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

The fantasy world of Bob Sorensen

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 08, 2013 12:10 am

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2013/08 ... lable.html
'Evolution vs God' video available

"Atheists are furious, attacking it with typical lack of logic". Where Bob? Ah HERE.
http://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... acies.html

I didn't know that Sorensen was a spokesperson for Atheism. I guess I must have finally blown his cover - and he is a lying atheist who is pretending to be a lying creationist in order to discredit young Earth creationism more than it already is discredited.

I am tempted to send another wide circulation email, or an email to Bob only! But when I do this Bob complains behind my back about being sent unwanted 'opinions' - whenever I do more than express an opinion and instead expose to the world his repeated deliberate false claims about his critics or his wilful ignorance about scientific realities made in blog posts that forbid all feedback.

He cannot refute what I say (or is being too 'kind' to do so perhaps?) so his only weapon is either to ignore me or to call me names behind my back.
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8001
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:01 am

I hope that by watching the film via the link that has been provided here I will not be infringing copyright in any way (the warning that appears on-screen refers to 'Federal Law' which presumably cannot apply in the UK). It does appear that the video has been posted on YouTube by Living Waters/TheWayOfTheMaster themselves - not by someone else who might want to help people view the film without paying to do so if that is still necessary from 7 August onwards. I also see that the link can be viewed without payment by going direct to YouTube.

I will react shortly - after watching the film in full. (Personal opinions.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8001
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:36 am

There's very little actual substance in this video.

It tries to tell the viewer that evolution beyond 'kinds' is faith and not science. And then misuses the Dawkins quote: "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence". In fact from an online search it appears that the FULL quote was "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence". There is evidence for evolution, so Dawkins was not suggesting that belief that evolution has occurred is mere 'faith'.

Comfort wants people to assume that belief in evolution is a 'cop-out'. And he insists - because one Bible verse (or at most a handful) suggests this - that atheists really 'know' there is a God and that creation is true and therefore evolution is false.

After 20 minutes it veers off away from science or evolutionary theory. The last few minutes are mostly evangelism - presumably shown with permission of the people concerned. Though brief snippets of the scientists who were interviewed feature towards the end.

Sorensen is not wrong (see previous comment) that some atheists are not happy about the film. But he either is incompetent in failing to provide any evidence of them being 'angry' or else he is afraid to link to actual blogs such as this one - I suggest that would be because they might embarrass the makers of the film:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... y-comfort/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ittle-man/

I cannot see any blogs, whether about this film or anything else, by scientists Gail Kennedy, Peter Nonacs and Craig Stanford.

Presumably they have not converted to creationism and abandoned their 'belief' in evolution as a result of listening to Comfort (who to be fair also was preaching the gospel as well as anti-evolutionism).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8001
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 08, 2013 9:15 pm

On the subject of Evolution vs God more generally.

http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2013/08/ ... worldview/
I considered posting a comment (as far as I know Tim doesn't censor) challenging the opening sentence in particular. However, I see that someone else has already made a better comment than mine would have been.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8001
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby InfernalTank » Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:16 pm

It didn't make any sense. He takes 4 second snippets of the interviews with experts in between students at UCLA, and expects it to make it look like they were stumped. The portions where he talks about famous atheists are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, same with his "good person test" routine. I think he has ADD.
InfernalTank
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 1:51 am

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby cathy » Fri Aug 09, 2013 8:56 am

I think he has ADD.

And I think you are being overly charitable there :). Too stupid to realise how stupid that looks is my assessment of him.
cathy
 
Posts: 3662
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Aug 10, 2013 12:11 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:On the subject of Evolution vs God more generally.

http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2013/08/ ... worldview/
I considered posting a comment (as far as I know Tim doesn't censor) challenging the opening sentence in particular. However, I see that someone else has already made a better comment than mine would have been.


Lots more comments I see. Tim writes: "Your ending comments on the Bible expose your bias". What it looks to me like Adam has is a lack of PRO-Bible bias.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8001
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Re:

Postby InfernalTank » Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:26 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:On the subject of Evolution vs God more generally.

http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2013/08/ ... worldview/
I considered posting a comment (as far as I know Tim doesn't censor) challenging the opening sentence in particular. However, I see that someone else has already made a better comment than mine would have been.


