Wretched: Ray Comfort responds to atheist accusations.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-10-2013, 04:18 PM
RE: Wretched: Ray Comfort responds to atheist accusations.
(04-10-2013 01:18 PM)Stevil Wrote:  In his "movie" the request is "Show me one example of observable evidence for evolution from one kind into another kind"

To me it just stands to reason that enough adaptations would eventually lead to a new kind. The reason we haven't observed it is because its a process that takes much longer than our ability to observe. But I am curious, what is the best observation of one kind changing into another? My guess would be the Lenski Long term evolution experiment. However in this experiment bacteria are still bacteria so I doubt it would satisfy Comfort. Is there something better?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 04:40 PM
RE: Wretched: Ray Comfort responds to atheist accusations.
(04-10-2013 01:18 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The atheists are being outwitted by the "idiot" Ray Comfort.

We are playing right into his game.

It's a game of words, no doubt.

In his "movie" the request is "Show me one example of observable evidence for evolution from one kind into another kind"

In this new clip the phrase is "when asked to provide evidence for Darwinian evolution"

But even in Ray's edited version, we did have many examples provided for Darwinian evolution. Just not from one "kind" to another.

The "angry atheists" phrase plays right into Ray's hands. Why are they angry? Because their worldview is under serious attack!
Really, our response should be ho hum or laughter. Why are they not interested, or why are they laughing? Because Ray's video is ludicrous and silly, with no substance.

Simply calling someone an idiot doesn't prove much, nor is a world view necessarily absolutely true.Bowing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 04:51 PM
RE: Wretched: Ray Comfort responds to atheist accusations.
I reported the video Tongue

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
04-10-2013, 04:59 PM
RE: Wretched: Ray Comfort responds to atheist accusations.
I understand your point, but aren't you just a little angry when you see propagandists like Comfort and others using such underhanded techniques to deceive the unwitting masses and spread their memes in such a disingenuous way? The blatant hypocrisy evident here--truly evil and horrible people clothing themselves in righteousness while being purposefully dishonest--makes me furious. And if I start talking about that pompous ass Freil, I'll have a stroke. So I won't.
(04-10-2013 01:18 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The atheists are being outwitted by the "idiot" Ray Comfort.

We are playing right into his game.

It's a game of words, no doubt.

In his "movie" the request is "Show me one example of observable evidence for evolution from one kind into another kind"

In this new clip the phrase is "when asked to provide evidence for Darwinian evolution"

But even in Ray's edited version, we did have many examples provided for Darwinian evolution. Just not from one "kind" to another.

The "angry atheists" phrase plays right into Ray's hands. Why are they angry? Because their worldview is under serious attack!
Really, our response should be ho hum or laughter. Why are they not interested, or why are they laughing? Because Ray's video is ludicrous and silly, with no substance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 06:20 PM
RE: Wretched: Ray Comfort responds to atheist accusations.
(04-10-2013 04:18 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  To me it just stands to reason that enough adaptations would eventually lead to a new kind. The reason we haven't observed it is because its a process that takes much longer than our ability to observe. But I am curious, what is the best observation of one kind changing into another?
Thing is, many people are too eager to get involved in debate, to fight to win an argument. But often people are arguing using strawmen or are arguing with cross purposes because both sides are using different definitions of words.

People that are very good debaters, aren't necessarily honest people looking to explore ideas. They are merely interested in point scoring and winning. The really great debaters use word definitions to their advantage, many words have multiple meanings and this confusion is used to the advantage of the debater.
Ray Comfort is very good at this. He plays ignorant, but he does seem quite smart to me.

When people take him up on his evolution of "Kind" argument. Well, don't you think it would be best to clarify first what is meant by "kind".
Is there a correlation between kind and species? Are all bacteria simply one kind? Are all birds simply one kind? All iguana, all dogs (even including the marsupial dogs?)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 06:26 PM
RE: Wretched: Ray Comfort responds to atheist accusations.
(04-10-2013 04:59 PM)Chopdoc Wrote:  I understand your point, but aren't you just a little angry when you see propagandists like Comfort and others using such underhanded techniques to deceive the unwitting masses and spread their memes in such a disingenuous way? The blatant hypocrisy evident here--truly evil and horrible people clothing themselves in righteousness while being purposefully dishonest--makes me furious.
I don't know how genuine Comfort is. Of course things he says and does seems very absurd and dishonest to us, but he is a victim of this own delusional beliefs too.
He is making a great living out of what it is that he does. He has fame and wealth and doesn't resort to physical violence.
Does he preach about anti gay, anti women stuff?

I don't have a problem with a person talking in public and debating topics. I don't agree with him, but I do find his point of view somewhat interesting. How much influence is he having on others? Maybe if they get interested in the topics then they use the internet to research both sides of the arguments.

IDK.

I'm not angry at him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 10:17 PM
RE: Wretched: Ray Comfort responds to atheist accusations.
(04-10-2013 06:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Thing is, many people are too eager to get involved in debate, to fight to win an argument. But often people are arguing using strawmen or are arguing with cross purposes because both sides are using different definitions of words.

