Ignorance, thy name is… 1/24

24 01 2009

…Comfort. Yes, Ray Comfort has done it again. He has challenged PZ regarding this post.

He begins his post with the most hilariously stupid creationist argument short of invoking the second law to refute evolution. He says (I’m going to quote him and hope that the concentrated stupid doesn’t break the blog),

The statement is a huge dilemma for the professor, because he knows that only a fool could believe the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything. He can’t say that the universe is eternal, because he knows that it’s not. So he is left with the predicament of having to admit that something created everything. Professor Myers believes in a Creator of some sort; he just doesn’t know its identity. He may be a professor of atheism, but he is in truth just an agnostic.

Where do I even start? A quantum fluctuation “creates,” but it’s not a creator. It’s taking something that already exists (you know, like creationists claim God already exists?) Well, the universe could have spontaneously appeared out of background energy that already existed. Or maybe (and it’s possible) the universe is actually a net energy/matter of 0, so that it could form without violation of any sort of law. Or maybe outside the universe the laws of thermodynamics aren’t applicable.

And why can’t the universe be eternal? Because Ray says so? There’s no reason to believe that it isn’t, and plenty to believe that it is. And, since he appears be confusing the terms “theist,” “atheist,” “agnostic,” and “biology,” I’ll correct his last sentence. It should read “He may be a professor of biology, but he is in truth just a theist.” Which still doesn’t make sense, because one can be both. But Ray’s not the brightest, so that’s pretty much par for the course.

“And of course, he doesn’t bother with this problem: who made God? I can guess how he’d respond: there was no ‘who,’ and God wasn’t ‘made.’ At which time we do a little judo move and point out that the universe wasn’t ‘made’ by a ‘who,’ either.”

So, going to answer that now that you’ve quoted it?


Here now is a big mystery. He doesn’t know how the universe got here, but he somehow knows that the Creator wasn’t a “who.” How does he know that? Does he have some inside information? I would like to hear it. Bring it on Professor Myers. How do you know that a “who” wasn’t involved in creation? Explain yourself.

Ray ignores PZ’s point entirely, and starts reciting to himself “there is a god there is a god there is a god.” I know that my great great grandfather was not a tablecloth even though I do not know who my great great grandfather was. No attempt is made here to explain why the universe can’t be eternal and without creator but god can. He just brushes aside the entire quote and continues his assertion that god exists because.

He closes with this gem forged in the heart of a burning hypernova of stupidity:

I’m calling your bluff. Even Richard Dawkins knows better. He’s a little more careful with his wording, with his: “Why There Almost Certainly is no God.”

Both think the same thing. Dawkins was being precise in his wording, and PZ was assuming that his audience had the intelligence of the average algal growth.




One response

26 01 2009

I know that my great great grandfather was not a tablecloth even though I do not know who my great great grandfather was.

Priceless. Tea all over the keyboard. I’m so using that in my next argument with a teleologist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: