In Ray's latest post, after some common building-builder-painting-painter rubbish, Ray writes,
I would say that creation is absolute 100% scientific proof that there is a Creator. A creation cannot create itself, from nothing. But that's what the atheist believes--that nothing created everything from nothing. That's a scientific impossibility, and only a fool would believe that.
This is where Ray misunderstands the atheist's position -- and I think deliberately so, because he's been around long enough that it's certainly been explained to him enough times (just like the debunking of the banana thing, which Ray continues to use, and how is that honest, Ray?):
The issue is not whether a creation implies a creator. The issue is whether the natural realm is a created artifact.
You haven't proven that it is. You've only insulted us. A person with a good argument doesn't use bad arguments, still less insults. Nor have you proven that nothing is the default, "natural" state of existence, from which "something" must have sprung. Science tells us that even a so-called "empty" vacuum is positively full of objects and events at the quantum level. Where's this nothing we're supposed to think we've come from, huh Ray?
And by the way, Ray, while you're on the subject of fools, perhaps you could tell us where in Matthew 5:17 we can find an exception for those who commit that particular crime by quoting a book. For your own sake.
Posts
I would suggest that he has deliberately gone back to his typical creation / creator argument because he knows that we all find it ridiculous and he'd very much like to entice us back (no doubt he'd say that Jebus was tugging on our heart or some other crap) to his blog.
ReplyDeleteI think he's baiting; he's just not very good at it.
Ray says,
ReplyDelete"I would say that creation is absolute 100% scientific proof that there is a Creator."
You say a lot of things, Ray. And I commend you for not saying creation is evidence of a creator, because it is not. It is good that you are getting away from that old worn out "proof."
You have now said it like it is.
"I would say,.."
The only thing you are an authority on is how to extract money for credulous people, same as every other TV Evangilist.
You are a Parasite sucking the life out of anybody you come in contact with.
The media end of your parasitic organization is failing and I can tell you why. Nobody is buying your horseshit.
You are no Benny Hinn or James Dobson. Evan Ted Haggard vastly outperformed you and probably Kent Hovind.
So niche out your way in relative obscurity because bigots like you are fading away.
Did I forget anything?
I did have to come to Ray's defense yesterday, in all fairness.
ReplyDeleteOne of my cronies said to me, "dale, Ray eats shit sandwiches." I said "Wooooaaaa! That can't be true! Ray doesn't like bread!"
What bothers me is that Ray did a whole post about how science can never know anything for sure; science is always changing. You can't trust science. Yet he has a book, or perhaps "padded tract" would be more accurate, that talks about scientific facts in the Bible, and in his most recent post about how creation is 100% scientific proof that there is a creator. He's such an inconsistent hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteGood ol' Ray sure is obsessed with us godless atheists, isn't he?
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting, how God allegedly made us meanies stay away, so Ray could "put his time to good use", and yet, all he can think to do is post more and more of his ridiculous anti-atheist screeds.
It's almost as if he misses us, isn't it? ;)
I don't think he has gone back to his debunked arguments to get us back. Have you seen the material on his ministry's site, such as the Atheist Test? It uses:
ReplyDelete* the banana argument
* the Coke can argument
* the builder argument
* absolute knowledge shtick.
I just checked out the noise coming from the Comfort Zoo and find this from Shiver(Curtis:)
ReplyDelete"I would love to see a trial go to court regarding creation vs evolution, truth vs deception."
He does not even know that event occured about two years ago in Dover, PA.
Judge Jones handed the creationist's their ass on a platter. NOT SCIENCE.
To include creationism as a science they would have had to include astrology too!
DisComforting Ignorance said...
ReplyDelete"I don't think he has gone back to his debunked arguments to get us back. Have you seen the material on his ministry's site, such as the Atheist Test? It uses:....."
Yeah, he's falling back on his original and core plan. He can't move ahead, obviously, because he is trapped in his dogma. No new message, no hope...staus quo...
It is obvious that Ray wants to branch out and become some super TVangelist, but his brand of religion precludes that.
Our society is moving on and they are not going to stand for being force-fed any one religious philosophy, especially one that was written by pre-scientific superstitionalist.
"You are no Benny Hinn or James Dobson. Evan Ted Haggard vastly outperformed you and probably Kent Hovind."
ReplyDeleteI wonder who gives the better rimjob, Haggard, or Ray? That mustache has got to get in the way!
"I just checked out the noise coming from the Comfort Zoo and find this from Shiver(Curtis:)
ReplyDelete"I would love to see a trial go to court regarding creation vs evolution, truth vs deception."
He does not even know that event occured about two years ago in Dover, PA.
Judge Jones handed the creationist's their ass on a platter. NOT SCIENCE.
To include creationism as a science they would have had to include astrology too!"
Dale,
No, ID is "science", remember? **wink wink** This poster obviously doesn't want to replace "science" with science. They want to replace science with scripture. ID is not fundamentalist enough for Ray's crowd.
Clos,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, but Judge Jones did infer that he considered ID to be dressed up creationism.
I think the ID proponents are creationists in disguise, and they know it. That comes from the Wedge Memo," although it was written about ten years ago, it outlined how to insert creationism into the schools with the new and dressed up version called ID.
But, as you said Ray's crowd, along with Ken Ham haven't hitched to that wagon yet.
Well, they are confident that their Ken Ham method of assessing truth is infallible. Since science is supposed to help find truth, and truth is what's in the Bible, anything not agreeing word for word with the Bible leads away from truth and is therefore not science. Like science for example.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible is true cuz it says so. That is plausible because it says not believing it is wrong.