A coin rubbing?
Posted on 05/10/2006 9:38:22 PM PDT by Tim Long
Author Ray Comfort says TV satirist too insecure to accept offer
A Christian author and TV host whose latest book, "Intelligent Design Versus Evolution: Letters to an Atheist," debunks Darwinism has challenged fellow television personality Bill Maher to a public debate on the origins of the Earth.
Says Ray Comfort: "Mr. Maher, like all believers in the theory of evolution, simply has a blind faith in a theory-tale that can't be substantiated. It's just another opiate of the masses – a religion called 'Darwinism' that piously robes itself in what it thinks is 'science.' It is true science fiction."
Comfort hosts "The Way of the Master" with actor Kirk Cameron.
"I am beginning to suspect that some men may have evolved from chickens, or at least that's the impression I get when it comes to evolutionists standing up for their convictions," notes Comfort. "Mr. Maher can choose the place of the debate. I don't mind if he has it in front of his audience. He can bill it as 'Another simple-minded Christian being thrown to the lions.'"
The former host of "Politically Incorrect," Maher now hosts "Real Time with Bill Maher" on HBO and is known to be hostile toward religious faith.
In a statement, Comfort quotes Maher as saying last year: "Evolution is supported by the entire scientific community ... the reason there is no real debate is that intelligent design isn't real science. ..."
Responds Comfort: "I can scientifically prove intelligent design. Let's have 20 minutes each. I present my case (I won't even mention 'faith') and then he can present his case for evolution. I say that he doesn't have one. He's bluffing. I don't mind if he spends his 20 minutes telling jokes, because that's all he has."
In 2001, Comfort was a platform speaker at the American Atheists' 27th National Convention. He has also spoken on the subject of intelligent design at Yale, UCLA and other institutions.
Comfort says his publication "The Atheist Test" has sold over 700,000 copies. He's the author of more than 50 books, including "God Doesn't Believe in Atheists" and "The Evidence Bible."
Referencing intelligent design, Comfort said, "Hundreds of scientific scholars and researchers throughout the world support it – including scientists with the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Smithsonian Institute, with doctoral degrees in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science and related disciplines, from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, and UCLA. So Mr. Maher can't dismiss the idea as 'not scientific' just because he doesn't like that conclusion."
Added the author: "'Intelligent Design Versus Evolution' contains scores of letters written by a very intelligently designed atheist who gives evolution's best arguments. I think that's healthy. Yet pro-evolution pseudo-intellectuals are calling for censorship, by not allowing school kids the freedom to listen to both sides of the argument. That reveals their insecurity."
You've got it backwards, friend. Comfort was offering the banana as proof of God's design. Yet all of its nice characteristics that he was appealing to as proof, i.e. its shape, easy-to-peal wrapper, biodegradability, digestability, etc, are all the result of human breeding. No wild banana has any of them. The nice characteristics of the banana are the result of human action, not God's design.
All you're talking about is micro-evolution or Variation.
Uh, no. It's more than just variation. You will not find a wild banana that looks anything like a domesticated banana. In fact, most people who see a wild banana don't recognize it as a banana. They're barely edible. The domesticated banana's characteristics do not fall within the natural range of variation of wild bananas. Human breeding led to NEW variaties of banana that are wholly unlike what is found in the wild. To use the language of the AIG people, breeding led to NEW information.
Variation is not in dispute. And variation doesn't support Macro-Evolution.
No, but the appearance of NEW varieties that were never seen before as a result of selection (natural or human)DOES support Macro-evolution.
So you're Ok with the notion that Jesus' mother's ancestors were monkeys? In spite of the clear teaching of scripture? Yeah, I guess you're right, one ought not argue about what words mean. After all, maybe there is no salvation, and maybe Jesus dosen't save. /s/
No. But who ever said the Blessed Virgin's ancestors were monkeys? Certainly not the theory of evolution.
Was she descended from non-human primates? Yes, just like everyone else.
In spite of the clear teaching of scripture?
Show me where the scriptures clearly teach that man has no common ancestry with beasts.
"I think we may be arguing the same point. The ultimate goal is salvation through Jesus. If that be the case, why argue about the meaning of days in Genesis and other arbitrary factoids that people some folks seem to dwell on. I am not trying to minimize the scripture, but people have gleaned individual quotes out of the bible to serve their own purposes. These motivations were usually those of man and not those of G_d. Slavery would be a good example.
I have enjoyed our discussion thus far."
Heheheh...I didn't realize we were arguing, thought we were just rattlin'! haha
I don't disagree with that logic on salvation. The important thing is that it happened. Or even that man uses some passages for their own agenda. I think Jesus' point on slavery is more in relation of obedience (especially when many people of the day sold themselves in slavery) and how that translates to a form of obedience to God. Much in the same way we are commanded to be obedient to God, to parents, etc. and turn the other cheek if offended. Obedience to the things of men (like complying with civil law, tax laws, etc) is a reflection of our obedience and commitment to God--because that what He desires.
I think the idea of arguing on points about Genesis is important because it threatens the validity of the Scriptures. Too many times today, many try to question the legitmacy of Genesis as a way or method to discredit the Bible. And if Genesis is wrong, this brings in question what other parts of the Bible are wrong? Yes, I'm a literalist. I believe the Scriptures are correct and without error.
It has been an enjoyable exchange. :)
Now if Moses wanted us to believe that the days in Genesis were longer than a day he would have used the word thousands(generations) like he did in passage 6 and not "day".
Actors or Looking?? ;^)
You are BLESSED for not knowing!
A coin rubbing?
I know, but SOME Evo's will JUMP on the EXACT wording of something - just like me! ;^)
I read today's paper in English; but I STILL don't know what's going on in this country!!!
Right........
Our 4 thumbed 'cousins' can open them easier!
HMmmm... Why haven't WE 'evolved' a foot thumb? It'd be a LOT easier to get yer socks up offa the floor!
Maybe our shoe wearing habit has eliminated the 'pressure' to HAVE a thumb there!
I've always been curious as to why evolution would have caused man to LOSE his hair, which would seem to be a distinct disadvantage as then man would have to waste time and resources to provide for himself coverings to protect against the elements. You'd think that the ones that didn't have to expend the extra energy to do that would have more time to find food and thereby increase chances of survival. Not to mention, not dying from exposure.
It was a really, really bad movie.
I don't want to give myself away here. ;)
Rejecting Kent Hovind is a step. Eleven more to go.
I have enjoyed the exchange. I do enjoy discussions with other freepers.
Freep out!
If we had all that hair, what would be the fun in getting nekkid?
Naked vs. Nekkid as defined by the late great Lewis Grizzard.
Naked: You have no clothes on.
Nekkid: You have no clothes on and are foolin' around.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.