Ray Comfort explains why True Christians can’t believe in evolution, or the water cycle

Ray Comfort — crusader against the evils of theistic evolution and theistic water cyclism.

Despite some evidence to the contrary, I really don’t spend much time on the Facebook pages of Ray Comfort or Ken Ham. Honestly, I avoid those pits of childish fallacies and moralistic, martyrly drivel like I avoid “The O’Reilly Factor” and Glenn Beck. My sanity can’t take it.

But, nevertheless, I did brave the descent to the Facebook domain of none other than Banana Ray this morning, at the suggestion of one of our clandestine operatives whose constitution is apparently much stronger than mine. Our operative said ol’ RayCo had recently posted a nugget of his world-famous wisdom that he thought we might find interesting, and boy was he ever right.

You see, Ray Comfort — crusader for justice and reason in a dark world that refuses to recognize that the banana, the lack of a crocoduck, and the fact that you can’t be stopped on the sidewalk and make a rose appear out of nothing, is all proof of God’s existence — is again trying to help me fix my fringe view that Christianity and evolution need not be mutually exclusive.

Confronted with the reality that his latest film, “Evolution vs. God,” is so mind-numbingly terrible that even fellow evangelical Christians can’t stomach it, RayCo has pivoted to employ a brilliant tactic called the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Rather than defend his apparent belief that selectively editing scientists to make them look stupid and using the “Jesus of the gaps” argument are great evangelism techniques, RayCo simply outs his religious critics as not True Christians™.

Because, after all, if I’m not a True Christian™, then it’s really no surprise that I would hate his movie, right? If I’m not a True Christian™, then I’m basically an atheist.

RayCo’s response to my review last week, “A Christian who believes in evolution is like an atheist who believes in God,” was more than enough to convince me of that truth. But the great man graciously deigned to offer us misguided fools even more of his corrective wisdom yesterday, in the following post. Though I would, of course, never think myself worthy to match wits with RayCo, I humbly submitted a response on Facebook, and also touched up the following screenshot with a bit of snarky green text:

Ray Comfort Facebook green text

This matter has, tragically, escaped RayCo’s attention until now, but any Christian knows that the water cycle — atheistic scientists’ attempt to explain atmospheric conditions without God — is just as unbiblical as evolution. The Bible is clear and consistent: Precipitation comes from God alone, not some messy, unguided process of “evaporation” and “condensation.” See Deuteronomy 28:12, Job 38:22-30 and Psalm 147:8 if your faith needs a booster shot.

Even Jesus said so. In Matthew 5:45, he said, “God sends the rain,” not “Undirected physical processes like evaporation and condensation send the rain.”

And, really, what empirical scientific evidence is there that the water cycle even exists? Have you ever seen water evaporate? Have you ever seen it condensate in the troposphere? Have scientists ever created a rainstorm in their laboratories? No? THEN WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN IT?

I’m joking here, but seriously, what is the difference? Why in the world is theistic evolution “idolatry,” but theistic water cyclism is A-OK? What is so wrong with thinking that the same God who uses a natural process to send the rain upon the earth, would also use a natural process when he filled this planet with life?

To find out, we may all have to wait until RayCo’s next project: “Meteorology vs. God.”

Tyler Francke

  • Bill Wilson

    Brilliant!

  • Bill Wilson

    You know, Jesus also said that the mustard seed is smaller than any others. But godless botanists say Jesus was wrong. I suppose no real Christian can believe in botany.

    • Not only that, but he said that a wheat kernel produces many seeds after it dies (John 12:23-24), which also isn’t true, of course. So either Jesus flunked botany, or he had no problem accommodating people’s inaccurate views of the physical world in order to share a deeper theological truth.

      • Bill Wilson

        Now you’re sounding like a dirty liberal!

        Great blog! I’d like to invite you to check out mine at http://www.leavingtheflock.com. Peace.

        • Thanks for the invite! I just checked it out and it looks pretty cool. I’ll be following your posts from now on!

    • MacFly1

      The original scripture in Hewbrew was added onto by later imperfect scribes in their imperfect world views in their imperfect translations. The original scripture in the earliest (best) manuscripts says:

      “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field; But when it is grown, it is greater than the herbs, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in its branches.”

      Added later in the first sentence was: …”which indeed is smaller than all seeds.”

      • Bill Wilson

        If you don’t have access to the original texts, how can you know it was perfect?

        • Bill Wilson

          And how do you know the remark abut the smallness of the seeds was not in the original

          • LOL. Did a quick Google search on MacFly’s “original scripture in the earliest manuscripts.” Didn’t find much:

          • Bill Wilson

            I’m shocked!

          • Bill Wilson

            But MacFly is probably a very insecure person who needs his beliefs as a buttress against the world’s ugly realities. if he derives personal comfort and some sort of moral compass from them, then let him have them. I just don’t want his views to spread.

          • Being someone who probably agrees with MacFly on most, if not all, of his core theological tenets (the existence of God, the love of God, the divinity of Christ, the problem of sin, the possibility of salvation, etc.), it bothers me to see a brother spout dishonest nonsense in defense of a non-essential doctrinal issue. So, regardless of whether his views about evolution and Genesis give him “comfort” or not, I’d rather he reflect on them and whether his comments and views as he has expressed them here are really in any way remotely helpful to the cause of Christ.

          • Toddy

            Also… amazing how the original was in Hebrew and not in Greek, like all the other manuscripts. Also amazing how absolutely no-one quotes this original verse, nor is this textual variant listed at all. Also amazing, because this original totally destroys the point of the later understanding of the parable. Hooray for scientific accuracy at the expense of teaching about the kingdom!

          • Young-earthers: 1 — Kingdom of Heaven: 0

            Hooray!

          • :laughing: Is he a King James Onlyist?

          • Norwegian

            I’m not religious myself. However, a quick google search actually confirmes that “smallest” probably was a bad translation in King James version. I googled “Parable of the mustard seed”. Also, something about “…it is sufficient to know that ‘small as a grain of mustard seed’ was a proverbial expression among the Jews for something exceedingly minute”.

            -N-

  • Isa Kocher

    less extreme but more to the poınt ıs creatıonısts’ rejectıon of geology plate tectonıcs astronomy astrophysics physics, the facts of science medicine engineering psychology anthropology agronomy …no genetically modified organisms GMO because no genes.

    fundamental to biological evolution is the age of the earth. fossils help measure its age. every piece of earth and sky we know today is a product of literally billions of years of cell activity. the basic facts of the universe itself are rejected by creationists. virtually all of science. stars galaxies singularities all the facts of the universe discovered in the last 100 years all are rejected by creationists. all the fundamental processes that make up reality. if there were no big bang there are no electrons. if there was no evolution over tens of billions of years none of the metals we use in modern electronics could exist. hence without the science they reject we could not have the Internet. it could not exist.

  • Occupy Christianity

    Idolaters of the world, unite!

  • Linda

    As a Catholic (I use the term loosely) I don’t understand people like Ray Comfort. Why are they so against the theory of evolution? What about science do they fear? Do they think the Bible is clear about everything? Do they believe the Bible is to be taken literally? Talking serpents? Hundreds of translations, NO, Jesus did not speak English (good one!)… My spirituality is based on faith, intuition. My respect for science is based on fact, evidence. I have no problem fitting both into my life.

    • Hey Linda, thanks for your comment. I grew up Catholic and though I don’t really identify as such anymore, I do have great respect for some of the rich history and traditions of the Catholic Church. I also appreciate the church’s stance on evolution, to which it has been officially open since Pope John Paul II.

    • MacFly1

      Why do you set up straw horsies to knock down? Who said they think the Bible is clear about everything? Who said they fear science. Nobody. That’s your assumptions. They believe the original Bible was directly received by the prophets from God.

      I don’t see what this is so difficult to believe. If God can create the planets and solar systems in perfect mathematical alignment then why is it so hard to believe that he could create a book by influencing the very people he created? Sounds like a childish temper tantrum to me. Go on, admit it. You don’t really believe God created anything because you don’t believe in God. Isn’t that right? Its okay to believe that but you should be honest with yourself.

      • Bill Wilson

        Do you really think those personal comments will do any good whatsoever?

  • Will

    This article is sheer genius!

  • Chris luchies

    As a practicing evangelical young earth creationist I have to ask why you presuppose that theories that were invented a thousand years after the Bible was written should be placed as truth within the context of the bible. This is considered a fallacy by the church and is classified as eisegesis. You are reading something into the text that does not exist in the text. Though the text may not be literal it still must be read as a text and not as a guide. The religion of Evolution states that over a period of a billion or so years. Approximately or maybe a couple million or something like that a process of random events happened in such a perfect set of coincidences that two dense particles that cannot be proven to exist collided in the almost infinite expanse of space which somehow has never happened again in the “time frame” of evolution. This rapid explosion then somehow formed a bunch of gases to perfectly combine into perfect unison that took intelligent beings like ourselves millions of years to discover. These things soon became planets brimming with micro organisms that were being struck by a cosmic storm which somehow randomly without order created life and somehow did not immediately kill it again. This life form then found another life form created in the random chaos that still did not kill them. I guess the uncreated perfection a shell or something because natural selection maybe… Then they bred and had babies who moved away from home and what, changed because they didn’t doe moving away from the perfect habitat for them. This perfect set of random occurrences then created monkeys, maybe bananas or something else that shares 12 or more chromosomes with us which then turned from semi intelligent beings into smart conscious driving humans who have a capacity for emption that does not exist within anything we may have evolved from. See great topic an i loved how it was dripping with sarcasm. Kinda like this! Blessings on you! Also consider why God would decide to set such a random chance of occurances in place

    • As a practicing evangelical young earth creationist I have to ask why you presuppose that theories that were invented a thousand years after the Bible was written should be placed as truth within the context of the bible.

      How right you are! I hope you do also reject the ideas that earth is round and orbits the sun, as well as the notion that the sky is not a solid dome called the firmament. Nasty, heretical stuff that is. Also, you really shouldn’t be using the Internet. The Bible says nothing about that technology, so it probably doesn’t actually exist. Or it may be demonic.

      Most of your response has absolutely nothing to do with the evolutionary process. The parts of it that were relevant were horribly misinformed.

