The Most High vs Evolution

Ain’t that the truth, he also appears to be dumber than a bucket of hair. A cursory look at his now infamous video proclaiming the ease with which a banana can be peeled and eaten as evidence everything is designed, has one wondering where he thinks coconuts came from?

The real irony however is that characteristics he gushed about were in fact designed, but not by a deity, they were produced by human farmers using selective breeding.

The bananas we know today are a mix of two wild banana species – Musa acuminata and *Musa balbisiana. The balbisiana has an incredible amount of hard, stony seeds that are inedible and eating it may be difficult. The acuminata is more manageable, but will definitely pose problems due to texture."

Not so much banana man, as banana brained man…we should open his head to see if it is filled with hard stony seeds…


Ray competes with Kent Hovind for the title of biggest creationist troll, although for sheer obnoxiousness, no one can touch Hovind.

I don’t think they are trolls. Instead, I think they actually believe what they are saying.

I feel like apologists spend more time trying to rationalize and fill in the gaps with their own head cannon then they do trying to actually find any evidence at all. What’s annoying about debating with them is that they make up that there’s all of this evidence lying around without actually naming the evidence, aside from the bible and claiming Jesus was real, while still not offering anything solid at all. Their aim to convert and to preach and that’s about all I take away from most of my debates with them.

1 Like

I know what you mean, though it stretches credulity sometimes. I mean it is hard to believe Ray Comfort didn’t know when his grinning visage was extolling the virtues of the perfect “design” of that banana, that he didn’t know it was in fact manmade, and were he to chow down on either of the wild varieties used primarily in producing them, he would either run screaming to a dentist, or be bent double retching into a bin. Mind you it’s equally hard to believe the grinning buffoon hadn’t ever heard of a coconut, or worked out what it’s hard almost impenetrable shell meant for his argument.

Then again there is the golden rule I suppose, people is dumb.

The entire business of apologetics is nothing more than the generation of ex recto fabrications, aimed at producing spells that the pedlars thereof think will conjure their mythological fantasies into reality, no matter how much reality points and laughs at this farce.

All to often, the amateurs who come here and post cretinous garbage on the subject of evolution, delude themselves into thinking that all they have to do is make the right Jeebus noises, and evolution will magically disappear.

The vast body of experimental evidence for evolution, not to mention its observability to anyone who spends time studying the natural world in any depth, isn’t going to vanish just because mythology fanboys want their favourite Bronze Age fairy tales to come to life.

It’s obvious that most of the specimens who indulge in this mentally palsied pastime, either never had proper science classes to attend as children, or slept through the classes that they did have.

Indeed, one suggestion I keep presenting in various quarters, is that keeping tropical fish soon teaches people the essentials in this regard, the moment one starts breeding the fish. It’s impossible to escape the ramifications of genetics once you do this.

1 Like

Perhaps. I would guess we all do that from time to time for different things in our lives.

Help me understand, then, why you do it.

I’m quite sure they think it’s solid. It’s only with doubt that the solidity starts to break down. And doubt comes from learning. A lot of folks learn a lot of stuff in the process of debate. (Even though many wouldn’t admit it.)

Again, then help me understand why you are here doing it? I also don’t think their only aim is to convert and preach. Some actually want to discuss and debate. Some are challenging their own beliefs via forums like this.

I get that some folks can be a royal pain to try to have a discussion with. Those types usually burn out quickly and go away (or get themselves sent away). I encourage you, though, to have a bit of patience with the theists who make themselves known and the ones who lurk…you never know what internal struggles they are having. Folks can be the loudest when they are going through the frightening process of setting down faith in their god(s).

1 Like

You’re probably right. I just have a hard time believing anyone could believe the shit they do.


My money goes on they don’t believe their bullshit any more than we do, but they make a shit-ton of money and gain popularity by spewing it. Money-grubbers like Joel Olsteen rank right up there with them, as far as I’m concerned.


I live in Florida and work in healthcare, so I’ve often had “conversations” with creationists when they try to refute evolution.

Sadly . . . it is very rare for me to hear an original argument.

They fall into a few very specific categories:

  1. The watchmaker on the heath (William Paley).
  2. Evolution is only a theory (Universal Gravitation is also a theory, but this doesn’t make it hurt less when you fall and hit your head).
  3. The Universe is “fine-tuned” to permit life (we don’t have any other examples of other universes with different laws, and–also–they need to read up on the Anthropic Principle . . . both weak and strong versions).
  4. It seems unreasonable that life can just fall together by chance (ignores the realities of chemistry, physics, and statistics).
  5. Scientists haven’t created life in the lab (we haven’t established a permanent human settlement on Mars yet, either . . . but we eventually will if we don’t destroy ourselves first).
  6. Life violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as order cannot come from disorder (a pot of boiling water with a lot of dissolved sugar is very disorderly, yet the sugar molecules will crsytalize in a neat, orderly, monoclinic structure if we put a stick in this solution and make rock candy).
  7. A partial eye (bacterial flagella, etc.) doesn’t function, so how does evolution create an eye unless every component occurs simultaneously all at once (ignores the idea that the antecedents of the eye were doing other, vital tasks. A partial bacterial flagella exists in the bacteria that causes plague).
  8. We never see transitional forms in the fossil record (well . . . we have. This is just a falsehood).
  9. If humans evolved from apes, then why do apes still exist? (a half-truth taken out of context. Humans actually are apes).
  10. 95% of the people in the world believe that God, or Gods (in one form or another) created the Universe. Isn’t it arrogant and delusional to claim that you know better than the vast majority of humanity? If a psychotic person believes we have been taken over by aliens, then we give him meds and/or lock him up because no one else sees the aliens. How are you different from the mentally ill person who believes in aliens that no one else sees? (I’m not obligated to believe in a flat Earth just because everyone else does).

