Ray Comfort predicted this. Explanation of the title: A while back, Ray Comfort (a creationist who tried constantly to reconcile science with religion, and fail commala come
x
Click to expand

Ray Comfort predicted this

Ray Comfort predicted this. Explanation of the title: A while back, Ray Comfort (a creationist who tried constantly to reconcile science with religion, and fail

Explanation of the title:

A while back, Ray Comfort (a creationist who tried constantly to reconcile science with religion, and fails horribly) said that the greatest argument against atheism and supportive argument for religion, was a banana. Yes you heard right, a banana. Specifically because it fits in our hands, and has a tab to pull the peel off. Well if yellow potassium isn't proof enough of for you of a deity, well you would probably be thinking right since Ray didn't seem to do much research on how much banana's are grown selectively.

Tags: commala | come
  • Recommend tagsx
+347
Views: 16306
Favorited: 21
Submitted: 12/20/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to noblexfenrir Subscribe to atheism submit to reddit
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#31 - tentaquil (12/21/2012) [-]










Did someone say Ray?
#51 to #31 - techketzer (12/25/2012) [-]
NO! We're not doing this again!

Thumbed you up, you funny rascal. :)
User avatar #23 - demandsgayversion (12/21/2012) [-]
A banana is just as well shaped to fit in an anus, yet you don't see me most people shoving bananas up their asses. Also a tab? That's not even the most efficient way to open a banana, you ever see a monkey do it? Pinch the other end and it'll just pop open.
+2
#1 - mrgreatnames **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #5 to #1 - noblexfenrir (12/21/2012) [-]
Oh I know, I just saw this picture and it reminded be of that whole banana debacle.
+3
#2 - whitemager **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
0
#4 to #2 - watthekilo has deleted their comment [-]
-1
#6 to #2 - mrgreatnames **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #8 to #6 - Lambda (12/21/2012) [-]
Yes it does. Imagine if you could have more than 100% efficiency in a closed system, the universe could not function.
-1
#9 to #8 - mrgreatnames **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #10 to #9 - Lambda (12/21/2012) [-]
Look around at the universe, study physics and try to see how elegant it all fits together (well except for the fact that we don't have a unifying theory of everything yet. YET.) Looks to me like he did a pretty good job of making it function.
User avatar #19 to #10 - noblexfenrir (12/21/2012) [-]
"Yes it does. Imagine if you could have more than 100% efficiency in a closed system, the universe could not function."
This makes absolutely no sense. 100% efficiency in terms of the universe isn't a set bar. Especially if it is the only known universe, absolutely any level of efficiency or hell even in-efficiency from our perspective, would be 100%. So it's ridiculous to assume that a deity would need to create laws when in turn not having them would be just as satisfactory.

"Look around at the universe, study physics and try to see how elegant it all fits together (well except for the fact that we don't have a unifying theory of everything yet. YET.) Looks to me like he did a pretty good job of making it function."

You are joking right? I'm sorry but the "universe looks designed" argument was absolutely crushed years ago. The universe is completely hostile within itself in many areas, completely docile in others, and some have systems that may give the appearance of it fitting "elegantly together". But where it falls short is that the way you apply it is a non sequitur, "It looks like it fits elegantly together, therefor a god made it". No, no, no. You are taking the product and using it to form a conclusion without first proving the conclusion.

There are many hypothesis' for the creation of the universe, to assume yours is right with no evidence simply because something looks elegant is absurd. Many things appearing naturally look elegant, what now?
User avatar #29 to #19 - Lambda (12/21/2012) [-]
What I meant by the efficiency was that if you could have over-100% efficiency, that would mean infinite energy, essentially. That would, in essence, 'break' physics. That's just a law of physics; it's how the universe works. And you can't break that law because the universe does not work that way. (If you do manage to break this law, collect your nobel prize and I will admit I'm wrong)
Really, physics does fit together quite well, everything works. Except if you try to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics. We're working on that.
Fact of the matter is the universe does function. And it's amazing that it does so. I mean, think about it, it's 70% dark matter and 30% dark energy, which we can see, touch, or measure, and all that we can see touch and measure is less than 1% of the universe. The total energy in the universe is believed to be precisely zero, the universe itself is believed to have blinked into existence from nothing (for nothing is never truly nothing in quantum mechanics, particles are always popping into and out of existence) it started expanding and it's still doing so and will never stop. If the universe were not exactly this way it could not mathematically exist.
I'm not "assuming i'm right". I can't prove that the universe was designed this way by some entity, I also can't prove disprove the existence of such an entity. I'm not prepared to reject such a possibility, nor will I insist upon it.

What I was trying to say at first was that yes, the natural world needs limits. Without such limits it couldn't be. He said that God could make it function, and I responded, well, looks like he did a remarkably good job of it. Meaning that this universe is what functions. It is currently theorized that there may be other parallel universes. Scientists are unsure whether or not such universes would have the same physical laws as ours and currently there is no way to know this.
I may not be entirely sober at the moment, but take it or leave it.
User avatar #37 to #29 - noblexfenrir (12/21/2012) [-]
"What I meant by the efficiency was that if you could have over-100% efficiency, that would mean infinite energy, essentially. That would, in essence, 'break' physics."

Ah I see what you mean, however the problem with that reasoning lies not really in how but when. It would "break" physics if it happened, say...right now, or now, or now,or now...etc etc etc. You get my point. However if it was in place at the beginning, then it wouldn't be breaking physics, instead it would be physics, and in turn, our laws of nature would be considered "breaking" for those. I got your logic and it makes sense, but you seem to be under the impression the laws of physics are stationary to the specific way our universe has them set and in perspective, yes they are specific to this configuration, but let us say one thing was changed inherently.

If one law was changed lets say...for an element to find a base state the number of electrons must be double the number of electrons, or gravity was twice as weak as it already it. Yes if it was applied right now the entire universe would be in disarray but if it developed with that law already in place, it would simply form around that change.

I hope that explains my point slightly better.

" I also can't prove disprove the existence of such an entity."
Which is an impossibility if you are simply denying the claim of someone who does. Yes we should accept the hypothesis of a deity, but until evidence can be provided beyond "have faith" we should concede to non-existence and write it off like we do any other unsupported hypothesis.

"I may not be entirely sober at the moment, but take it or leave it."
Trust me I understand, I'm phasing in and out at the moment as well.
-2
#11 to #10 - mrgreatnames **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#50 to #2 - anon (12/24/2012) [-]
I'm a Darwinist and I believe in intelligent design.
User avatar #13 to #2 - skwerlz (12/21/2012) [-]
Finally another Christian that believes in both!

The way I see it, Genesis never says how the world was created--just that it was. Well back when the Bible was written, they couldn't even fathom what we know now, so there's no way they could have said how. That's where science comes in.

To me, it's just taking this information that we didn't have before and using it to figure out how God created this incredible universe that we live in. I mean..is it really that farfetched to say that all of this stuff that spontaneously came out of nothing for reasons that we can't seem to explain with science was set in motion by a higher power?

Just my contribution :)
User avatar #18 to #13 - noblexfenrir (12/21/2012) [-]
Quick question, you say that is what you believe. What if there were scientists that came out tomorrow with absolute proof of how the universe began. They can explain it and even replicate it in small non-matter voids developed in the lab.

Would you completely drop your belief in a god or would you still believe this is part of his plan? If your answer is anything but the former, then you cannot ever reconcile your beliefs with science, because nothing in the natural world against your point would ever skew your faith, and that is ridiculous reasoning.

The reality is, yes it is far-fetched to say this universe was created by a deity. There is no evidence for it, therefor we do not assume something exists without it. We have what we can explain (which many of it, used to be explained by a god. Now god is kind of pushed into the little corner of creating the universe, and no longer the thrower of lightning or the earthshaker, etc) and what we can't, we look for evidence to explain it. If any evidence led to a god then we would be researching that possibility, however it doesn't.
User avatar #27 to #18 - skwerlz (12/21/2012) [-]
Honestly, I have no answer for you. If science were to disprove it (which is fundamentally flawed because nothing in science is proven or disproven, only supported or weakened), I'm not quite sure what I'd do because it's what I believe and have believed my entire adult life pretty much. To provide an admittedly silly analogy, it would be like science suddenly proving that you're actually a fish. A very confusing and "soul-searchy" time indeed.

As far as there being no physical evidence of a deity, I mean it's a supernatural thing. You can search and search the natural world until you turn blue, but you'll never find anything. Does that mean it doesn't exist? Maybe. Maybe not. At the risk of sounding like a religious nut, that's where faith comes in.

It's one of those things that's not for everyone, and that's why I don't push. It's like love..you just kind of....know.

But anyway, that's a good question. Gives me something to think about for a while.
User avatar #15 to #2 - yofutofu ONLINE (12/21/2012) [-]
The thing that bothers me about people who believe in intelligent design is the fact that they agree on a logical, scientifically proven theory, but still tack god to the side of it so they aren't afraid of going to hell.
User avatar #7 to #2 - noblexfenrir (12/21/2012) [-]
The only problem is god isn't needed for any of this too happen, which is why religion and science are on two completely different levels. Evolution requires its evidence to show you it does work, how it works, and to prove it happened in the past. Apparently all you need to know god is real is to believe he is, which is very flawed logic.
+1
#12 to #7 - whitemager **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #16 to #12 - noblexfenrir (12/21/2012) [-]
We do have concrete proof the big bang happened. We don't claim it did with 100% certainty due to the fact science doesn't deal in absolutes, but the evidence for it is massive and is based around many rules (Laws of physics, basic nature of particles, thermodynamics, etc) to the point it is basically like drawing a straight line through events.

Yes humans strive for knowledge, however accepting something ignorantly and with no evidence is not sanctioned by this lust. In fact it is abhorred by it. The process by which one determines gods existence is a sin in the scientific method.
User avatar #14 - jellybob (12/21/2012) [-]
I've always thought of it as billions of trillions of years ago God began the domino effect of evolution, carefully tending to it but letting it take it's own course. Whether or not homo-sapien was the species he orignially wanted to be formed or if we are just another stepping stone to something greater is yet to be determined. So through the grapevine he did actually create us, just not in the form we are now.
User avatar #21 to #14 - noblexfenrir (12/21/2012) [-]
God seems rather unneeded though. I mean you are simply pinning god to a process we already know and understand happens naturally, and you still have yet to prove god so you can pin him in there.
#30 to #21 - soluvy (12/21/2012) [-]
but we don't completely understand it. Thus, his God theory makes sense
User avatar #32 to #30 - noblexfenrir (12/21/2012) [-]
No, his god hypothesis is allowed because in a hypothesis you aren't saying something is real, only a possibility. Anyone who would say something with no evidential support whatsoever can transfer to reality is a fool.
#49 to #32 - soluvy (12/21/2012) [-]
I'm sorry, i ment hypothesis. I was sleepy
#17 to #14 - paelaer (12/21/2012) [-]
Life is just one incredibly long game of Spore and Sims to God(s) isn't it?
#33 - attifyon (12/21/2012) [-]
Yeah, you're right, religion is the plague of men.
It's not like most of the religions support researching and learning or anything.
I agree with you, OP. Religion and science are COMPLETELY different from each other. One man can't believe in both.
/rant
#53 to #33 - anon (12/26/2012) [-]
believing in science ?
******* dumbass
religion is believing in something without evidence
science is knowing something because of evidence
religion is ******* stupid and theists are even dumber
User avatar #36 to #33 - noblexfenrir (12/21/2012) [-]
The process by which religion determines reality is the plague of men, ignorance should be shunned, not glorified.

Actually most religions don't support researching and learning, PEOPLE can support that but religion is based on faith, something you cannot say is in favor of research due to the fact it inherently denies opposing points.

Religion and science cannot be unified because they each have different logical (or illogical) processes when you determine reality, one man can believe in both easily, but science cannot be applied to religion, nor vice versa.
User avatar #52 to #36 - techketzer (12/25/2012) [-]
Couldn't agree more.
These words are worth gold.
0
#40 - nengcaste **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#3 - huntermorris (12/21/2012) [-]
Finally, I've found someone who thinks the same way I do! :D
User avatar #55 - darksideofthebeast (09/13/2013) [-]
Since I decided to stalk you.
I wonder why you even go on the religion board if you yourself don't even believe have one.
User avatar #56 to #55 - darksideofthebeast (09/13/2013) [-]
Don't even have one*
User avatar #57 to #55 - noblexfenrir (09/13/2013) [-]
Because I find religious discussion engaging. I also prefer to learn things I may be wrong about or show others their ignorant misconceptions (such as you concerning evolution.). I was also unaware you needed to believe in god to be involved in religious topics.
#54 - specialeddie (01/16/2013) [-]
The Buddhist symbol for ohm shouldn't be up there. Buddhism isn't a religion. It's more like a philosophy, and the Dalai Llama once said that if science proves certain aspects of Buddhism wrong, Buddhism will change
#42 - sirthomasburr (12/21/2012) [-]
I really can't see why religion and science can't co-exist. Science doesn't seek to disprove the existence of a deity, and religion (well, sensible religion, not WBC) doesn't seek to disprove scientific theory. All religion is doing is holding on to a hypothesis that it believes is correct, most religious teaching avoids the whole science thing because they don't want it to clash. Science is an explanation of this world, religion is an explanation of a potential next one, in my mind that doesn't really clash.
 Friends (0)