Evangelist Stumps Evolution Elite

Evolution Vs God

Evangelist Stumps Evolution Elite

A young earth evangelist stumps evolution elite using simple questions. Amazingly, leading university professors actually turn common anti-creation arguments back against evolution in a new video entitled Evolution Vs. God.  

Jovial quick-witted Ray Comfort, a New Zealand born southern Californian street evangelist, turned the infamous claim that “faith is the great cop-out, the excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate the evidence” of ardent evolution atheist Richard Dawkins to demonstrate that the essence of evolution is a philosophy, not a scientific fact.

Featuring a dialogue on science, Darwin’s theory, atheism, and the Bible with four university professors who advocate evolution, the video moves is fast paced including interactions with college students.

The university professors include one of the most popular anti-creation atheist bloggers on the internet, PZ Myers (PZM), associate professor of biology at the  University of Minnesota,  Gail E. Kennedy, (GEK), associate professor of anthropology at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Craig Stanford (CS), professor of biology and anthropology at the University of Southern California (USC), and  Peter Nonacs (PN), professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at (UCLA).

On questioning Kennedy (GK), Comfort (RC) asked: 

RC: Could you give me some observable evidence that evolution is true? Something I don’t have to receive by faith.

GK: We can trace the evolution through the fossil record.

RC: Could you be specific, just give me one?

GK: Ah, between 6 and 7 million years ago

RC: So evolution can’t be observed.

GK: Evolution is not testable over time.

Since evolution cannot be observed or tested, then, Dawkins’ claim that “faith is the great cop-out, the excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate the evidence” RC effectively moved evolution into a faith, not a fact, category.

Neutralizing Richard Dawkins further, RC uses another quote from Dawkins, “We are condemned to live only for a few decades and that’s too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on” further reinforcing RC’s challenge that “evolution can’t be observed.”

Pressing in on the details of evolution, RC continued

RC: You’ve got the canine kind: the coyote kind and the domestic dog; and there’s the feline kind: which is the cats, the tiger, and the kitten; and you’ve got the humankind, so Darwin said there’d be a change of kinds over many years, so could you give me one example of observable evidence of the change of kinds?

PZM: So for instance, the fossil record shows the common ancestor of all carnivores, that cats and dogs were once linked, united by a common ancestor.

RC: How long ago?

PZM: This, I believe, was, like, 60 million years ago.

RC: I don’t want something that I have to accept by faith. I want it to be observable.

RC: The scientific method is it must be observable and repeatable, so could you give me one piece of observable evidence for Darwinian evolution?

PZM: Okay, I would point – there’s one great example is look at the genetics of the stickleback.

RC: What’s that?

PZM: So the stickleback fish are a very interesting collection of species that were recently isolated after the end of the Ice Age.

RC: What have they become?

PZM: They’re various species of sticklebacks.

RC: They stayed as fish

PZM: Well of course

PZM: Human beings are still fish

RC: Human beings are fish?

PZM: Why, yes, of course they are.

RC: Could you give me an example of Darwinian evolution, not adaptation or speciation, but a change of kinds?

PZM: These are change of kinds.

RC: They’re still fish

PZM: They’re distinctly different fish.

CS: We have thousands of examples.

RC: Can you give me one?

CS: I can give you thousands.

RC: Just one

PZM: I would say look at Lenski’s experiments in bacteria, then.

RC: So what have the bacteria become?

PZM: The bacteria are still bacteria, of course.

RC: So that’s not Darwinian evolution. That’s not a change of kinds, is it?

CS: It is a change in the genetic makeup of the bacteria [not kinds]

RC: But they’re still bacteria.

RC: What have the bacteria become?

GK: A new kind of bacteria

RC: It’s still bacteria. There’s no change of kinds.

GK: (no verbal response)

RC: To summarize, the observable evidence that you gave me for Darwinian evolution is bacteria becoming bacteria.

PZM: No it is bacteria acquiring new metabolic capabilities.

RC: You said before that there was lots of evidence for evolution. I just want one observable evidence for Darwinian evolution. Just one.

CS: But I gave you some. You don’t want –

RC: Not some. I want one.

CS: Wait, you don’t want that.

RC: Yes I do. I want one. Yes, I do. I’m pleading with people.

CS: You asked me to tell you – you asked me to tell you when I’ve watched one species evolve into another. Isn’t that right?

RC: No, one kind into another. There’s 14 different definition of species, so I want a change of kind.

PN: When you’re talking about kinds or changes in families, you are actually talking about macroevolution. You are talking about changes in the level that separates say, cats from dogs.

RC: So could you give me any examples of Darwinian evolution?

PN: Well, when you say examples of that, then you have to sort of look at it over longer time frame.

CS: When you say change of kinds, do you mean the evolution of one species from another to another? Yes, we have that in action, actually, in the Galapagos.

RC: Could you give me one instance?

CS: Yes, we have an example from a group of birds called Darwin finches.

RC: But, that’s not Darwinian evolution. There’s been no change of kinds.

RC: What have the finches become?

CS: They become genetically new and anatomically new, recognizably different species.

RC: So they’re still finches?

CS: Well, of course they’re still finches, yes.

RC: So there’s no change on kind.

RC: Could you give any observable evidence for Darwinian evolution?

RC: Do you believe in intelligent design?

GK: Of course not.

RC: Do you believe a rose is intelligently designed?

PZM: Definitely not.

RC: Could you make a rose from nothing?


RC: No genius can make a grain of sand from nothing. We don’t know where to start.

GK: I can’t.

RC: Why not?

GK: I don’t have millions, billions of years.

Obviously, evolution cannot be based on observable evidence. With continued questioning, the evangelist with no scientific training demonstrates that evolutionists believe in evolution as a matter of faith, not fact.

Amazingly, the Huffington Post in the article entitled “Evolution vs. God: Not a Choice Most of Us Have to Make” was one of the first to launch a personal attack him prior to the scheduled release on the 9th of July complaining that “Ray seems to have a very warped sense of how science operates.”  Obviously, it is the Huffington Post, not Comfort that has an obvious “warped sense of how science operates.”

To control the damage from the embarrassing and widely circulated video, Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago on his Why Evolution is True gave some words of advice to evolutionist in the future: “P.Z. Myers and other evolutionary biologists… were unwise enough to be interviewed.”

Biological evolution was once a theory in crisis, now evolution is in crisis without adequate evidence for a cohesive and comprehensive theory of evolution.

Evolution exists only as a philosophy− based on faith, not a scientific fact.

In light of the obvious evidence, evolution adherents should re-consider the warning of the world’s most recognized evolution advocate, Richard Dawkins: “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.”


5 Responses to “Evangelist Stumps Evolution Elite”

  • Awesome!
    If change of kinds was actually true you’d think just one of the countless species on earth would change into another while being observed.
    The seed of evolution was planted in the garden of Eden. It was fertilized with sin and watered with blood and sweat, lies and murder. It doesn’t change creatures from one kind to another, but breaks down the moral fabric that holds them together; destroying health, harmony, longeviy and perhaps worst of all, the ability of clear reasoning.
    Mankind’s best bet is to quit trying to escape accountability, repent, and seek the Lord while He may be found.

  • ruben:

    Evolution? Yes, that serpent of old,has evolved into a beast. A beast resembling a leopard with a head and mouth of a lion, have seven heads and ten horns. And yes, this beast speak blasphemies against God but in the end this evolutionary beast is destroyed. He that hath an ear, listen!!

  • be still and know that I am God

  • that was an awesome display, these three talking heads for atheism had their lunch money taken from them….

  • womble:

    Great presentation! I have always thought evolution was just an elitist way to label and minimize the human experience. Darwin was just a Malthusian at heart and merely shaped his theory to fit this absolute.

Leave a Reply

Book Description

Buy Now

Kindle Edition Available

Darwin, Then and Now is a journey through the most amazing story in the history of science - the history of evolution. The book encapsulates who Darwin was, what he said, and what scientists have discovered since the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859.

With over 1,000 references, Darwin Then and Now is a historical chronicle of the rise and fall of the once popular theory of biological evolution.