The whole argument fails for the fact that God can perform miracles at will, which defy the laws of physics. He can be all like "Gravity's stupid, how about I get rid of it for a day?"
InfernalTank
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 1:51 am

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby InfernalTank » Sat Aug 10, 2013 4:55 am

http://puu.sh/3YfvT.png

how would you respond to something like this?
InfernalTank
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 1:51 am

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby Michael » Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:25 am

InfernalTank wrote:http://puu.sh/3YfvT.png

how would you respond to something like this?


You can't
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby Brian Jordan » Sat Aug 10, 2013 11:52 am

Some variant on "pot, kettle, black"?
Or something like "while creationists sell evolution as adaptation"?
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4171
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Ken Ham attacks Christian critics of Comfort film

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Aug 10, 2013 11:32 pm

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29

Shows the nastiness of the Bible and any real God the Bible points to. Any Christian who has reservations about Comfort's propaganda is a naughty 'compromiser' who is refusing to be as biblical as the biblical Ham thinks they should be. Even if the reason for 'compromise' is being fair towards alternative viewpoints or tolerant of observed reality and the claims derived from rigorous careful scientific investigation.

"The criticism from atheists was almost immediate, for Comfort’s well-publicized film powerfully challenged their entire worldview." That's funny, a Christian (exact identity unknown but who was once a YEC) has asked in an email I received "Ashley, has anybody at a evolution-denial website simply admitted that they were disappointed that the new Ray Comfort film gave them NO evidence against evolution? (Surely home-schoolers, for example, were led to believe that they would learn new "tips" for debunking evolution)".

http://www.reasons.org/articles/a-revie ... ion-vs-god
In fact the example Ham is referring to is an article that is very wary of Comfort's film NOT because this 'compromiser' accepts evolution. Though he is indeed a 'compromiser' by not being a YEC like Ham, he in fact does not accept evolution. But Dr Jeff Zweerink points out: the video's "questionable treatment of science and scientists—with an attack mindset and a goal to make scientists look stupid—causes me to advise extreme caution". He adds: "I was looking for two specific things: (1) does the film persuasively debunk evolution? and (2) does it present an accurate portrayal of the scientific community, specifically of those who embrace evolution? Unfortunately, Evolution vs. God does neither. In fact, it may well damage Christian outreach to scientists".

The writer appears to respect Christians who have a science background and believe in evolution. He concludes: "Atheists could easily produce a similar video making Christians look stupid. If, as a Christian, you would find such a video objectionable, then please do not promote Evolution vs. God".

So does Mr Ham have ANY regard for Dr Zweerink''s comments?

Of course not! "When Comfort asks for specific evidence of this type of molecules-to-man change necessary for evolution, none of the answers he’s given demonstrate a change from one kind to another—plain and simple." But has Ham seen the full unedited footage eg of answers by P Z Myers? I can guess the answer. I assume one of the scientists interviewed pointed out that processes that take as long as millions of years could not be directly observed in the here and now.

Ham is also predictably dismissive of this:
http://biologos.org/blog/a-review-of-ev ... to-believe

Ham stamps his foot and insists that Comfort's film is 'powerful'. Well let's see if anybody eg one of the scientists or students interviewed says that it has caused them to embrace Christianity or, specifically, young Earth creationism!

Of course, going back to the question which that email raised, internet YECs on eg Ham's Facebook page are either too blinkered to realise that the film actually fails to do what it says on the tin, or (should any YECs have such discernment) they are keeping their views to themselves or at least off the internet.

The lesson for me here is that anything praised by Ken Ham is likely to be of dubious value.

I do NOT think that Reasons to Believe are being critical simply because they are old Earth creationists whilst Ham and Comfort are 'young' Earth creationists.

I can't see any mention of this RTB article on Comfort's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/official.Ray.Comfort

However, Comfort DOES flag this:
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1017805
He writes: "CHECK THIS OUT!!!! American Atheists, Inc., Challenges Filmmaker to Release Unedited Interviews!
American Atheists, Inc., today tweeted to its 31,000 followers for producer Ray Comfort to release unedited footage of interviews he conducted with four evolutionary scientists for his new film".

I predict that Comfort will duck and weave and make excuses for NOT releasing the full unedited footage.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8001
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby theignored » Sun Aug 11, 2013 5:46 pm

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.
theignored
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 7:13 am

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby Brian Jordan » Sun Aug 11, 2013 6:21 pm

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

Do you really think slugs and snails are "animals." They are not.
He'd better watch out - they still eat bananas.
"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 » Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:41 pm

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).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8001
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