People that are very good debaters, aren't necessarily honest people looking to explore ideas. They are merely interested in point scoring and winning. The really great debaters use word definitions to their advantage, many words have multiple meanings and this confusion is used to the advantage of the debater.
Ray Comfort is very good at this. He plays ignorant, but he does seem quite smart to me.

When people take him up on his evolution of "Kind" argument. Well, don't you think it would be best to clarify first what is meant by "kind".
Is there a correlation between kind and species? Are all bacteria simply one kind? Are all birds simply one kind? All iguana, all dogs (even including the marsupial dogs?)

Is a picture of a nude woman pornography or art? Let me see the picture and I can tell you. Comfort's use of "kind" is like that. A little nebulous to define but you know what is what when you see it.

Show him a line of dogs which evolved into cats and I think he would be hard pressed to deny evolution. But what observational evidence shows one kind evolving into another? I believe in evolution, I know a lot about it, and like I said earlier, the Lenski long term evolution experiment is probably the best observational evidence. But as an evolution believer, I would be very hard pressed to say the Lenski long term evolution experiment is an example of one kind evolving into another. Is there something better?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 10:23 PM
RE: Wretched: Ray Comfort responds to atheist accusations.
(04-10-2013 10:17 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 06:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Thing is, many people are too eager to get involved in debate, to fight to win an argument. But often people are arguing using strawmen or are arguing with cross purposes because both sides are using different definitions of words.

People that are very good debaters, aren't necessarily honest people looking to explore ideas. They are merely interested in point scoring and winning. The really great debaters use word definitions to their advantage, many words have multiple meanings and this confusion is used to the advantage of the debater.
Ray Comfort is very good at this. He plays ignorant, but he does seem quite smart to me.

When people take him up on his evolution of "Kind" argument. Well, don't you think it would be best to clarify first what is meant by "kind".
Is there a correlation between kind and species? Are all bacteria simply one kind? Are all birds simply one kind? All iguana, all dogs (even including the marsupial dogs?)

Is a picture of a nude woman pornography or art? Let me see the picture and I can tell you. Comfort's use of "kind" is like that. A little nebulous to define but you know what is what when you see it.

Show him a line of dogs which evolved into cats and I think he would be hard pressed to deny evolution. But what observational evidence shows one kind evolving into another? I believe in evolution, I know a lot about it, and like I said earlier, the Lenski long term evolution experiment is probably the best observational evidence. But as an evolution believer, I would be very hard pressed to say the Lenski long term evolution experiment is an example of one kind evolving into another. Is there something better?

Except he does not define Kinds in any coherent way. To him evolution is a cat turning into a fish and then giving birth to a bird. It is not the actual scientific evolution he argues against but a strawman of his own construction. He has been told numerous times but feigns ignorance or stupidity and only engages in arenas where he can control the conversation (facebook, a severely edited movie etc) by banning or silencing any opposition to his version of things.

(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
04-10-2013, 10:32 PM
RE: Wretched: Ray Comfort responds to atheist accusations.
Do you think if we just ignore him he'll go back under his troll bridge?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 10:48 PM
RE: Wretched: Ray Comfort responds to atheist accusations.
(04-10-2013 10:17 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I would be very hard pressed to say the Lenski long term evolution experiment is an example of one kind evolving into another. Is there something better?
The iguanas of the Galapagos are a great example.
There are several islands seperated by water and distance. The Iguanas on each island are different from each other, with features suitable for their own special island. These are examples of "micro' evolution, where animals have adapted to suit their environment. But then one of the groups have become marine iguanas rather than land iguanas, they differ the most from the others and have difficulty breeding with the land iguanas. If they do breed then their offspring is often sterile. This means that they are considered a different species. One could counter argue - "But they are all still Iguanas are they not?". The answer is yes they go by the loose name of "Iguana" but they are different species. So what is meant by "kind"?

There are also examples of closely related animal groups which are each seperated by time and distance. These are called ring species. These exist today. Imagine taking a journey over a geological land space, that takes a very long time. When you begin your journey, not everyone wants to come with you, some stay behind. But you and some others migrate to a different area. After several generations, some of this new group decide to migrate to new lands but some stay behind. This happens time and time again, until eventually the very newest group meets up with the very oldest group. What we have found is that each neighboring group can breed with each other, showing that each group is of the same species as their neighbor, but the newest group and the oldest group can't interbreed, showing that they are of different species. This is pretty conclusive proof of macro evolution.

There is also strong DNA evidence that humans are primates, that we are closely related to Chimpanzees and Bonobos and as a group we are the Great African Apes. Chimpanzees are more closely related to Humans than they are to Orangatangs. We share many protogenes (disfunctional genes, genes with common flaws) that prove we have common ancestry.
There is a type of fish that is more closely related to humans than they are to the other fish.

The DNA evidence, the real life examples (ring species), the fossil record, the example of how animals have spread geologically (accounting for continental shift), of why Australia was dominated by Marsupials rather than placental mammals, of why NZ didn't have either marsupials nor placental mammals other than birds and bats.

The Theory of Evolution goes a long way to explain all the facts. Is there any other falsifiable theory that gives a plausible explanation of these facts?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: