Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:52 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:
theignored wrote:Yeah, this is the guy who seeks to undermine a well-established theory in biology:

"Except not every animal has males or females. Which Genesis neglects to mention. Why is that, Ray?" Cory Kent
Do you really think slugs and snails are "animals." They are not. They are what are termed “invertebrates,” which means they lack a backbone. They belong to a large and highly diverse group of invertebrates known as the Phylum Mollusca. You had better read Genesis again.


Genesis 5 and a couple of New Testament verses mentioning God creating them male and female seem to refer specifically to human beings. Rather than to state that male and female occur in all species.

YECs frequently use Genesis 5:2, including (if I recall correctly) as an argument for instant creation and against evolution (including evolution of gender).



In fact THIS is what I was struggling to remember. How YECs regularly quote Mark 10:6 (one of two NT verses harking back to Genesis 5:2 but where the context was Jesus teaching against divorce) as an argument against MILLIONS OF YEARS and for SIX DAY CREATION. (In most translations it seems Matthew 19:4 does not fit the bill quite like Mark 10:6 does.)
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ation.html
Mark 10:6 (NIV): ""But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female’"".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8047
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:50 pm

If you wish you can listen to this (I probably will when my newly-repaired washing machine has stopped spinning):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/a ... nversation
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8047
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby Peter Henderson » Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:51 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:If you wish you can listen to this (I probably will when my newly-repaired washing machine has stopped spinning):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/a ... nversation


Yuk.

Why don't Christians protest at being misrepresented by this deceitful crap ?

Just had my own washing machine and dishwasher repaired as well. £170 down the drain :cry:
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4338
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:53 pm

"Why don't Christians protest at being misrepresented by this deceitful crap ?"

Reasons to Believe and Biologos weren't impressed by it.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8047
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:29 pm

Just listened to the podcast (not quite as smug as the CMI material though still some slander and stereo-typing against evolutionary scientists).

They really do think they have 'debunked' evolution, or more accurately that the words of those they interviewed 'debunk' it. An incredible mindset. (Or else they DON'T believe it at all but they want people like me to think that they believe it - and I like to think I am discerning not gullible.) I tend to think that they have persuaded themselves that they have debunked evolution. Eventually they will discover that they have not - and doubtless ANOTHER movie will be made by fundamentalist Christians condemning or ridiculing evolution.

Quoting scriptures to allege that evolution is a 'lie' etc makes NO difference to anything since the Bible is not a scientific text and does not ever refer to any scientific 'truths' or 'lies'. They are reading stuff into the Bible imho.

But hey, the Bible never ever mentions or hints at speciation either eg the fish that Jones and Myers etc have mentioned in debates and interviews. Why on earth do YECs believe in speciation?

They are compromisers, adding to scripture!

I'm serious.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8047
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby InfernalTank » Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:24 am

It scares me when they start going at the "us VS them" idea.
InfernalTank
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 1:51 am

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:46 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:Just listened to the podcast (not quite as smug as the CMI material though still some slander and stereo-typing against evolutionary scientists).

They really do think they have 'debunked' evolution, or more accurately that the words of those they interviewed 'debunk' it. An incredible mindset. (Or else they DON'T believe it at all but they want people like me to think that they believe it - and I like to think I am discerning not gullible.) I tend to think that they have persuaded themselves that they have debunked evolution. Eventually they will discover that they have not - and doubtless ANOTHER movie will be made by fundamentalist Christians condemning or ridiculing evolution.

Quoting scriptures to allege that evolution is a 'lie' etc makes NO difference to anything since the Bible is not a scientific text and does not ever refer to any scientific 'truths' or 'lies'. They are reading stuff into the Bible imho.

But hey, the Bible never ever mentions or hints at speciation either eg the fish that Jones and Myers etc have mentioned in debates and interviews. Why on earth do YECs believe in speciation?

They are compromisers, adding to scripture!

I'm serious.


Why should we believe the "professors" when they develop a new vaccine to fight the next flu pandemic ?

Comfort and Ham are scary when it comes to a rejection of science.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4338
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby InfernalTank » Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:40 pm

InfernalTank
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 1:51 am

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby Brian Jordan » Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:38 pm

InfernalTank wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIehVeZYUyY

Worth watching
Indeed. You could see Comfort's eyes glazing over.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4171
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:59 pm

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8047
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:17 pm

I've sent the following email to Living Waters among others:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ
http://www.livingwaters.com/
If you do not wish to read a few comments about the recently released Ray Comfort 'Evolution vs God' film, please delete this message.