I’m familiar with all of these arguments . . . except that I keep hoping I’ll hear something original when I read the Christian apologetics books.


I think if they really did believe in the existence of their god, they would be walking on egg shells every day in fear of angering HIM. Instead a majority of them do what they want, when they want. The majority have premarital sex, children out of wedlock, gamble, lie, steal, bear false witness, and then have the nerve to behave hypocritically when they see someone else doing what they’re doing.

Right on the money. Christianity in America makes 74.5 billion per year. One of the most successful enterprises ever.

45 Shocking Statistics on Church Giving & Tithing.

1 Like

Well past time to start taxing those bastards.


Definitely. All the time, money, resources that go into the church system should be put towards REAL issues.

1 Like

Besides, a bad or rudimentary eye is much better than no eye at all. Hell, having a patch of light-sensitive cells on the surface of your skin is better than no light-sensitivity. Having light-sensitive cells enables the creature to sense the difference between night and day, if there are any differences in how favourable e.g. feeding conditions are. It also enables it to detect sudden changes in light intensity, for example a big predator lurking above, to provoke a flight-response. A bad eye that can only detect light gradients can enable the creature to reorientate into a favourable position wrt sunlight, or to detect pray or predators above. An eye that can detect contours is even better, and can enable the owner to respond to even more complex situations. And so on.


Indeed, there exist numerous living organisms today, exhibiting all the relevant intermediate stages of eye evolution. Though to be far to Kevin_Levites, he did mention that the requisite apologetics have been repeatedly destroyed.

For example, various flatworms and some jellyfish possess simple photosensitive spots, and are only able to distinguish between light and dark - a feature that is also present in several protists. Other flatwoms exhibit the next stage - photosensitive cells in a cup shaped depression, allowing detection of directional shadows.

Then we have the “pinhole camera” eye, as seen in Nautilus, which facilitate precise directional sensing and even a limited degree of shape determination.

Then we have the completely enclosed eye, with a small forward opening and a transparent fluid contained within the eye, such as that seen in Onchyophorans, which is then followed by the appearance of enclosed eyes with a lens. Finally, separation of the lens from the front of the eye, and the development of a separate cornea and iris, as seen in modern vertebrates.

Then of course, Arthropods followed a different trajectory, with the development of compound eyes.

The fun part being, of course, that all of these different eye stage developments are controlled by the same set of genes, as I covered in this thread. A thread which our latest mythology fanboy clearly doesn’t even know exists.

Indeed, it’s notable that all the mythology fanboys who gatecrash this site to rail against evolution, have manifestly never learned even the elementary aspects of the topic. Instead, they have spooned up whatever lies were peddled on the subject on creationist websites, or drank whatever Kool-Aid was fed to them by their “holy men”, none of whom possess any proper scientific education.

Its a measure of the intellectual indolence that is endemic to mythology fanboyism, that none of the usual suspects ever bother to learn any genuine facts on the topic of evolutionary biology, instead operating as if the repeatedly destroyed canards they bring here with tiresome regularity constitute some ineffable brand of wisdom, instead of being rectally extracted tripe. The idea of reading an actual science textbook on the subject never occurs to them, let alone exerting the diligence require to peruse actual peer reviewed scientific papers.

Instead, they wallow in their smug, complacent wilful ignorance, pretending that people who spent decades engaging in proper scientific research know less than their tithe-fed “pastors”. Which is one of the reasons I adopt the “shock and awe” tactic of carpet bombing their drivel with whatever discoursive ordnance happens to be to hand - and after 14 years of collecting and reading genuine peer reviewed scientific papers, that’s a lot of ordnance.


Agree 100%.

Along with the eye and flagellum, I find the “mousetrap argument” (of which I’m sure you’re aware) to be particularly irritating.

The Creationist presents the idea that the discreet components of eye (or flagella) were sitting around and doing nothing . . . when these components actully existed because they had other tasks.

There was a biologist who tried to make this point by using a partial mousetrap for a tie clip, but I forget his name.

In the remake of the Cosmos series, Neil deGrasse Tyson runs a sequence where we see a progression from photosensitive spots on a sigle-celled organism to a full-fledged eye.

That biologist was Nick Matzke, who was co-author on several papers on the bacterial flagellum, including papers I’ve already presented here. :slight_smile:

Furthermore, the term used for repurposing existing components in a new arrangement for a new task, is known in the evolutionary biology literature as exaptation. The process I described in my exposition on “irredcuible complexity” as the “Müllerian Two Step” is known in the modern literature as bricolage.

1 Like

Video posts and replies are lazy and boring and shouldn’t be allowed in a debate forum unless the poster sums up the essence of said video.

1 Like

I got this… You see, “In the beginning…” Ricky Gervais Reads The Bible | Universal Comedy - YouTube


Yeah, I have several of Gervais’s stand-up DVDs including that one (from “Animals” as I recall).

1 Like