned into a priori assumptions.
"Where is this macroevolution proof?"
Oh ye of little faith.
Here's a good discussion of macroevolution.
Post a Comment