      Also consider why God would decide to set such a random chance of occurances in place

      God can do whatever he likes.

      • Chris luchies

        I believe God is a God of amazing power and yes i understand that you believe sarcasm proes your point but how do you avoid bible verses such as romans 1:18-31 which says that people who rejected creation thought themselves wise and yet were fools? This verse cannot be avoided. And if it can how can you claim any specific point in the Bible is true? 2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is God breathed..” This includes all of Genesis and everything I quote in this statement. However i know your standpoint on oh, it’s english and thus must be improperly translated or misrepresented because of the time. However going to the greek the translation is sound for these verses. Do you accept that God is real because if you do you trust his word. If you trust his word you believe 2 timothy 3:16 if you believe that you understand Romans 1:18-31 to be truth and sound meaning that theistic evolution weather you mean the evolution that I described or a eveolution based around God’s general guidance but not power because he let his creation do all the work for Him is foolishness. Your a smart man, you can back up your point but i have logic too. My logic looks at scripture and sees a direct assult against these kinds of viewpoints and actually calls people out on it. 2 Peter 2:1-2,12 speaks on false teachers. People who will lead people away from the true God with Herisies! If you don’t believe in creation because Science has a “better explanation” how do you believe Jesus rose from the dead because that Is important read Romans!! If you believe science an can’t trust the bible how do we believe he walked on water, fed 15000 people if you add the women and children in with 5 loaves of bread and two fish. How can you explain the miracles of Jesus! And if you Deny Jesus how are you a theistic evolutionist anyway since you deny God! And yes jesus is God!

        • how do you avoid bible verses such as romans 1:18-31 which says that people who rejected creation thought themselves wise and yet were fools? This verse cannot be avoided.

          Re-read the passage, brother. It says people the people rejected God, not creation, and that their foolish hearts were darkened because they refused to glorify or thank God even though they knew him. I do not reject God, nor do I in any way seek to take away credit or glory that belongs entirely to him.

          The passage, in fact, supports my view, since it encourages the work of science because it says what can be known about God is plain in what has been made. Therefore, to deny, reject and obfuscate the scientific evidence, as the YECs do, is decidedly un-Christian.

          Do you accept that God is real because if you do you trust his word.

          Absolutely. I believe all of scripture is God-breathed. That doesn’t mean it’s all literal.

          2 Peter 2:1-2,12 speaks on false teachers.

          Yes, it does, and it is not at all specific. It can apply every bit as much to groups like Answers in Genesis as it could to a theistic evolutionist. It could apply to practically anyone, so how do you know what’s right and what’s wrong? Test everything, hold fast to what is good.

          If you don’t believe in creation because Science has a “better explanation” how do you believe Jesus rose from the dead because that Is important read Romans!! If you believe science an can’t trust the bible how do we believe he walked on water, fed 15000 people if you add the women and children in with 5 loaves of bread and two fish. How can you explain the miracles of Jesus! And if you Deny Jesus how are you a theistic evolutionist anyway since you deny God! And yes jesus is God!

          Nice use of exclamation points here, but you’re equivocating two things that are not at all the same. Yes, I believe Jesus is God and the Son of God, I believe he lived as a man, performed miracles, died and rose again on the third day.

          You accept science in most things. You use the Internet and computers, obviously. You probably also use motor vehicles, television, a mobile phone, medicine. You probably accept what science has shown us about dead people as much as I do: They do not, under normal circumstances, rise from the dead.

          But that’s not the question at hand, is it? Neither of us dispute that point. We both believe the Resurrection was a miracle. So the only way science could disprove the Resurrection would be to offer evidence that God is incapable of performing such a miracle.

          Now, here’s the difference with the literal Genesis. I believe in the Resurrection DESPITE the lack of non-biblical evidence, for or against. However, the idea that the universe is less than 10,000 years old has, literally, mountains of evidence against it. The only possible way that the earth is that young is that God wanted us to think it is billions of years old even though it isn’t. I don’t believe God is a man that he should lie, therefore, I accept that the earth is old, and parts of Genesis aren’t meant to be taken literally. It’s that simple.

          • Chris luchies

            Where does the literal trabslation start in Genesis. If all is not literal why worry about sin? If the whole of Genesis is not real Adam and Eve did not place sin within our hearts. And if only the first two chapters of Genesis are not literal how can you differentiate between the non-literal and the literal?

          • You’re asking all the wrong questions and you’re completely misrepresenting my view. I believe Genesis 1-3 are deeply symbolic accounts of real events, the primary purpose of which is to convey theological truth, not scientific or historic truth. In other words, I do believe there was a very real creation and a very real fall of man, but Genesis 1-3 do not convey the literal and historical details of those events because those details aren’t important. Instead, Genesis 1-3 conveys the theological truths about those events, because those are the details that really matter, and those are the details that we would not be able to obtain except by the revelation of the Holy Spirit.

  • Herro

    What’s the point of the “Jesus spoke English?” comment? You yourself quote Jesus in English. :S

    • Yeah, I didn’t really have a “point” with that. Just trying to be slightly funny. What can I say? I know it’s not my best effort 🙂

  • h2omanz

    It was a well known/used analogy that a mustard seed was used to
    describe several things that ‘started out small’. The black mustard seed
    was the smallest known in the area. Jesus used Greek
    apophthegmas(sp?) to relate to the low intellect of the time to communicate
    effectively as He often did, He was far from botanically challenged.
    Wheat kernels are in regard to His death and many that will be
    ‘produced’ after He’s gone. Again the kernel rots(outer shell dies) away for
    new grow. If God created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th,
    makes no sense they are eons of time. Not
    literal in Genesis? But is all the 1000+other times its used in the
    Bible? ‘Yom’ + a # always refers to a 24hr period, sunrise to
    sunset. Old aged earth is a fairly new concept, created to reinterpt the
    strata, but it was used/pursued and ‘facts’ where wrapped around the
    theory to do away with God, quoted as “To do away with/or free science
    from Moses”, all base on non scientific evidence. Going strong ever
    since. But to connect the two, ToE and God is odd as they are polar
    opposites, and are used to appease both religious and science, best of
    both worlds. Doesn’t work.

    • All things hold together in Christ, and all truth belongs to him. All things that have been made were made through Christ, therefore we can and should expect that what we discover in creation will be true, just as we have the same expectation in reading scripture. Both creation and the Bible proceeded from God, therefore, neither can lie and they cannot be in conflict. There is no scientific reason to reject the theory of evolution, and there is no biblical reason to declare that Genesis 1-3 must be interpreted literally.

      • h2omanz

        True as for evolution to be true does not take God out of the picture. Unfortunately (for me at least)doesn’t work. But if a ‘new’ theory that is not scientific, fails the definition and method of what makes science, science its not hard to see it for what it is, a lie. It began as one and continues as one. If it started out unscientific, it some how ‘evolved’ to be scientific, no. Like I stated in my last post. The theory was contrived to do away with God. To show God had no part in creation. Why anyone would believe a godless religion concocted just for this purpose then amalgamate the two as if they can work harmoniously is beyond me, but again your right, your choice to believe what you want.
        The modern founders of geology academia formed and taught at universities again did so on what evidences? Not science, not even close. And ever since earth sciences have sought after and only want natural explanations, science has become bias.This is whats funded, this is what the grants pay towards. ‘Science’ has been wrapping half truths and extrapolation around it since the late 1800s. This is what its always done, since its not truth, hoaxes, lies and false evidences are constantly revealed for what it is, a godless religion that holds no truth, has to continually change, or better excuse itself as its exposed. If death came before sin, then it cannot be the retribution of it and all that Jesus stands for is a lie. If Genesis 1-3 are not to be taken literal then am I to believe Gen 1:20-26 are not as well? These verses tells us exactly what real science shows us kinds or commonly labeled today as genera or family, things produce after themselves not beyond. Not the extrapolated version of what real evidence and real science shows us.

        • I am having a difficult time following you, but I can gather enough to tell that you are a very enlightened individual who understands science far better than I do. So perhaps you can explain this to me: If humans and animals produce only after their kind, then why does the fossil record show a clear progression from simple life forms in the lowest and most ancient rock layers all the way up to the modern forms we see today? If everything was made at the same time, why have we never found a rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian, or a single human tooth in the Devonian?

          • h2omanz

            Why do Evolutionists use this as evidence yet ignore the fact of the explosion in the same strata with no predecessors. A puzzling phenomena that is backwards, opposed to Darwinism. Microfossils(eukaryotes) that ‘are’ billion(s) years old found in the strata labeled at 1/2 that? Or why are the thousands of fossils that turn up in the wrong order/strata which are discovered on a daily basis ignored or excused?Could it have something to do with real dates? Not an old earth? Known as a non-sequitur, popularize by one of Dawkin’s(#1 embarrassment to Atheists) book. No rabbit then ToE rings true. Now do you think if one was found it would falsify ToE?(I tell you it’d be anything even aliens before a God was a possibility). Orrr…:) would it cause the theory to be reworked and re-dated? I mean this is exactly what has and DOES happen, and how the problem is always handled. We have found the equiv of a modern octopus in the Cretaceous, as well as a modern whale bone that ARE the “rabbits in the Precambrian”. Both modern(with slight variation) just like we have today, both dated at millions of years old and but millions of years out of line with the evotree. The whale fossil(believe was a hip bone) predates the land animal(wolf/deer-like creature)in which it evolved from, by 100s of millions of years, same with the octopus which is pushed back into the Jurassic era ‘now’ due to the finds. Same thing if a rabbit was found, the strata and/or data/find would be adjusted. The conclusion are always labeled as date errors, not the theory false. Yet prediction is to be ToE best evidences. These 2 finds alone throw the theory in the water, they are the rabbits, yet ToE still pushes on.

            As far as layered finds, sea/small creatures would be the first to go in a catastrophic evident such as a global flood. With animals and humans moving to higher grounds, the last to go/found as layered fossils. Living fossils/Cam explosion do not side with your stance/question on clear progression of simple to complex.

          • The Cambrian explosion — which I’m guessing is what you’re referring to, may be opposed to “Darwinism” (a make-believe concept that primarily exists only in the minds and writings of young-earth creationists), but it’s not opposed to the theory of evolution. The theory predicts only that the creatures had predecessors, not that the predecessors would have been fossilized or that we would find the fossils. We know the fossil record is incomplete, because fossilization is exceptionally rare in nature.

            The Cambrian “explosion” describes the relatively rapid appearance of most — but not all — of the major extant phyla, within about a 10-million-year-long window — which is an exceptionally long period of time. We had indeed found predecessors for some of these forms, but not all. However, given all the other evidence for evolution, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how the Cambrian explosion could not have been accomplished by natural evolution. One would have to show more than just that new forms appeared slightly more rapidly during this period than they typically do (that is undisputed); you would have to show that it is impossible for evolution by natural selection to produce that kind of diversity in “only” 10 million years. Good luck with that.

            The discovery of the octopus fossils didn’t cause a significant reworking of any evolutionary model. Being invertebrates, octopuses fossilize even more rarely than most creatures, so scientists had little to go on in analyzing their evolutionary past. Of the five octopus fossils that were part of the discovery, only one was significantly similar to its modern counterpart. No idea what you’re babbling about re: the modern whale bone. Please provide the creationist site from which you learned about this amazing discovery and I’ll happily explain it for you.

            As far as layered finds, sea/small creatures would be the first to go in a catastrophic evident such as a global flood. With animals and humans moving to higher grounds, the last to go/found as layered fossils.

            I see. I’m curious as to how exactly sea creatures managed to get themselves buried in a flood? Being, you know, sea creatures, you’d think they’d be able to swim their way right through all the death and destruction, so I’m confused as to how any of them would be fossilized at all.

            Also, why don’t we find very fast moving animals, like velociraptors and ornithopods, always appearing higher than very slow moving animals, like sloths and elephants? Or, for that matter, why have we never found a single modern grass or flowering plant below the dinosaurs? Plants wouldn’t have been hydrologically sorted at all. Or, in your model, do flowers have the ability to flee the flood as well?

          • h2omanz

            The Cambrian explosion — which I’m guessing is what you’re referring to, may be opposed to “Darwinism” (a make-believe concept that primarily exists only in the minds and writings of young-earth creationists), but it’s not opposed to the theory of evolution. The theory predicts only that the creatures had predecessors, not that the predecessors would have been fossilized or that we would find the fossils. We know the fossil record is incomplete, because fossilization is exceptionally rare in nature.
            • The Cam explosion is not a make-believe yec concept, it is widely know by evolutionists commonly named as the early period of the Cambrian. And yes it goes against ToE as it is much too rapid for the slow gradualism of the theory, and yes a big problem for ToE. Too fast for so many, way too many need ‘successful’ mutation successions and time for the weeding of natural selection to create what we find… fully formed creatures. So if stating you can find creatures, 1000s upon 1000s but no predecessors, is seriously a good defense for what? Def not in fav of ToE. The layers under the Cam(in some areas of the world) have perfect grounds for preservation, and we do find things like sponges well preserved, not finding due to the rarity but have plenty of the successors is daft. Nearly all phyla is created in this era in 5-10 million years or less, from virtually nothing to everything, is in a evolutionary timescale, overnight/a blink of an eye according to the geo timescale, sorry but that’s a ridiculous to claim its a long period, and long enough period for all this to occur.
            _________
            The Cambrian “explosion” describes the relatively rapid appearance of most — but not all — of the major extant phyla, within about a 10-million-year-long window — which is an exceptionally long period of time. We had indeed found predecessors for some of these forms, but not all. However, given all the other evidence for evolution, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how the Cambrian explosion could not have been accomplished by natural evolution. One would have to show more than just that new forms appeared slightly more rapidly during this period than they typically do (that is undisputed); you would have to show that it is impossible for evolution by natural selection to produce that kind of diversity in “only” 10 million years. Good luck with t hat.
            • 5-10million years is not enough time, not even close. What predecessors, eg? Sponges and microfossils, actually not much there at all to be honest. Where are all the transitions? There should be thousands of examples, but instead..poof! The burden of proof would be on me? Giving the time needed its insufficient, the burden is on the theory to prove how the impossible can become possible. Since it cannot explain it, oddities such as Punctuated equilibrium(and a few other theories) are used/better dreamt up to fill the hole to excuse. The good luck needed would be to show HOW it could work that fast. Not only that where are all the common ancestors? You are giving me an opposite of how evolution chiefly works, opposed to the theory. Makes the theory unsinkable, now ToE can do it all, and cannot be disproved period with this mindset. Seems all angles are tighten for a theory that can never fail to be shown as false. Self corrects and is always true.
            _________
            The discovery of the octopus fossils didn’t cause a significant reworking of any evolutionary model. Being invertebrates, octopuses fossilize even more rarely than most creatures, so scientists had little to go on in analyzing their evolutionary past. Of the five octopus fossils that were part of the discovery, only one was significantly similar to its modern counterpart. No idea what you’re babbling about re: the modern whale bone. Please provide the creationist site from which you learned about this amazing discovery and I’ll happily explain it for you.

            •Correct invert fossils are extremely rare, especially the octopus. Yet when it has been found it HAS set evos into panic mode. One more of the 1000s of living fossils we find. Oddly these scientists are looking for every single difference from moderns to show it evolved ‘somewhat’, problem is the same differs are found within species of Octopus today, sight variations. Creations site? That or my 1000s of pages of notes from 20+yrs of personal study. Where do you get your info? Are your answers from you, google? The whale fossil was actually a jawbone(not hip) in the Antarctica(Paleontologist Marcelo Reguero) reported by Msnbc, Evoscientist dated it and would again do the impossible of whale evolution done in a few million years. A complete body restructure from amphibians. Rework the dates, because the dates must be wrong, never the theory. So yes pls explain it to me.
            _________
            As far as layered finds, sea/small creatures would be the first to go in a catastrophic evident such as a global flood. With animals and humans moving to higher grounds, the last to go/found as layered fossils.
            I see. I’m curious as to how exactly sea creatures managed to get themselves buried in a flood? Being, you know, sea creatures, you’d think they’d be able to swim their way right through all the death and destruction, so I’m confused as to how any of them would be fossilized at all.
            • Well, if you knew ‘shallow’ marine fossils make up 95% of all fossils. Sea life found ontop of mts. are proof the earth was different, after the flood water recedes…you would have marine fossils in the shallows, buried by the flood. Huge amounts and walls of mud would bury creatures alive in an instant. All the marine as well as trees/animals show rapid/catastrophic burials by position as well as mass graveyards. Gene pools/habitat alone answers why we would find creatures in differ layers, why some are found here and others not.

            _________
            Also, why don’t we find very fast moving animals, like velociraptors and ornithopods, always appearing higher than very slow moving animals, like sloths and elephants? Or, for that matter, why have we never found a single modern grass or flowering plant below the dinosaurs? Plants wouldn’t have been hydrologically sorted at all. Or, in your model, do flowers have the ability to flee the flood as well?
            • Modern birds, plants, fish(all living fossils) have been found with dinosaurs. Nearly 500ish species/mammals with them. Even grass and rice which were supposedly millions of years away found with and inside of dinosaur poop (in India). Throws yet another curveball. The would it be safe to say flowers and dinos within a zillion gallons of flood water could be separated?
            So did Jesus die in vain? You never answered the question. If sin was the result of death, were the millions of years of death ignored prior? Romans 5:12. And why would one believe in a godless religion known as Naturalism and then include God? The philosophy was developed as an alternative to creation. As well it would be unguided/undirected process, and non purposed driven. God would have no hand in such a theory that is repaired by an error..thats what He means by creation? Done by mistakes? How could something labeled as DNA-Copying errors(simply put, accidents) be guided by a hand? An old earth was only brought forth as a way to do away with God, its sole purpose 150ish years ago. 24×6 was the creation, taught and well known as literal. Only until ‘A godless religion’ was formed and needed an old time frame or it simply wouldn’t work. Again just like I stated Yom+ a # and followed up with morn to eve is always a 24hr period. Stating the first chapters are not literal, kinda makes the rest of the 1100 chapters in question as to what is and what is not then. Not a book that can be trusted, would make all of its context questionable. God didn’t make a book of confusion. Mixing a modern day godless religion with God’s word and compromising the two makes for confusion and God warned about mixing pagan religions to appease/customize and suit your ideology.

          • Paul Foland

            All good points

  • meshuggahzen

    What if God is the one who set the water cycle? I’m thinking that is what is meant.

    • And what if God is the one who set up evolution? Would that really be so bad?

      • MacFly1

        No, I always believe that as I was taught in Sunday School about creation and in my public schools about evolution. I never could get any answers about that ridiculous “primordial soup,” so I fell away from the secular-humanist religion. I believe creation is how we came about and that evolution is just another yet to be proven theory. Adaptation within a species, yes. Evolution, nah ah. Still waiting for proof. It’ll never come, although every summer we’ll see in the papers how a new “dinosaur with feathers” proves (once again) birds came from dynos.

        • Thank goodness for all of us that scientific progress isn’t dependent on laypeople’s inability to understand or refusal to accept the available evidence.

        • Simeon Davis

          “Adaptation within a species, yes.” So you are one of those people who do not even know what evolution is. You said yes to micro evolution. If you believe that, then over long stretches of time, you will get macro evolution. See, you believed in evolution on accident! Welcome to the club!

        • JohnMac

          Quote: ‘I never could get any answers about that ridiculous “primordial soup’

          Quote: ‘although every summer we’ll see in the papers how a new “dinosaur with feathers” proves (once again) birds came from dynos.’

          Birds are classified as dinosaurs. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution by the way. Actually knowing what you are talking about really helps when you are trying to prove or disprove something.

  • Mr Bob

    A true believer in evolutionism would understand why evolution and creation ARE mutually exclusive.

    • Evolution — like logic and reason and every scrap of scientific evidence we have — is inconsistent with the idea that the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago. However, evolution as it is understood scientifically certainly does not preclude God’s sovereignty over it or involvement within it, any more than the water cycle makes Jesus a liar for identifying God as the source of rain in Matthew 5:45. Evolution and the water cycle are processes he uses — his tools — but he is still the Creator. “For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.” — Hebrews 3:4

      • MacFly1

        One translation I read from a rabbinical scholar said that where the original Hebrew said “the earth was void and without form,” indicated a great war had destroyed the earth. I think creation is way older than our history tells us. I also believe in the Bible as the literal word of God. The Great Sphinx of Giza is probably much older than historians have thought as the water that is shown by some to have worn down the base of the Sphinx was in that area at a much earlier time.

  • Dylan

    I know this is an older article, but I love your work. It is nice to see a devout person who accepts evolution.

    I for one take Abraham onwards as literal history(or close to it). Save of course for stuff like Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and other obvious metaphors and such.

    • Thanks, Dylan 🙂 I appreciate it!

    • MacFly1

      And that part about where God created the heavens and the earth.

  • MacFly1

    I couldn’t get past your “Jesus spoke English?” comment. Talk about stupid and you accuse Ray of being dumb. Sheez. You have no real points to make. So you don’t agree with him. So what? Nobody cares.

    • Speaking of having “no real points to make,” way to illustrate the golden rule of young-earth creationism: When you can’t refute your opponent, call him stupid.

  • Ray Comfort notwithstanding, there are a number of scholars, scientists, atheists, and Christians who all agree that evolution and Christianity are not compatible and that such a compromise leads to atheism. It’s easy to pick on Comfort but there are others harder to argue with. http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100&Itemid=54

    • For the atheists on that list, there is no “argument” to be had. I have very little interest in what someone who is not a Christian thinks about what Christians do or should believe. For the Christians on that list, they are certainly entitled to their opinion, and responding to their claims from a biblical perspective is what this site is all about. However, as a general overall comment, I’ll say that it’s not particularly surprising that people who profit off the idea that evolution is incompatible with Christianity…believe that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

  • Katherine

    Oh man! Comparing this to the water cycle is brilliant! I’m giving a speech at school about reconciling evolution and belief in God. May I use this comparison (I would certainly cite your blog in my bibliography)? Obviously this wouldn’t be a main point, but I think it might be cool to use in the introduction. Thanks!

    • Of course you may, but thanks for asking! Glad you liked it 🙂

  • We’re all in trouble because it’s raining outside.

  • breed7

    Christians prove that God doesn’t exist — if he did exist, he would have made his followers intelligent. Yet, Christians are among the lowest-IQ people on the planet, only sharing that distinction with people of other religions.

    • Yeah, I’m afraid it’s a teeny bit more complicated than that. But thanks for your opinion anyway.

  • Truth Preacher

    This article is pathetic. If what Ken Ham or other Creation scientists are so bad, I would love to see you debate one of them. The slaughter they would administer upon you on scientific ground, and Biblical, would be enjoyable, and you wouldn’t sound so much like a lying, slandering Dawkins or Hitchens when speaking of people who are supposedly your brethren

    • I’ve extended an open invitation to dialogue to Ken Ham or any of his stable of young-earth apologists, but they have passed. Apparently, they are far more interested in taking potshots from the safety of their comment-disabled blogs than in actually engaging in any kind of a fair debate.

  • Truth Preacher

    What “fellow evangelicals” can’t stomach Ray’s movie? You don’t say. Its because they are probably of the Rob Bell variety, no doubt.

  • John Z

    While all these analogies are interesting and fun, they are also irrelevant and prove absolutely nothing. Even for the water cycle, scripture clearly describes rain coming from clouds, and drought being the condition of a lack of rain and drying up of the land. Ironically, even your irrelevant analogy falls falsely short: Scripture even describes the water cycle… Isaiah 55:10, Job 36:27. Will you have examples of where it describes a behemoth becoming a beluga?

    And then re Bill Wilson below: the mustard seed being the smallest of all seeds is ignoring the context. It is understood as the smallest of the garden seeds. While Mark 4 says it is smallest of all seeds, it makes sense in the context, regardless of any scientific contradictions, because it is clearly intended to be understood within the context of crops man plants. Just like saying that a particular boat is the smallest of all boats, is likely to be in the context of a boat that will carry a man, and not to include a boat that one could build on the tip of a pin.

    • Hi, John! So glad you found my site. Thanks for your copious comments that you have posted on various articles throughout today. I’ll do my best to respond.

      As to the part of this comment that pertains to me, analogies are not meant to “prove” anything, but they can be very effective in demonstrating the fallacies in another point of view, which was my purpose here. You’ll notice that my original article contained a number of scriptural references, too. The plain fact is that scripture is simply not consistent about the processes that produce rain — oftentimes, as referenced above, it talks about precipitation being stored in heavenly warehouses until God sees fit to disperse it. It’s interested that you reference Job 36 (in which a mere mortal is speaking), but ignore Job 38, in which God himself talks to Job about the “storehouses of snow” he keeps in heaven, cutting paths for rain and thunderstorms to flow and having knowledge of the “wombs” in which ice and frost are conceived.

      Of course, this is all only inconsistent if you’re reading the passages incorrectly, that is, if you’re reading the Bible as though its primary purpose was to convey scientific information, rather than spiritual and theological truth.

  • John Z

    And re Tyler Francke below, who demonstrates a lack of understanding of what is meant by death of the seed. As long as the seed lives, it cannot produce a plant, because it remains a seed with life in it. Once the seed gives up its life for the life of the plant, the seed deteriorates disappears, and the plant appears. Of course, a seed could also die without producing a plant… so that it has the appearance of a seed, but in fact is not, because it is merely a husk of death, even if well preserved, unable to either live or produce life through its own death. This is also a good analogy of some people.

