Evolution Vs God

[video=youtube;U0u3-2CGOMQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ[/video]

This video by Ray Comfort has been extremely controversial in online religious discussions for the past three weeks. I personally don't take anything that "Banana Man" Comfort says, but his content is interesting, if not hilarious because of his ridiculous arguments.

Creationists and Atheists have been at each other's throats over this video. Below is the best rebuttal of the video that I could find:

[video=youtube;i0k9NyHh7TQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0k9NyHh7TQ[/video]

So what do you guys think of Ray Comfort's video and all of the controversy surrounding it?

 

Personally, I think that anyone who still gives Ray the time of day needs to learn better source analysis. At least one of the people he interviewed has come forward and stated in no uncertain terms that his views had been misrepresented through dishonest editing (not a new tactic by creatards, to be sure), he seemed to be totally hung up on the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) non-distinction over "kinds", and I just don't give enough of a (*)(*)(*)(*) about what he has to say to watch a 40-minute video. He hasn't earned that much of my attention.

 

It is clear the so-called Christian is a liar by editing the responses. But in end there is no conflict with the existence of a God and the fact of evolution. What is amazing to me is the fact that once again the right wing is playing the victim and doing it badly. If there is a discussion of this dreck it should be simply to call it that.

 

Superstitious beliefs are often based upon what is known but which the believers in superstition aren't capable of understanding.

A really interesting subject is the evolution of religion as we find that all major religions evolved from prior religious beliefs. The Hebrew religion, for example, reflect its roots in the Epic of Gilgamesh that predated it by about 800 or 1000 years. The Christian religion adopted most of it's teachings from the Hebrew religion but also adopted beliefs from Greek and Roman mythology in the creation of Jesus as a demigod (i.e. 1/2 human and 1/2 god). The religion of Islam evolved from the Hebrew and Christian religions. The Mormon religion evolved from the Christian religion. It's all about evolution......

The evolution of religion is what people really need to understand as it was always based upon myths created by one ignorant and superstitious people that were modified into new myths based upon superstition by subsequent people. Of course believers in "religion" don't want to acknowledge this fact although it is very well documented.

 

Out of curiosity, can anyone point to one single instance where science has created life from inanimate elements? They have a great advantage as they can create the perfect environment in a lab.

 

Is this really on topic? I don't think it's a comment on the vid and it's not about evolution (which the vid isn't anyway).

"Science" may have an advantage of creating the perfect environment in a lab (even if there is probably a lot more of it in the real world and exactly what are perfect conditions is not necessarily easy to figure out or obtain), but they most importantly have the disadvantage of having, maybe a few tens of years to do it in, whereas nature took a few billion years.

Science has gone through several of the steps required to create life from nothing, but has not had the time or resources to do it in the right order. The fact that we have not seen the entire thing is completely in line with the current understanding of how it happened.

 

Not life, per se, as the exact conditions are fairly unknown, but it's worth noting that given that part of the definition of life is self-replication, it only had to happen once, and scientists have been able to make many of the fundamental building blocks by emulating known conditions within nature on prehistoric earth.

 

I'll take that as a NO.

 

I'll give you that much even though today we have super computers that can narrow the possibilities. In order for water breathing animals with gills to transition to air breathers on land, tens of millions had to die trying. Can any evolutionist produce the fossilized remains of any water dweller that has both gills and lungs?

 

Out of curiosity can you show me where the theory of evolution argues this should be possible

- - - Updated - - -

Sure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish

 

They haven't, that I'm aware of. But the origin of life has nothing to do with the validity of evolutionary theory.

 

So? Earth (and, possibly, Mars, as some evidence is suggesting) had hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years and billions of cubic miles acting as "labs", whereas most scientists have only a few years and a few benches to work with.

However, given that we can create basic components of life from basic chemicals, I wouldn't be surprised at new developments in the next few years.

 

So where are the fossilized remains of tens of millions of fish with both gills and developing lungs necessary for them to transition from water to land?

- - - Updated - - -

WHAT? Then how did life begin? See my post above.

 

You seem to have missed it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish

 

I don't know. Why are you asking that question in a thread about evolution? It's irrelevant.

 

Where is the fish that grew legs so he could walk on land. I keep seeing that image on atheist's bumper stickers, but is there a real fish that has legs anywhere?

 

Tiktaalik had appendages that were transitioning towards legs. They had the beginnings of wrists and elbows.

 

Where are the fossils?

- - - Updated - - -

If life never began there would be NO evolution.

 

Right. That still doesn't have any impact on the validity of evolutionary theory. It's like asking about the origin of hydrogen and oxygen in a thread about marine biology.

 

Actually...QUANTUM EVOLUTION existed before Life as Quantum Particle /Wave Forms continue to arrange themselves into Hadrons and then various elements and then Molecules then eventually LIFE....THEN....Bilological Evolution takes place.

AboveAlpha

 

Banana man is not controversial but an idiot of gigantic magnitude .

Of course all vertebrates come from a common ancestor because they all have the same body pattern : long trunk & four limbs
Of course all mammals come from a common ancestor because they all have the same pattern : specialized teeth
Of course all primates come from a common ancestor because they all have the same pattern : nails instead of claws
And so on ....

 

That's correct. If we had easily obtained such results, that would mean that the current understanding is wrong. The current state of the art perfectly reflects what we would expect with the current understanding.

 

"The researchers, at the Scripps Research Institute, created molecules that self-replicate and even evolve and compete to win or lose. If that sounds exactly like life, read on to learn the controversial and thin distinction."
http://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html

 

Except that no, tens of millions did not have to die trying. There is no reason to make that claim. What's more, we do have a very clear transitional form in that niche; Tiktaalik, an amphibious fish with lungs, gills, and the beginning of feet. I don't know why you would ask us that. Why not try a biology professor at your local high school? They're far more likely to be far better at explaining the subject to people who don't know much about it, and they're likely to know more than your average internet forum commentator. That said, I strongly recommend that you stop JAQing off and actually go take the time to study before asking questions that about 30 seconds of Googling would have answered.

 

http://www.fossilmall.com/Science/FishFossils/Scaumenacia/Scaumenacia_curta_fishfossil.htm