Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2013, 06:10 AM
RE: Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
Quote:What we need is a quick sound bite <cringe, I know> but that is what ordinary people in their busy lives, reluctant to see any proEvolution stuff need to see.
Something very quickly showing how scientists know that one "kind" is related to another "kind", then when the audience understands, then trow the proof of how we know chimpanzees and humans have common ancestry.

I don't know, I'm no PR person, no marketer, but it strongly feels to me that the ID/Creationists are winnging the american public over with their "intelligent" and well planned, well marketed, well targetted PR initiatives.

I agree with this. In todays fast paced market, most people don't want to take the time to learn what the truth is. Most just want quick bits of info that will help make up their mind. Even myself is slowly learning about evolution and as a layman, it takes some effort to truly understand it. But thats just me.

Twitter: @doubtingdragon
http://doubtingdragon.wordpress.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 06:12 AM
RE: Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
(16-08-2013 08:28 PM)closet.atheist Wrote:  I can thankfully say that I have never heard of the guy or his movie.
I'm not inclined to search and change my state of blissful ignorance on this one.

Do yourself a favor and keep it that way. Unless you enjoy frustratingly torturing yourself.

Twitter: @doubtingdragon
http://doubtingdragon.wordpress.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DoubtingDragon's post
20-10-2013, 07:53 AM
RE: Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
(19-10-2013 11:11 AM)David111 Wrote:  
(09-08-2013 07:32 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Ray Comfort is a grade A douche.

Intelligent reply

Well, hello David. Care to make a point? I'm sure it would make everyones day. Drinking Beverage

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 08:06 AM
RE: Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
The truth will always shine through in the end, ID has to lie and defraud to fit reality into their agenda.
so while they may win a short term agenda of converts the house of lies will fall. and it will fall hard IMHO.

I believe ray comfort could be better for the Atheist community than Dawkins, Dawkins more or less preaches to the converted, Ray Comfort is a De-Converter. His absurd analogies and fraudulent/ignorant banana proof should only attract darwin award recipients.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 08:07 AM
RE: Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
(17-08-2013 01:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Yes, great book, but one has to take the time to find the book, be open to investing time to read a book authored by Dawkins and be open to read a book on evolution.

Thing is, the ID/Creationist plan is a PR thing, not a science thing. They have no science. They are winning over the religious Americans by telling them what they want to hear. That they are special, made in god's image, that they have a divine purpose and responsibility to be moral, whereas animals are just animals.

Comfort's movie is well advertised and promoted, people want drama, they want to hear that the atheists are shook up by the movie. The movie is also very funny to watch, all the "scientists" squeeming and squirming, contradicting themselves, stating that evolution is not a belief that it is fact, then all of them saying that they believe in evolution and they have strong believe, Saying that they have proof of evolution because fish turn into fish, bacteria into bacteria.

The Quila video is quick, it lacks entertainment value, lacks build up and promotion, and only asserts things and doesn't show how scientists know macroevolution is fact.
The video with the girl is just ramblings, no entertainment, it doesn't even address anything until over 2 minutes in, by then most people would have stopped watching it.

What we need is a quick sound bite <cringe, I know> but that is what ordinary people in their busy lives, reluctant to see any proEvolution stuff need to see.
Something very quickly showing how scientists know that one "kind" is related to another "kind", then when the audience understands, then trow the proof of how we know chimpanzees and humans have common ancestry.

I don't know, I'm no PR person, no marketer, but it strongly feels to me that the ID/Creationists are winnging the american public over with their "intelligent" and well planned, well marketed, well targetted PR initiatives.

That's because Creationists know they're playing a popularity contest, and have vast sums of money from friendly donors to devote to that end.

Whereas scientists, although we do have tons and tons of money - since, naturally, all of modern science is a vast all-encompassing conspiracy! (one need only consult the brain geniuses on this very forum to see how "obviously" wrong everything from quantum mechanics to heliocentrism is). But we're too busy using the money on hookers and blow, solid gold pants, faking global warming to make snazzily produced but intellectually vacuous piles of execrable failure films like Comfort's "masterpiece" here.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
20-10-2013, 12:41 PM
RE: Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
(20-10-2013 07:53 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(19-10-2013 11:11 AM)David111 Wrote:  Intelligent reply

Well, hello David. Care to make a point? I'm sure it would make everyones day. Drinking Beverage

Hi there even heathen

First of all, my apologies for the sarcastic comment.

I suppose I was just fishing for a response.

Anyway, here is my point.

I don't see what the problem is with the god v evolution movie and Ray Comfort. The movie is just pointing out that even esteemed academics find it difficult to produce evidence to make the jump between variations within a species and the kind of changes that would be required for evolution to be a proven fact,at least observable evidence in any case. I know there have been calls for the unedited footage to be released but I am pretty sure that the same impass will be reached but just in an extended form.

Please correct me if I am wrong but my understanding of evolution is as follows. All life on earth as we know it today is as a result of small variations over time which have occurred since the first (probably single cell) organisms appeared resulting in what we see today. Granted its a laymans understanding which I have, and it's possibly not 100% accurate( feel free to correct).
Micro evolution,as I understand it, is variations within a species which occur but do not occur because of any new information created. For instance, if you were to have a certain type of moth with both lighter and darker varieties, and because of the surrounding environment, possibly lighter varietes are better camouflaged, then you would be able to observe that the population was becoming lighter over time( darker ones eaten). Again, correct me if I am wrong but this is my understanding.
For me it seems logical that micro evolution and evolution are not the same as new information would of necessity need to have been created to progress from a single cell to an elephant, or otherwise the first organisms would have needed to have all information already.
The problem which Ray Comfort has, and which I have as well, is that if the only evidence that can be put forward to support evolution is evidence for micro evolution, then one process for which evidence can be observed is being used to prove another completely different theoretical process.
I know there is controversy about what Ray comfort means when he says that evidence is not being shown for changes in kinds, but as far as I can tell, he is saying that the evidence put forward is not showing that life possesses the ability to create new information( ie, Darwin's finches showed observable evidence of changes in beaks but that the information was already there and that at the end of the day, if you go Galapagos, you will still find that the finches are finches).

So please feel free to enlighten my understanding. If modern science does not see a conflict here then either my undstanding of the terms and processes is incorrect or there is a logical way to bridge the conflict which I may need to be shown.

Look forward to comments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 01:09 PM
RE: Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
(20-10-2013 12:41 PM)David111 Wrote:  So please feel free to enlighten my understanding. If modern science does not see a conflict here then either my undstanding of the terms and processes is incorrect or there is a logical way to bridge the conflict which I may need to be shown.









There are plenty of books you could read that would educate you further, however I'd be willing to bet that you're not the type who would pay attention to any evidence that might go against what you would like to believe.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 01:20 PM
RE: Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
(20-10-2013 12:41 PM)David111 Wrote:  ...
For me it seems logical that micro evolution and evolution are not the same as new information would of necessity need to have been created to progress from a single cell to an elephant, or otherwise the first organisms would have needed to have all information already.
...

You have a fundamental flaw in your understanding of evolution that is evident in this sentence right here. Not being insulting, just pointing out where your most serious gap of lack of understanding resides.

Unfortunately I'm too busy today to go into more depth. I will return to this when I can, but this is an wholly inaccurate statement, and I hope to have time to explain why soon.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Raptor Jesus's post
20-10-2013, 01:22 PM
RE: Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
(20-10-2013 12:41 PM)David111 Wrote:  
(20-10-2013 07:53 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  Well, hello David. Care to make a point? I'm sure it would make everyones day. Drinking Beverage

Hi there even heathen

First of all, my apologies for the sarcastic comment.

I suppose I was just fishing for a response.

Anyway, here is my point.

I don't see what the problem is with the god v evolution movie and Ray Comfort. The movie is just pointing out that even esteemed academics find it difficult to produce evidence to make the jump between variations within a species and the kind of changes that would be required for evolution to be a proven fact,at least observable evidence in any case. I know there have been calls for the unedited footage to be released but I am pretty sure that the same impass will be reached but just in an extended form.

Please correct me if I am wrong but my understanding of evolution is as follows. All life on earth as we know it today is as a result of small variations over time which have occurred since the first (probably single cell) organisms appeared resulting in what we see today. Granted its a laymans understanding which I have, and it's possibly not 100% accurate( feel free to correct).
Micro evolution,as I understand it, is variations within a species which occur but do not occur because of any new information created. For instance, if you were to have a certain type of moth with both lighter and darker varieties, and because of the surrounding environment, possibly lighter varietes are better camouflaged, then you would be able to observe that the population was becoming lighter over time( darker ones eaten). Again, correct me if I am wrong but this is my understanding.
For me it seems logical that micro evolution and evolution are not the same as new information would of necessity need to have been created to progress from a single cell to an elephant, or otherwise the first organisms would have needed to have all information already.
The problem which Ray Comfort has, and which I have as well, is that if the only evidence that can be put forward to support evolution is evidence for micro evolution, then one process for which evidence can be observed is being used to prove another completely different theoretical process.
I know there is controversy about what Ray comfort means when he says that evidence is not being shown for changes in kinds, but as far as I can tell, he is saying that the evidence put forward is not showing that life possesses the ability to create new information( ie, Darwin's finches showed observable evidence of changes in beaks but that the information was already there and that at the end of the day, if you go Galapagos, you will still find that the finches are finches).

So please feel free to enlighten my understanding. If modern science does not see a conflict here then either my undstanding of the terms and processes is incorrect or there is a logical way to bridge the conflict which I may need to be shown.

Look forward to comments.

You are missing a few crucial factors that without which change the actual science into fantasy.

First off Evolution begins before cellular life, it started as soon as self replication began. The cell wall is actually an evolved feature.

Secondly the way evolution through natural selection works. There are 3 necessary components 1 replication errors 2 time (immense amounts) 3 competition for limited resources.

Replication errors are vital for evolution. Without something to select (ie: random beneficial mutation) there is nothing for the mechanism of evolution (natural selection) to work upon. The quick and dirty version of this is best shown in cell division, when a cell divides the vast majority of the time the process ends in 2 identical cells but every once in a great while 1 or both of the resulting cells are slightly different from the parent cell and each other. This random error could prove to be either beneficial (this is the rarest of the 3) benign (causing neither harm nor help) or harmful (the most likely result of replication error). Now selection can occur once there is a difference to select. In the harmful case the selection pressure would eliminate the change (if it was a bad enough change) in the benign it would not effect the selection process but in the beneficial case if the change increases the likelihood that this cell survives longer or can reproduce easier then it has a better chance of passing on this benefit to it's own offspring.

There is no difference between what has been labeled micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution is just the accumulated changes that have added up to change a T-rex into a chicken. The accusation of no "transitional fossils" was true in Darwin's day but now we have a huge amount of them and are discovering more all the time.

As to Ray Comfort's movie, it is the worst kind of gotcha editing. Ambushing someone and asking them to explain a complicated subject and then using unfair editing (there are calls for the unedited tapes that Mr Comfort refuses to answer) to make it seem as though they have no answer. Add to that the fact that the version of evolution that Ray Comfort is arguing against is a strawman of his own making and has no bearing on the actual science.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
20-10-2013, 01:23 PM
RE: Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
The only valid alternative to the theory of evolution is we "don't know".
scientists are experimenting and falsifying evolution every day.

Creationists want science to back off before the american public figures out what the rest of the civilised world has realised, evolution is not falsifiable and it has tons of evidence. not only that ,corroboration evidence from almost all science disciplines.

creation also can't be falsified, but has zero physical evidence and only oral hearsay examples of corroborating evidence.

evolution does not claim to disprove god, or explain the origin of life, it only deals in what is self evident.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: