This is what I get-
A simple-minded man once maintained that the story of Pinocchio was true. A wooden doll did become a human being. He not only believed that it was true, but he maintained and that he had evidence to back it up. He said that its proof was that there was such a thing as a wooden doll of the type spoken of in the story, and that it has been also proven that there was once a child that looked like that doll. Therefore, in his mind, that was evidence that the wooden doll came to life. He didn’t see the disconnect between the two thoughts.
Then he said that his theory was scientific, he was intelligent, and anyone who didn’t believe as he believed was unintelligent and unscientific. Yet everyone knew that non-life cannot become life.
Ray Comfort brings up this story of a mystery man believing something on anecdotal evidence, who claims it is scientific (and by the way, claiming something scientific does not make it so). Why would Ray tell us this story? The hint is in the final sentence. A nickel if you guess what he’s going to write about next…
Such describes the modern atheist. He has an adamant belief that there’s no evidence that there are any gods, and yet he himself is part of life. He believes that non-life produced life, and he doesn’t see the disconnect. Then he tries to justify his belief by embracing the wild speculation of Darwinian evolution, the theory that he believes is "not complete but is more compelling than believing in magic."While I certainly wouldn’t state that all atheists have an adamant belief that there’s absolutely no evidence that there are any gods (and God with a capital “g” too Ray, your God isn’t any exception), I would ask that if he does, so what? The only thing you should be able to do before you criticize this atheist is demonstrate that there is evidence for a god claim. And if you make a God claim, and fail to demonstrate how it is true, then anybody is justified in disbelieving your claim and stating there is no evidence (that we know of) for it.
Ray then goes on to say that the atheist believes life came from non-life. You see, Ray Comfort is a man who offers his readers nothing but gross characterizations, false dichotomies, and straw men fallacies. The fact that we may admit not knowing how the universe originally began automatically makes Ray assume we mean nothing came from something. That’s untrue. Also, because we do not know how the universe originally began automatically makes Ray assume that God must’ve done it. He still fails to demonstrate how this is true, not realizing that when you posit a positive belief you should have evidence to back the assertion up lest you be condemned to false beliefs. Then, like is custom for Ray, he ties the theory of evolution into his post (no surprise there).
I have practiced magic for many years, and have watched the astounded expressions of thousands of people whose eyes where easily fooled by my hands. Prestidigitation has taught me that human beings are extremely gullible, and never has there been such mass gullibility as with the case of those whose believe the theory of evolution without compelling evidence. For them, a bump on a whale-bone becomes positive proof that whales had legs, or some amino acid means that chickens were once dinosaurs. Obscure non-transitional fossils become attestation that humans are actually primates. This is the conviction of the simple-minded, who believe anything that paleontologists and professors pontificate.I agree, people who accept the theory of evolution without looking at the evidence are gullible- fortunately, most rational people I know have indeed analyzed the evidence. Ray Comfort may understand that his statements are either gross mischaracterizations or flat out lies, but he either does not know or care. If he does not know, he should do some more research on his part and read the comments on his own blog to gain a better understanding; if he indeed does not care, however, then he is intellectually dishonest. His last sentence, besides being mildly insulting, is highly ironic. Ray Comfort is a man who will believe anything in that canon of 66 books written long ago. Do the claims in these books have to be substantiated? No. That’s good enough for Ray.
No doubt the argument will continue until Kingdom come between those that love God, and those that don’t. But I have looked at the "evidence" for evolution, and I don’t believe as they do. I am not afraid of their "starter information" because their "finish" doesn't exist.
Ray offers up a false dichotomy: Either you accept evolution and hate god, or you love God and reject evolution. Not everybody who accepts the theory of evolution is an atheist. There are many Christians who accept the evolution (Kenneth Miller, for starters).
I choose rather the evidence that is backed up by the power of the Creator, who promises to reveal Himself to those that obey Him (see John 14:21). There is no greater evidence for truth. When God reveals himself to any human being, the argument is over.
Ray Comfort, there is greater evidence than that for truth- any evidence at all.
On a side note, I decided to turn on word verification for the time being- these spam attacks became worse than I thought. I hope you don't mind.