129 replies to this topic

[Loungehead]

I was watching Ray Comfort's ministry over at Living Waters and he said, "God gave us six senses, the sixth sense is common sense, that is what the atheists and evolutionists lack."

http://www.livingwaters.com/

The video is on the front page, "Using Commonsense to debunk evolution"

When Comfort says "us" does he mean Christians or humans?

Furthermore, if I lack the sixth sense, then God mustn't have given it to me. Right? Did God make me without a sixth sense?

Perhaps, I am missing something due to my lack of common sense.

The strange thing is Ray Comfort accepts micro-evolution. So it should be titled "Using Commonsense to debunk macro-evolution" to avoid confusion.

[scott]

From a Christian perspective He is most likely talking about Atheist not being able to see what we as Christians see... Moral wise, and through seeing the world. He says this because you do not have the Holy Ghost inside of you.

The knowledge of Jesus Christ is your common sense, but I don't know why he wouldn't have said this. The only thing you lack from us Christians is Jesus Christ. So no you are not sub-human...

Also Micro-evolution can't technically be called evolution if new information is not created through the breeding process.

[Loungehead]

From a Christian perspective He is most likely talking about Atheist not being able to see what we as Christians see... Moral wise, and through seeing the world. He says this because you do not have the Holy Ghost inside of you.

I'm not sure he is, because Christian theistic evolutionists would fall within his category of lacking common sense. It really seems like a YEC polemical statement that asserts a prejudicial division among people.

The knowledge of Jesus Christ is your common sense, but I don't know why he wouldn't have said this.  The only thing you lack from us Christians is Jesus Christ.  So no you are not sub-human...

In that case Christian theistic evolutionist lack common sense too, even though they believe in Jesus Christ.

Also Micro-evolution can't technically be called evolution if new information is not created through the breeding process.

Then why call it micro-evolution?

[scott]

Oh, Ah I see now, It's like many people like to go along with the idea's that are most accepted by those who are supposedly more knowledgeable. Evolution of course.

He may be saying this, but I don't exactly agree with him. So don't apply what he says to me, because I don't see you as less human.

I don't actually call micro-evolution, evolution. I call it adaptation, and in breeding cases, I call it breeding.

Evolution would have to be an actual change, a new species, or a new trait that has added new information into the genetic code. Not just a recombination, as with the breeding process.

[Loungehead]

Oh, Ah I see now, It's like many people like to go along with the idea's that are most accepted by those who are supposedly more knowledgeable.  Evolution of course.

True.

One thing I did find interesting about Comfort's video is what it reveals about people who accept evolution, because they were taught it in school, but haven't studied it in depth to speak accurately about it themselves. But I don't think Comfort is in any better position in that regard.

He may be saying this, but I don't exactly agree with him.  So don't apply what he says to me, because I don't see you as less human.

I had no intention of applying his views to you. I just wanted to know if he had really thought out what he said, and in what context his statement was intended. I took what you siad as you perspective on his statements, and nothing more. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

I don't actually call micro-evolution, evolution.  I call it adaptation, and in breeding cases, I call it breeding.

Okay.

Evolution would have to be an actual change, a new species, or a new trait that has added new information into the genetic code.  Not just a recombination, as with the breeding process.

Why does evolution have to be new information? Nor do all evos believe that is what evolution does.

[scott]

I agree that Evolutionist believe that evolution happens regardless of whether or not the genetic information is considered new or not.

But here is the catch: New parts can't come from the same old data. Especially like sickle sell, which is destruction of the DNA, and holding back information. Not creating new.

Or with the Galapagos Finches, or with genetically enhanced fruit flies, which all use the same existing genetic information to create the specific breeds intended. It's all simple Mendelian genetics.

Genetically Enhanced such as: selective breeding, which is artificial, in which humans select the genes that will be used.

So what is the Evolutionist explaination for getting around the non-production of new genetic information??? Do they just dismiss the DNA code, as being just a big mesh of arbitraryness that does whatever??? That would go against the idea of selective breeding.

Also back to Comfort, I don't see him having any right to claim any person as sub-human, and I don't see where he gets his information from. God views us as equals, especially when Judgement comes, because God will show no partiallity. Well, only to those who accept Jesus, but that still doesn't qualify as an excuse for calling another person sub-human.

[jason78]

I was watching Ray Comfort's ministry over at Living Waters and he said, "God gave us six senses, the sixth sense is common sense, that is what the atheists and evolutionists lack."

http://www.livingwaters.com/

The video is on the front page, "Using Commonsense to debunk evolution"

When Comfort says "us" does he mean Christians or humans?

Furthermore, if I lack the sixth sense, then God mustn't have given it to me.  Right?  Did God make me without a sixth sense?

Perhaps, I am missing something due to my lack of common sense.

The strange thing is Ray Comfort accepts micro-evolution.  So it should be titled "Using Commonsense to debunk macro-evolution" to avoid confusion.

Ray Comfort is one of those preachers that is just out to make money. Jumping on the evolution bandwagon and selling books on it is his way of cashing in.

[ikester7579]

I was watching Ray Comfort's ministry over at Living Waters and he said, "God gave us six senses, the sixth sense is common sense, that is what the atheists and evolutionists lack."

http://www.livingwaters.com/

The video is on the front page, "Using Commonsense to debunk evolution"

When Comfort says "us" does he mean Christians or humans?

Furthermore, if I lack the sixth sense, then God mustn't have given it to me.  Right?  Did God make me without a sixth sense?

Perhaps, I am missing something due to my lack of common sense.

The strange thing is Ray Comfort accepts micro-evolution.  So it should be titled "Using Commonsense to debunk macro-evolution" to avoid confusion.

If you know truth and deny it. Then that is ignorance on purpose. God said that He gives man who does this up to a reprobate mind. To where they will not be able to tell between right and wrong, truth or lies.

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


When you have been introduced to the truth, but reject for other reasons (you don't like what that truth holds, or you will have to change and you don't want to). Then God considers that rejection of Him so that you can retain sin in your life. Knowing what truth is makes you without excuse. It's like when you stand before a judge here on earth for a crime, and he asks: Did not you know better than to do this thing? And you say: yes, I knew better... What is your excuse beyond that point where you just admitted guilt to having knowledge of the right thing but choose the wrong thing instead?

That is how God looks at a person whom He gives up to be a reprobate. They knew good but choose evil. Now what excuse is there for that? And being a just judge, God has to condemn.

[ikester7579]

Ray Comfort is one of those preachers that is just out to make money.  Jumping on the evolution bandwagon and selling books on it is his way of cashing in.

Is not Richard Dawkins in the same boat for the same reason?

[CTD]

Ray Comfort is one of those preachers that is just out to make money.  Jumping on the evolution bandwagon and selling books on it is his way of cashing in.

I disagree. But wouldn't it be the creation bandwagon upon which he jumps?

Or maybe you refer to his special edition of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life? That might be misconstrued as jumping aboard the Darwin-worship bandwagon, I suppose. ...And I suppose the dozens of other authors who've participated in similar projects should be overlooked, in spite of the fact that they made money. After all, they were preaching the false gospel of Darwin...

[Ron]

I was watching Ray Comfort's ministry over at Living Waters and he said, "God gave us six senses, the sixth sense is common sense, that is what the atheists and evolutionists lack."

http://www.livingwaters.com/

The video is on the front page, "Using Commonsense to debunk evolution"

When Comfort says "us" does he mean Christians or humans?

Furthermore, if I lack the sixth sense, then God mustn't have given it to me.  Right?  Did God make me without a sixth sense?

Perhaps, I am missing something due to my lack of common sense.

The strange thing is Ray Comfort accepts micro-evolution.  So it should be titled "Using Commonsense to debunk macro-evolution" to avoid confusion.

I think its more of a denial thing than a lack of common sense issue. Again, Romans Chapter one covers this quite well.

[CTD]

I think its more of a denial thing than a lack of common sense issue. Again, Romans Chapter one covers this quite well.

It's one of those "vicious circle" deals. Denial leads to lack of common sense which leads to denial which...

Common sense is the bane of antiscience. It doesn't take any great amount of raw intellect to see through the smoke - just simple common sense. There is nobody who could long be fooled, no matter how "low" their I.Q. Just look at how broken "homology" is, for example.

Likewise, everyone knows from common sense how to properly investigate things. They must be taught that experimental science "is supreme". They must be taught that it is a primary tool for investigating history. They'd never come to either conclusion on their own; common sense prevents both.

Think about it - they must be taught to reject arguments from design. ...And they must be willing or gullible to accept such teachings as support evolutionism.

[jason78]

Is not Richard Dawkins in the same boat for the same reason?

Yes. With the major difference being that Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist.

[Loungehead]

If you know truth and deny it. Then that is ignorance on purpose.

How can I accept a truth that has no objective basis.