    • I think you are deeply confused about what a seed is. It is not something different from a plant; it is a plant, just a plant in its first stage. The seed does not “die” and “disappear,” leaving a plant in its place; it becomes a plant.

      Your comment is like saying babies die and disappear, and children appear, and then the children die and disappear, and adults appear.

  • Vincent Valle

    I think this “Can’t be a Christian if…” stuff is helping drive young people away.

  • Rick

    I know this is missing the huge point here but this bothers me. Scientists have created a rain storm in the lab. So have third graders. It is called water distillation. That is a microcosm model of the water cycle.

    • It’s just satire, man. No one is really denying the water cycle.

      • Rick

        Sorry to reply like a million years later but no it isn’t. I talked to my Mom who is a Sunday School teacher and she confirmed that this is happening.

        • There are churches that explicitly deny the existence of the water cycle? Which ones?

          • Our Lady of Perpetual Precipitation
            The Antibaptists
            Church of Christ (Non-Evaporationist)
            The Humean Brethren

          • LOL.

  • Sheryl Liang

    Yes, scientists have created rainstorms and it’s here for you to see: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/03/scientists-create-52-artificial-rain-storms-in-abu-dhabi-desert/

    Condensation->condense. Condensate is a noun look it up.

    Have you seen your own computer’s hard drive and the cables of the internet’s inner workings? NO? If so, WHY do you believe in your computer (you’re trusting it to carry your information across online right now)

    All that aside..

    TRUE Christians know how to make proper decisions and avoid negative situations. Saying true Christians should be on the internet because their is negative influences there is the equivalent of saying they should not read books because there can be bad things there, or they should not go to the grocery store because there could be bad people there.
    If one sees something sinful, it is not a sin unless they react sinfully, so if a true Christian unintentionally saw something negative they would close it and it would not be a sin. That would be the same as witnessing someone shoplift; they did not participate, they only witnessed it.

    By your own words I would be a bad person. Since you have seen this negative thing, close your computer and go back to church (or read more below)

    http://www.kyroot.com/

    Feel free to delete my message and censor me for telling the truth. After all, most ministers lie about the how modern christianity came about and hint no christianity is not original and neither are most of its holidays.

    Censor me but remember my city and my country is predominantly made of people like me (atheists, satanists, non-devoted christians etc). I dare you to come here and change us. Beware of the extremists (satanists) though… they can get real smart verbally and debate the heck out of you. hell, they debate the heck out of us atheists pretty often too.

    • Hey Sheryl,

      He doesn’t say until the very end, but Tyler is being sarcastic. It’s a parody. He’s using bad argumentation to demonstrate how bad the argumentation is of Ray Comfort. He doesn’t really believe all that stuff about True Christians(tm) and the water cycle.

      • Thanks, Phil. I wasn’t sure what Sheryl was getting at.

  • Banana Man hasn’t read this diploma mill thesis as he really should rethink how he approaches the Genesis Creation Narrative and the flood narrative. You should see my tumblr blog entry just after engaging Hovind and his followers on the eve of my 38th birthday as it got R-rated and makes the drill instructor from Full Metal Jacket blush with the language. As an author the magazines who publish your short form work asks for a third person bio. In 2002 I was known for a true crime piece that played up like The Tell-Tale Heart as readers when read them back-to-back would be holding their jaw as it plays up much harder.
         A blog on Patheos in 2009 busted Ray Comfort for plagiarism of the introduction of The Origin of Species. RationalWiki actually chronicled this as it happened a year before I was dragged into the Shadow Dolls Plagiarism Scandal as I was scammed with two plagiarisms and was plagiarized. I then hammered into VampireFreaks for not saying something when I caught a plagiarist with my creative nonfiction story The Pattern of Diagnosis, the meta-fictional Stygian Dealer and my first novel Game Over.
         Plagiarism turns out to be quite common in the church (here’s another article that speaks of it)– I seen an editor (Jenny No Mates)accuse me of plagiarizing H. P. Lovecraft when I have a writing style that’s a dead on match but use modern language and similar methods when writing horror. I even held my own with the long dead greats as well as some of the modern luminaries. When I wrote The Cabbie Homicide in 2002 and The Pattern of Diagnosis in 2006 — CreativeNonfiction.org took notice at what I did. Some who read both pieces noticed I wrote at a much harder register than Poe or Lovecraft.
         The later drawn an eerie similarity to David Foster Wallace though I haven’t read his output until the 2010s. I didn’t spout every other sentence though had hinted to scripture or to some of the parables without even posting passages of them in The Pattern of Diagnosis. I took readers further into this piece on my tumblr.com and wordpress.com blogs as the doctor who made house calls — the company had a scripture verse on their business cards. I was wondering how much did Banana Man plagiarize of his body of work when you seen the plagiarism of the introduction of The Origin of Species. When I introduced my true crime piece it came from a very real and personal place as when I wrote The Pattern of Diagnosis in 2006, that was a once in a lifetime deal as there was no way I could had repeated the results of this.