Thunderfoot versus Ray Comfort (my first webcam video)

[Ceberuss]

God as a painter, huh? "...[paintings] represent things. Does the universe 'represent' something?"

LOL, hilarious! That made my day. :-D

[robodude223]

r u high

[SinnohNow]

the first thing that comes to mind is that ur old

[zarkoff45]

@SinnohNow

And the first thing that comes to mind after reading your comment is that you're stupid.

[SinnohNow]

@zarkoff45 thunderfoot and ray comfort are gay

[zarkoff45]

@SinnohNow

SinnohNow is a troll

[zarkoff45]

@ElProximo wrote: "If we look at the 'Baraminology'..." ...you'll find out it's crap:

The Creation Museum Teaches Super Evolution

watch?v=5mPPnN1c0jk

[zarkoff45]

@ElProximo

Tell that to Ray Comfort.

[zarkoff45]

@ElProximo wrote: "I correctly explained to you how 'speciation' is making 'subcategories' out of already and previously existing gene pools. We do know that much."

No you don't. Speciation is ultimately about sexual compatibility and you never mentioned that.

[zarkoff45]

@ElProximo wrote: "Baraminology is the most legitimate and best explanation in light of the facts as we know them ..."

The problem is that you don't actually know the facts.

[zarkoff45]

@ElProximo

On Baraminology:

watch?v=3EjjMM2xzQA

[zarkoff45]

@ElProximo wrote: "we have gone from wolves to mastiffs and poodles in just a few hundred years."

Mastiffs and poodles are not separate species, and dogs and wolves are a ring species. You can't judge speciation by the outward look of the animal - you have to use genetics.

'Baraminology' is an utterly bogus science.

[zarkoff45]

@ElProximo wrote: "Speciation does square with Genesis."

Only if it is impossibly rapid. A long lived mammal species won't speciate much in 10,000 years.

[zarkoff45]

@ElProximo wrote: "Obviously I know more than you do."

Right, that's why you think speciation squares with Genesis and Noah's flood.

How long ago do you think this happened? 6,000 years ago? 10,000?

[zarkoff45]

@ElProximo

What a load of crap. You know nothing about the theory of evolution.

[Wintblash]

google Doe's Account.

[zarkoff45]

@Wintblash

I should probably mark your comment as spam or remove it, but I won't.

I googled "Doe's Account" and found a goofy sci-fi/fantasy story about discovering the realm of life after death.

You don't actually think that's real, do you?

[dewonthegrass]

2:24, "Think about paintings. More often than not they represent things. Does the universe represent something?" A very good argument when you get into their religion, their line of thinking. This is a discontinuity, an incoherence when they compare the designing of the universe to the making of a painting.

[Johnnwonny]

Hi Zarkoff, I agree I think that thunderfoot did get speciation across to Comfort, but he dismissed it almost straight away as being "not evolution", as if creationist proponents have not been denying our ability to show convincing examples of speciation. I would go so far as to say that Comfort's mentality is so far into religious exclusion of ideas, that all of the convincing in the word isn't going to change his mind, so conceptual or even actual examples will remain dismissed out of hand.

[NeedsEvidence]

You need a pic for your empty wall:-)

[zarkoff45]

Hmmm... that could be distracting. I was thinking of getting a black sheet to cover the wall during video shoots.

[anubis2814]

I basically write a paper, and then kind of read it out. I'm terrible with ad-lib in front of a cam.

[zarkoff45]

I'm moving to that to. After seeing all my ummms and ya-knows -- I didn't know I did that until I saw myself do it.

[AtheistYeti]

I really agree with the talking religion thing, nice idea man.

[wyrdness1]

I think we both caught about the same things out of that discussion.

[Cimbic1dae]

I had problems understanding the synthetic voice, this is much better.

I have only seen the first two parts of the discussion between Thunderfoot and Ray Comfort, but I can understand your point of view. Have you seen the discussion between William Lane Craig and Peter Atkins? I think you will find it more interesting.

[zarkoff45]

"Have you seen the discussion between William Lane Craig and Peter Atkins?"

No, is that on youtube?

[Cimbic1dae]

Yes. I tried to post a link, but it didn't get through for some reason. Just do a search.

[zarkoff45]

Links are posted like this:

/watch?v=9qT1pp_jCUw

Leave off the front end because youtube won't allow that. You then just replace the back end of the URL in that line above in your browser.

[zarkoff45]

I had seen the debate, years ago. I just forgot who Peter Atkins was.

[jdbadboy]

I think talking a little science with Ray is good because he presents what he thinks are scientific arguments in his own work and he needs to be discredited. But I do think Thunderfoot could have smacked around with theology some more.

[zarkoff45]

"I think talking a little science with Ray is good because he presents what he thinks are scientific arguments in his own work and he needs to be discredited."

Ray Comfort discredits himself without help. Those who can't see that were not helped by thunderfoot's explanations. He, like me, ummed and stuttered and struggled to express complex ideas. Ray tosses out the same old stuff by rote. That's why he needed odder questions to throw him off his rote script.

[zarkoff45]

"...nice to put a name to a face :)"

It will cause me problems in the future. I have to work with people who don't know I'm an atheist.

[thelostgoose]

nice to put a name to a face :)

I agree with only talking religion with ray. Science just does not stick with him.