God and the Bible is a circular argument.

1. God is true; the Bible says so.
2. The Bible is true; God said so.
:. Therefore, God and the Bible are true; the Bible and God say so.

The conclusion is self-referential and tautological. It's the same as saying, "It is true, because it is true." How is do you qualify the truth of that claim, and how does it lead to common sense?

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
When you have been introduced to the truth, but reject for other reasons (you don't like what that truth holds, or you will have to change and you don't want to). Then God considers that rejection of Him so that you can retain sin in your life. Knowing what truth is makes you without excuse. It's like when you stand before a judge here on earth for a crime, and he asks: Did not you know better than to do this thing? And you say: yes, I knew better... What is your excuse beyond that point where you just admitted guilt to having knowledge of the right thing but choose the wrong thing instead?

And why should any of this be taken as a true statement about what God thinks?

That is how God looks at a person whom He gives up to be a reprobate. They knew good but choose evil. Now what excuse is there for that? And being a just judge, God has to condemn.

So, you think I am evil? You think I have a reprobate mind; you thinkn I am one who refuses to accept. And you think I choose not to accept, because the Bible told you that is what I am doing?

Did you ever think to ask me? And where is the common sense in taking a piece of writing, written by someone else, divine or mortal, as an absolute truth?

I don't reject the Bible because its true and can't handle its truth. To suggest I do is another way of degrading me by suggesting I have a weak mind. Frankly, it's as prejudicial as what Comfort's says. And as bad as when atheists claim religious people are weak minded. IMO anyone (atheist or Christian) who degrades the mental capacity of another person for not believing what they think is true, is a bigot.

[Ron]

How can I accept a truth that has no objective basis."

God and the Bible is a circular argument.

1.  God is true; the Bible says so.
2.  The Bible is true; God said so.
:.  Therefore, God and the Bible are true; the Bible and God say so.

That would not only be incorrect, but a miscalculation or misconception on your part. Who said "God is true; the Bible says so", or "The Bible is true; God said so"? That is not only an infantile syllogism, but it is a sorry attempt at baiting an argument.

[Loungehead]

That would not only be incorrect, but a miscalculation or  misconception on your part. Who said "God is true; the Bible says so", or "The Bible is true; God said so"? That is not only an infantile syllogism, but it is a sorry attempt at baiting an argument.

If I'm wrong, please present your reasons for why the Bible is true.

The argument I present above, while a simplified version of what Christians tell me, is fundamentally what they are saying.

[scott]

Well No one can claim that the entire Bible is false. Simply because that would mean the locations in the Bible would be false also, which would be completely illogical. That would mean that Jews don't exist. That would also mean that Babylon never existed. It would mean a whole lot of illogical things to say that the entire Bible is false.

The correct thing for an unbeliever to say would be: I don't believe the entire Bible as true, even though some of the factual parts are actually factual... you have to believe those facts by default, regardless of the miracles.

[Loungehead]

Well No one can claim that the entire Bible is false.  Simply because that would mean the locations in the Bible would be false also, which would be completely illogical.  That would mean that Jews don't exist.  That would also mean that Babylon never existed.  It would mean a whole lot of illogical things to say that the entire Bible is false.

The correct thing for an unbeliever to say would be:  I don't believe the entire Bible as true, even though some of the factual parts are actually factual... you have to believe those facts by default, regardless of the miracles.

I understand, but it seems a bit like saying, no one can claim the entire Lord of the Rings is false, because that would mean swords as an object with a sharp edge would not cut, boats would not float, and taverns would not serve alcohol.. etc.

What distinguishes the Bible from Lord of the Rings in terms of truth?

[scott]

I understand, but it seems a bit like saying, no one can claim the entire Lord of the Rings is false, because that would mean swords as an object with a sharp edge would not cut, boats would not float, and taverns would not serve alcohol.. etc.

What distinguishes the Bible from Lord of the Rings in terms of truth?

In terms of truth??? Using the way you used the term truth, even Star Wars could be real to a point.

The big difference is that you can actually go to the places that the Bible talks about, but you can't concerning The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars.

Also Biblical Archaeology has already uncovered many of the cities that once existed in the Old Testament. Archaeology has done much for the Bible. Most of the events that happened in the Bible actually happened, and are Archaeologically supported with evidence.

The only thing debated about the Bible is God, Creation, the miracles, and some supernatural things/objects associated with the miracles. The people in the Bible are supported by other historical evidences besides the Bible.