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 InfernalTank » Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:09 pm

Ray Comfort is a weasel. This is probably the best evidence of it.

"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). "

$20 says he skipped it. If he didn't he's basically moving goalposts.

"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."

The changes in 60,000,000 years and 70 are quite big in different ways. Compare a baby to say, Chevy Chase.

"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)."

THAT WAS A WILD BANANA
InfernalTank
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 1:51 am

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:11 pm

InfernalTank wrote:Ray Comfort is a weasel. This is probably the best evidence of it.

"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). "

$20 says he skipped it. If he didn't he's basically moving goalposts.

"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."

The changes in 60,000,000 years and 70 are quite big in different ways. Compare a baby to say, Chevy Chase.

"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)."

THAT WAS A WILD BANANA



Sorry, can you clarify on the "$20 says he skipped it. If he didn't he's basically moving goalposts" and "THAT WAS A WILD BANANA" points?

Incidentally, I can make NO sense whatsoever (if that is what he meant to write) of "nothing made every because nothing is something". I assume Comfort meant to type "nothing made everything because nothing is something". Jaclyn did mention at 9 minutes 30 seconds in a somewhat wild sounding idea put by Lawrence Krauss that you could reverse matter and antimatter clashing to produce nothing and 'start' with nothing and produce matter and antimatter. Apparently ongoing scientific research on this idea is covered in his book 'A Universe from Nothing'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7880
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby InfernalTank » Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:20 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:Sorry, can you clarify on the "$20 says he skipped it. If he didn't he's basically moving goalposts" and "THAT WAS A WILD BANANA" points?


The wild banana part was referring to the modern banana Ray mentioned in the comment. It wasn't one of those that we have modified over centuries

The skipped part I mentioned was about Ray not understanding what Jaclyn said, especially the part at 6:54 when she states that just because she can't show him directly doesn't mean that it never happened.
InfernalTank
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 1:51 am

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Aug 16, 2013 3:33 am

Further email to Jaclyn Glenn:

PS
Looking at this, it's possible that Comfort is so ridiculous as to deny speciation (maybe that's why he has made other 'arguments' about your video on his Facebook page):
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... y-comfort/
"The process of change is supposedly brought about by something Darwin called 'natural selection'";
"Darwinian evolution is often confused by believers with a species adapting within its own kind. Transitions within a species (a kind) is not Darwinian evolution";
"There is no indisputable evidence for species to species evolution".

I have not read a huge amount by Comfort and am much more familiar with pronouncements by the young Earth creationists at eg Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis. There seems little doubt that for them eg Jonathan Sarfati both natural selection and speciation are real (though not found in the Bible of course) and they would have a wider sort of definition of 'kind' than species level (though you cannot nail them down on it). So these YECs are accepting new species SINCE biblical creation - but always within the same 'kind' only.

But it appears that - in 2009 at least - Comfort was equating 'kind' with species, as your video appears to assume.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7880
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri Aug 16, 2013 5:01 pm

Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:33 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:
Bananaman wrote: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).
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).
Judging by the linked photos on Wikipedia, both might be right. One wild banana fairly bent, one short and not bent. Of course, Comfort will have been teased so often that even he will have looked up the facts. Which include that the bananas have been massively modified and the originals show no sign of being designed as a comfort-food.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana
PS: there's also the little matter of cultivation beginning not 5000 years ago but 5000 BCE or even 8000 BCE. So even the cultivated ones have probably been around longer than the universe as Comfort sees it.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4167
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby Michael » Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:46 pm

Perhaps adam and eve scrumped bananas
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby InfernalTank » Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:04 am

I found another debunking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArDwjishXQI

I did tweet it to him, but I have a feeling he'll just ignore it.
InfernalTank
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 1:51 am

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby Peter Henderson » Sat Aug 17, 2013 11:19 am

InfernalTank wrote:I found another debunking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArDwjishXQI

I did tweet it to him, but I have a feeling he'll just ignore it.



Good points about "believing" in evolution. I don't "believe" in evolution in the same way that I don't "believe" in the periodic table.

Whether you believe in evolution or not makes absolutely no difference that it's a fact of science.

I'd have answered no to Comfort's question.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby Brian Jordan » Sat Aug 17, 2013 2:56 pm

InfernalTank wrote:I found another debunking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArDwjishXQI
I've got through half an hour but it's giving me indigestion. Comfort's endless nagging about "kinds" is nauseating. I dread to think what the actual Comfort video is like. (No, don't give me any links please - I couldn't stomach it.)
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4167
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby InfernalTank » Sat Aug 17, 2013 4:18 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:
InfernalTank wrote:I found another debunking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArDwjishXQI
I've got through half an hour but it's giving me indigestion. Comfort's endless nagging about "kinds" is nauseating. I dread to think what the actual Comfort video is like. (No, don't give me any links please - I couldn't stomach it.)


I hated the part where he calls Hemmingway a poster boy for atheism, and then calls atheists dishonest (and says something along the lines of "well what did you expect"). The irony in it being Ray's track record for being dishonest.
InfernalTank
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 1:51 am

The 'logic' of Ray Comfort

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Aug 17, 2013 7:16 pm

An entry by him read on his Facebook page just now:

"Someone Said: “How many 100's of hours of editing and this MORON still bangs on the ‘observable’ part...so not only is he an idiot but also doesn't understand that time needs to pass so we can see evolution....SO no PROOF of God RAY...Just another PATHETIC attempt to plug your $!?&@ videos so he can scam more STUPID Christians out of their money...”
Ray Answers: Notice his “[He] doesn't understand that time needs to pass so we can see evolution.” Even with the magic of time we still can’t “see” evolution. There’s no observable (seeable) proof. No one can provide any. Not even Richard Dawkins—who could debunk “Evolution vs. God” publically in a moment by giving us some observable evidence for what he calls “Darwinian evolution.” But he will stay in hiding because he can’t provide any."

I hope Ray lives for 50,000 years. Perhaps he will then take another look and tell our descendants what he sees.

Dawkins has already answered Comfort's idiot question but I doubt Comfort ever listens to evolutionists. "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.". Young Earth Creationists love to wilfully misunderstand this. We can observe evolution after it has occurred but not actually watch the process (not even recorded highlights).

Actually I'd sooner trust an account from Dawkins in 50,000 years.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7880
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

The barefaced falsehoods of Ray Comfort

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Aug 17, 2013 7:45 pm

Also posted by him today on his Facebook page (responding to someone who contacted him):
"Also, I need not educate myself any further about Darwinian evolution because I’ve sat at the feet of your best--experts from UCLA and USC and they educated me about what you believe, and they couldn’t back it up with a lick of scientific evidence."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7880
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Aug 17, 2013 7:58 pm

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7880
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ray Comfort's New Schmuckumentary

Postby Brian Jordan » Sat Aug 17, 2013 9:06 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/17/theyre-still-bacteriaand-fishand-apesand/
Yes, Bananaman is still a right nana.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4167
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests