Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ray Comfort is well known for insisting on his own version of evolution that is very different from what science says and then trying to point out people's failures to respond to his questions about it. These questions set up his interviewees for failure from the very beginning. By insisting on evolution as some force that magically converts one species to another overnight, any question posed to these people in that context is going to make them look stupid when they answer from the context of actual science.
That's basically what he's doing here. The imbecile keeps babbling about "kinds" of animals, a term that has no scientific meaning at all because it was simply made up by ignorant fundamentalists, and insisting that the subjects answer the questions in those terms. The reason the people are confused and frustrated is because it's impossible to give intelligent, meaningful answers about things that don't even exist.
"Well, the finches didn't really evolve, because they're still finches. There's no change of kind." "The pickleback fish didn't really evolve, because it's still a fish. So there was no evolution." He's speaking from a position of sheer idiocy - and the hilarity of it is that when his target audience sees this video, they're convinced it supports their point of view because they believe the same idiocy. They assume it proves how smart he is and how stupid scientists are, because they're too ignorant to realize that it's actually exactly the opposite.
So that was a ray comfort production?? I've heard about him, but never bothered to look him up, since nothing anyone ever said about him piqued my interest in the least. What a tool.
Ray Comfort - wasn't he the prat who said that the Philippine hurricane disaster was God's way of telling us that he's there? (1) And we need hardly mention the banana - the creationists nitemare, need we?
As said above, evolution theory is not needed to disbelieve in the god described in the Bible, yet, when you look at the evidence, it does much better fit a process of evolution through natural selection than the lot being made in one go.
That an evolutionary process HAS been observed is admitted even by hardline creationists - they call it 'Micro -evolution'. What they deny is that it could ever over time result in such a profound change that it would effectively become a different critter 'Speciation' or 'macro -evolution'.
To deny that this could happen and that the evidence suggests this did happen is a big claim and creationism has nothing to put up against it other than the wonky 'Ark' theory based on Baramins (kinds) which in fact do not exist in the fossil record.
Even if Creation theory was not a cherry - pick -and -deny -the -rest mangling - of -the- evidence (not to mention lying about it) attempt to make Genesis look literally credible, it would not have a thing to make it credible as a theory and its only method is to point to gaps in evolution -theory and pretend that these totally discredit it.
If gaps in a theory (never mind the science just being wrong) discredited it, then Creationism isn't credible in the least.
So, as an atheist I have no time for the early books of the Bible as anything but myth, and as someone who has been obliged to consider the rival claims or creationism and evolution, evolution takes all the trumps and ID seems to lose them but go away claiming they won.
(1) and that wasn't even Original -that claim was first made in connection with the Tsunami.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-15-2014 at 08:03 AM..
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,507,366 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg
So that was a ray comfort production?? I've heard about him, but never bothered to look him up, since nothing anyone ever said about him piqued my interest in the least. What a tool.
Yup, just to deal with his argument, the natural banana is a small green thing, about as appetizing a a dog turd. It is years of natural selection by humans that has adapted it to be so suitable for human taste, not ID by 'Almighty God'. In fact, the banana is evidence of natural selection.
That utter car -crash should have driven Ray into obscurity, but the tosser has carried on peddling his propagandist tripe, uncaring (even if he is aware) that he is looking a total pillock.
P.s I wondered whether that was an Australian accent. In fact he is a New Zealander.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,507,366 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Yup, just to deal with his argument, the natural banana is a small green thing, about as appetizing a a dog turd. It is years of natural selection by humans that has adapted it to be so suitable for human taste, not ID by 'Almighty God'. In fact, the banana is evidence of natural selection.
That utter car -crash should have driven Ray into obscurity, but the tosser has carried on peddling his propagandist tripe, uncaring (even if he is aware) that he is looking a total pillock.
P.s I wondered whether that was an Australian accent. In fact he is a New Zealander.
I'm still not sure whether that is Ray back tracking (a bit) but trying to recover some ground by challenging Dawkins to a debate or someone standing in for him.
In fact, the debate should not be on 'why there isn't a God' but on why there is. The burden of proof is reversed. In fact, I think Dawkins could take him, if the debate was as fair as the Nye-Ham debate. I think I could also best Ray in a 20 minute debate but NOT requiring me to prove God doesn't exist, because that is handing the debate to the Theists at the outset.
I would only agree to a debate on why there is no good evidential or logical reason to believe the God -claim (it is necessary to use the full wording as we already see how theists operate by my being told on these werry boards that it was false to claim that there was not a shred of evidence for God since even crap evidence is still 'evidence') and that even if true, it does not validate the god of the Bible nor Christianity.
Clever editing hatchet job. If you think the person who edited this down didn't cherry pick, for instance, pz myers...
And the interviewer persists in asking the wrong question. If you don't ask the right question, you'll never get anywhere.
I am pretty sure most americans believe oj killed nicole. Yet there is no eyewitness of either the actual killing or oj's actions immediately afterward.
So why do most most americans believe in oj's guilt (apparently even his own kids)? Because the pattern of the evidence we have best fits the hypothesis that it was oj, and not some still-not-identified drug dealer, who killed her.
Thinking that OJ killed Nicole is a religious belief.
Thinking that OJ killed Nicole is a religious belief.
Maybe.
Anyway, my point is that many people do believe it, because the available evidence, while very sketchy, fits a well-known social pattern. While the same darn people assert that "evolution is a only theory" (using theory as a synonym for wild-ass guess), in the face of mountains of evidence.
My atheism does not rest on the validity or invalidity of evolutionary theory.
Well, why not?
My atheism is predicated on the Theory of Luminiferous Aether
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
How come the only application of scientific principles which they find objectionable is the one which invalidates their Geneses myths?
Because they're frightened to death.
All religions have a cosmogony. Through study, you'll find those cosmogonies are much more in tune with science than the silly Jewish/christian version. Naturally, those other religions have no objection to Evolution.
Anyway, it's not that big of a deal.
It's only a matter of time before they find the original E or J versions of the Hebrew texts, at which point you can stick a fork in christianity.
Theorizing...
Decent watch.....Atheists are quite open minded,etc....... You can talk to them about ANYTHING and they wont poke fun,judge you,etc.......... Probably cause they are not limiting themselves to one way of thinking??
Ah, looks like someone just discovered the infamous Ray Comfort video...
When he's not embarrassing himself with bananas, Comfort likes to edit conversations with people who are atheists and/or non-creationists in order to make them look confused. It's his shtick.
As P.Z. Myers, one of the individuals 'interviewed', points out, Comfort refuses to release the full source footage he used - unlike prominent atheist Richard Dawkins, who produced video containing numerous interviews with religious folk, and happily posted all of the unused video online. Guess which one of these two has something to hide? Ray Comfort confesses Ray Comfort sinks to new depths of pathos
Like I said, it's his shtick. Here's another example. In 2009, Comfort released a version of Darwin's The Origin of Species (it's long been in the public domain), prefaced with a long creationist section that purports to refute evolution. And though he claims to be presenting Darwin without omitting so much as a word, in reality he decided to omit all of four chapters - the ones in which Darwin systematically laid out the actual evidence for evolution. The omission is deception. Claiming he omitted nothing is a blad-faced lie. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/10/30/how-creationist-origin-distorts-darwin
It is telling that this dime-a-dozen charlatan, who is oblivious to the fact that the common supermarket banana is not a wild form but the result of 6000+ years of domestication, is the pinacle of creationist 'thought'.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
since even crap evidence is still 'evidence') and that even if true, it does not validate the god of the Bible nor Christianity.