Mr Comfort wants as many students in the US as possible to watch this as he thinks it will change opinions regarding the likelihood of the 'modern evolutionary synthesis' being true or scientific . However, creationists have been attempting for decades to debunk evolution and this is not Mr Comfort's first attempt to do that. If you watch the 38 minute film, which is mostly carefully edited vox pops where Mr Comfort speaks to four scientists and to various students of biology who accept evolution, you will see that it does not address any of the circumstantial evidence for 'macro' evolutionary change but rather demands of those interviewed some directly 'observable' evidence of creatures evolving over generations into different 'kinds' (such a change beyond 'kind' boundaries would be a species of dinosaur becoming a species of bird - though of course Mr Comfort does not insist on evidence of observable change in extinct species, extant species would apparently suffice for him). As an aside, I think Comfort is on record as claiming there is 'no' scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution in the first place, which may explain why his film ignores such.

The tactic by Mr Comfort - whose efforts have been lauded by Ken Ham - appears to be to highlight that belief in 'molecules to Man' evolution (whether by purely natural processes or with divine assistance and supervision) requires some faith ie the process, if it is happening, is too slow to be directly observed so faith is necessary. Nobody would dispute that I don't think. But Mr Comfort wishes to go further.

Thus - he would doubtless say - if faith is required, the theory IS faith and therefore it is NOT science. Thus the creationists want people to lump the theory together with the kind of false teachings, false religions and false philosophies that are warned against in the 2,000 + year old Bible. The film is intended to 'deal' with evolution as a stumbling block to Christian faith - because when Christians evangelise some people object that humans exist because of evolution and not because of God.

Big claims have been made for the film by young Earth creationist Christians, including that it will shake the 'foundations of faith'. However, other Christians (including even some evolution-doubting old Earth creationists) have been critical. For instance:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/a-revie ... ion-vs-god

Young Earth creationists do accept the realities of natural selection and of speciation (within 'kind' boundaries), though of course it is difficult to find either natural selection or speciation - or extinctions for that matter - anywhere in the, pre-scientific, Bible.

I predict that this will not be the last major effort by creationists to debunk evolution!

Ashley Haworth-Roberts
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8047
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 15, 2013 7:17 pm

Good video on the science - so far (I'm seven minutes in; will watch the rest at 9 pm UK time). But Jaclyn assumes that by 'kind' Comfort means SPECIES. He DOESN'T - even if you could take Genesis that way. He's talking about something more akin to families or genera. Most creationists do accept the reality of speciation. Though of course rejecting 'molecules to Man' evolution.

So if Comfort watches the video he will probably claim that he was not rebutted ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0k9NyHh7TQ

Have tried to contact Jaclyn Glenn and Hemant Mehta by email to point this out.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8047
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 15, 2013 7:50 pm

Just seen that Comfort has watched the Glenn video and commented on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/official.Ray.Comfort
"Here’s an atheist who does a very interesting point-by-point review of “Evolution vs. God,” saying that it made her depressed. I can understand why.
A number of times she says that there’s "tons" and "mountains" of evidence, but all she offers as her best observable evidence for Darwinian evolution is birds changing into birds and salamanders changing in salamanders. She moves on to the “nothing made every because nothing is something” silliness (which she says she doesn’t understand but she still believes—has faith that it’s true).
She compares observable aging changes in human beings (70 years) with evolution’s 60,000,000 years, without batting an eyelid. She also has insider-information that we parted with chimps 6,000,000 years ago, adding that there is “a very tiny number of differences” in chimp and human genes—her very tiny number amounts to several hundred million bases. But it really gets bad when she talks about a fossil being found in the wrong place. Watch for that one.
Of course, she begins by saying that man modified the shape of the banana—which isn’t true. The guy that started that belief used a picture of a modern banana to show the shape of bananas 5,000 years ago (it must have surprised him that nobody mentioned that they didn’t have cameras 5,000 years ago).
Feel free to “like” this video. I did. It’s a great promo for the movie (she even preaches the gospel and quotes Scripture. God bless her).

This superficially looks like a rebuttal of the rebuttal - BUT IT IS NO SUCH THING (though I do not know who is correct on the bananas point). It is the normal, rather hypocritical, Comfort sleight of hand.

Comfort is pretending that only 'observable' evidence can possibly be science. And pretending that Jaclyn's points about genetics and about the ageing process count for nothing.

He is anti-science.

Oddly, he failed to pick up the point that I have highlighted to Jaclyn and Hemant.

I shall take Comfort's advice and 'like' the film.

(I flagged this thread to Jaclyn and Hemant. I am now doing the SAME thing to Living Waters.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8047
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 15, 2013 7:59 pm

I also have flagged this thread at Comfort's Facebook page - wonder how long that will last for.
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8047
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:06 pm

Any unbiased person watching the Comfort film might be tempted to assume that young earth creationism is intellectually bankrupt.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8047
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron