Added: 2 years ago
From: Thunderf00t
Views: 106,195
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (3,748)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • i was just there 4 days ago.....

  • "all Ray had to say was God did it" youre a fucking idiot for expecting the natural to prove the supernatural. christianity is based on faith, not science. science is based on physical evidence, not faith. if you try to debate one, you have to do so in its respective territory, else the debate is invalid. if you cant accept that then dont fucking debate at all, youre both just chickens with their heads cut off. and to call it a debate is retarded you know damn well neither of you are gonna agree

  • So Thunderf00t doesn't have the debating skills Hitchens had. Big deal. He was still right. He still had the best arguments. All Comfort did was evade the question...

  • Your role wasn't to win Ray over. It was to simply educate him. He now has no excuse to not understand evolution. This is proof he is dishonest now when he miss-informs people about evolution. I though you did great. Haters can STFU!

  • Keep up the good work, Thunderf00t! You can present a creationist the evidence, but you can't force him to think for himself!

  • I thought the whole discussion was illuminating. Seeing him just flat out reject knowledge, told me all I needed.

  • If viewers expected Ray Comfort to finally say: "I was wrong, god doesn't exist." it's forgetting that the guy rejects evidence, rejects reason and by doing that, is not interesting in truth, in reality. There's very little point in trying to use reason to convince people who have forsaken reason. Once someone has forsaken reason, that person is out of touch with reality, given free to any mystic claiming having a way to knowledge without reason.

  • Firstly, no need for excuses mate, all your points came across well, stammered or not. Secondly, it's good to see proof that you're a reasonable human being, not some closed minded zealot putting on some kind of act in your other videos. Thirdly, while extremely confident, Ray had no reply to any point you raised beyond blind faith. I'd call it an unequivocal victory for reason, as well as a clear victory in the debate for a man obviously unused to such contests. Good job well done, Thunderf00t!

  • hey it makes sence, you wouldn't expect a pro tennis player to be amazing at football, if it was a contest of reponse videos to each other then TF would win by miles

  • Debating is quite hard. Some people make out of their ass arguments and coming up with at that moment responses can be difficult.

  • i bloody love you

  • AT least you have some humility Thunderfoot.

  • THis is why wise men do not debate.

  • I thought it was a civil debate , did not get to ugly. You both did fine. ! :)

  • Thunderfoot don't ever apologize for stammering, what you have to remember is that you have the humility to try and answer the difficult questions and say that there are many things we do not currently know. The reason Ray came across so confident is because he is the kind of arrogant turd that has decided the scriptures are correct without having to really think about it very hard. Its a form of intellectual rape and from where I am standing he is a smug repeat offender with little remorse

  • there are questions that easy to ask but very difficult to answer. You have to keep in mind, Ray had only one source, the Bible while Thunderf00t had 1st, recall from his memories what kind of information he needs to use to rebut, 2nd, the information had to translate to make non-scientific person understand, 3rd, access the information whether it can stands alone or follow up additional info 4th, weight the info into words that are not offending nor bias against Ray & this is his first debate.

  • No worries dude, I wouldn't be able to do a better job, or talk so intelligently on every subject raised. Your gonna be really famous one day.

  • Not everyone has the nerves to stand in front of the cameras , or stand in front of a public in a stage , or an act , debate , or others , In my experience , im practically shit in my pants the first time I go upstage , try to perform with my band , and my hands was very shaky , its not an easy thing to do, it takes time to get used to it.

  • I just stumbled across your channel, and I must say that I am very impressed by your intelectual prowess. Even more that your intellect though, I am Quite pleased with how gentle and thoughtful you seem to be. Your gentleness is certainly a breath of fresh air in what can sometimes be a very hostile environment. :)

  • i watched the discussion twice, it was very enjoyable to see and listen to...you did great in my opinion, maintained a clear head and good composure.

    Keep up the good work

  • Really you don't have to make excuses.. it's ok to be a better film maker than live debater!

  • @v9video Not everyone is a master debater... I do find however that Creationists are ravenous master debaters. Like, every day. Maybe even 3 times a day.

  • Making points is a total waste of time with Ray Comfort. He has done these "talks" with many others. They have explained and destroyed his arguments and demonstrated Ray's lack of knowledge about pretty much everything science related. The reality is, Ray is either so brain washed that he just can not process anything that runs counter to his unfounded beliefs, or he chooses to deceive. Either way, it doesn't really matter much.

  • I'm surprised you didn't leap at the opportunity for lunch :p

    it's always good to have an olive branch when discussing stuff with an opponent, a sign that you can be united on certain things... like hoagies. Delicious, cheesy hoagies.

    Unless they're a vegan, in which case you could get popcorn or something.

  • the reason atheists stumble when debating christians is cause most of us are shocked by the level of ignorance that leads these people. We have no clue where to begin making these creationists understand science, try making a toaster understand the origins of the earth to understand what i mean....

  • Your a scientist, your looking for answers which you get by asking questions. As is paramount in any rigours scientific investigation, if others take issue with the method of your experiment or the nature of your conclusion. Then they are free to conduct the experiment for themselves.

    If they have the balls that is.....

  • I thought that you got too distracted by irrelevancies, and trying too hard to win deep abstract points when there were more fundamental points to argue. It's pointless to debate fundie christians because they are so delusional that they will not have any problem saying black is white or believing it if it suits. The battle should be to win over moderates and agnostics so that christians are in the minority and lose their influence.

  • "this is not what i do" typical cop out. He makes endless amounts of videos, talking about atheism, but when it comes to sitting down and discussing his arguments with another person, its just not his thing?? And how the hell can his unfamiliar surrounds effect his arguments? He sounds pathetic making these silly excuses. Thunderf00t sucks

  • @atheistrocker100 I think there's a big difference to planning out a coherent video to make a point, and having a live discussion with someone who's beliefs are clearly insane, surrounded by all of their trappings, and trying not to be scornful or aggressive of the bullshit that the other person spews. Courts have teams of people precisely because it IS difficult to keep on top of all the permutations in a live debate - even when you are antelligent and you are right.

  • @atheistrocker100 You sound pathetic with your lack of understanding of basic human psychology and your ad hominem attacks ("Thunderf00t sucks").

    Thunderf00t had the obligation to be thoughtful and careful in his responses to questions on a wide range of topics, some of which would have required further research in order to provide a definitive answer. All Ray has to do is make quote a few of his favorite quotes from the bible and say "god did it", all without any evidence.

  • @hungryman211 "All Ray has to do is make quote a few of his favorite quotes from the bible and say "god did it", all without any evidence."

    This meant to say "All Ray has to do is make a few of his favorite bible quotes..."

    This is what happens when one is not careful in their response. I apologize for the poor grammar.

  • @hungryman211 "You sound pathetic with your lack of understanding of basic human psychology and your ad hominem attacks ("Thunderf00t sucks")." Err get a life. Iv lost count of the amount of times iv heard Thunderrf00t say "religion is ridiculous", "Christianity is so easy to refute" and so on. I found just about everything thunderf00t said to be far from compelling. "required further research" you've alluded to the point yourself, he was rubbish. Although I admit Comfort was no better.

  • Comment removed

  • @atheistrocker100 I don't see how my refutation of your argument equates to me lacking a life, when you had already made a refutation of your own. I do have to apologize for making what amounted to a personal attack against you in redirecting your comments about being pathetic back towards you. It was childish and unnecessary to the point I was trying to make.

  • @atheistrocker100 I agree with you ,apart from the last sentence-it's simply offensive.Peace :)

  • @atheistrocker100 okay, so Thunderfoot is not allowed to reflect on anything without it being a cop out? He acknowledges he did not do the best job he could have done articulating his positions in the debate. A poor performance does not define the periameters of your ability to discuss a matter. There are legitimate reasons why he might have done the best job he could. He is being candid. And I applaud Thunderfoot for that.

  • @atheistrocker100 Thunderfoot sucks? He has done science and mankind a great service with his work.. sit down you little cretin

  • @atheistrocker100 Don't talk rubbish. If you are unable to see beyond a lack of eloquence then the debate was clearly out of your depth.

    Ray has more experience than Thunderf00t in debates of this kind however if you look beyond the deliverance it is quite obvious that Thunderf00t wins based on the merits of his arguments.

    Be patient and take the debate for what it is (a comparison of differing world views). If you were only watching to see ''a creationist getting owned'' then you are arrogant

  • @atheistrocker100 well its not to hard to say i kno god dun it

  • @atheistrocker100 Discussing complex points spontaneously and convincingly is a hard thing to do. And not similar to planning what you're going to talk about and then talking to a camera. Yes its about the same subject but the two activities are very different.

  • @atheistrocker100 Ray comfort is an idiot,we all know this. Try having a debate with a 3yr old when they start saying "but why, but why,but why".....u cant speak to a creationist and have a rational discussion.Ray is like the kid saying "because I know,because I know".....and his proof....a book so awful that were it to come out now it would be banned on grounds of bad taste.No parent should let their kid anywhere near a bible....they could end up deluded to the extent of mr comfort!

  • @atheistrocker100 I don't think you understand how hard it is to have a live debate with a creationist. All they do is throw endless amounts of arguments pulled completely out of their asses at you, and eventually you are bound to get caught on a point you can't refute on the spot, even if the point is completely false.

    Theists are completely untouchable too. You provide evidence that proves a Bible passage wrong, and they just go "whatever man, I know God caused it."

    Thunderfoot did fine.

  • @letsgocaps8 Is there anything wrong in the new testament/

  • @atheistrocker100 What do you mean?

  • @letsgocaps8 You said " You provide evidence that proves a Bible passage wrong" Is there a passage from the new testament that can be proved wrong?

  • @atheistrocker100 I was talking about arguing with a creationist, which is a myth derived from the old testament. The new testament has nothing to do with creation and doesn't make any statements regarding how the world came to be so it cannot be disproven in the same way.

    We have scientific evidence regarding how the world came to be, and it directly conflicts with creation hence why it's wrong.

  • @atheistrocker100 *Hence why it's wrong as in creation is wrong, worded that badly.*

    CONTINUED FROM LAST POST: We do not have any specific evidence regarding one of jesus' miracles so we cannot for certain say they never happened, although we do know that many of his miracles are impossible. We can question how Jesus got his y chromosome, for example, but it doesn't matter because we don't objective evidence regarding him specifically, so "God did it" can't be proven wrong here.

  • @letsgocaps8 "we do know that many of his miracles are impossible" like what? If Jesus really was god incarnate, then i doubt anything would be beyond his power.

  • @atheistrocker100 That's what I said...

    Since we do not have specific evidence regarding Jesus, we cannot disprove "God did it."

    We could argue that Jesus couldn't have been born of a virgin because that cannot happen. He would be a clone of Mary. But we don't have specific evidence like we do, for example, the age of the Earth. Therefore you can say things like "If Jesus really was God incarnate" and get away with it.

  • @letsgocaps8 You said some of his reported miracles are "impossible". If there is a god that created the universe. What makes you think he would't be able to intervene? E.g If someone creates/programs a computer game world like gta, it would well be in the power of the programmer to intervene and change his world/add something new, would it not? I think what your trying to say is Jesus' miracles are highly unlikely, not impossible.

  • @atheistrocker100 I don't believe that God created the universe, in fact I am arguing that he did not so you can't use "God created the universe" as evidence.

    We know for fact creation stories are wrong. We have evidence that they happened in a way other than what the Bible says. We know that New testament stories could not happen under normal circumstances, but we don't have hard evidence that "God did it" is wrong.

    Do you mind me asking what exactly you're trying to get at?

  • @letsgocaps8 All im saying is, you cannot say his miracles are "impossible". You'll agree, no one knows whether there is a god or not. By saying a miracle is "impossible" it implies that your view that god does not exist is 100% correct. Out of curiosity; do you take the bible creation stories literally?

  • @atheistrocker100 I agree that jesus' miracles cannot be 100% proven wrong, as I stated many times. I don't take any of the Bible literally, and I know 100% that creation stories are wrong.

  • @atheistrocker100 if you actually thought for a second you'd relize that there is a difference between talking according to written script you had time to prepare and refine (as most of his videos clearly are), and discussing someone realtime, having to think about what they said, think about what you want to say, and formulate it at the same time. you'd also know that unfamilliar surrounding can negatively affect your ABILITY TO FORMULATE arguments, or performance in general.

  • @atheistrocker100 But Ray's cop outs were okay?

  • @cloudstone123 What were Ray's "cop outs"?

  • @atheistrocker100 Besides Ray using the bible as proof of the bible? And his claim I know what happens after death because 'God' told me which has no validity at all. And have you ever heard Ray's 'banana' excuse?

    And there is a big difference between making controlled arguments you can think about before you make them and doing this on the spot. Not many scientists and researchers will be good at this. So Thunderf00t's stammering is perfectly understandable.

  • @cloudstone123 If Thunderf00t claimed to be a public speaker, then I would agree with you. Ray is a preacher who would do it on a constant basis so we can expect him to speak clearly and confidently even though he comes up with nonsense for answers or doesn't answer or deflects questions. Not that anything coming out of his mouth makes any sense either but he is not a scientist or researcher.

  • @cloudstone123 Hes still a loser, Hes just making pathetic excuses. He I love how hes taken this video off his uploads list, because he knows how stupid he looks.

  • @atheistrocker100

    It's a much different thing to experience a person in a debate first hand, rather than being able to sit at a computer and carefully orchestrate your arguments and analyze and piece them together to perfection. It adds a whole new element of ego that would otherwise be irrelevant to the argument: confidence in yourself and not just the facts you have within you.

    You really have no fucking idea whatsoever, do you? Fuck you. You don't know Thunderf00t.

  • @JosiahSCooper And you do know him? i know him well enough to see he is an arrogant, obnoxious, smug, whining little fart. Your just making excuses. Thunderf00t was not prepared for the debate so he lost, simple as. Debates are about who is most prepared to give answers. Thunderf00t obviously failed.

  • @atheistrocker100

    Geez, aren't you stuffy? No, I don't, but neither do you.

    (: I guess you're right, there. Though, only because he failed in ego under the pressure. :D

  • @atheistrocker100 Dude shut the fuck up. Thunderf00t makes great arguements against religion and he is a smart man. Just because he messed up once doesn't mean you should talk so much shit about him.

  • @atheistrocker100 I'm not even a big Thunderf00t fan but this is bullshit. There is a big difference between carefully scripting a video and having to do a live debate. When talking to people, I stutter a lot and have a lot of "uh" and "um"'s scattered through. But if I take the time to sit down and write something out, then it's a different matter. Everyone's brain works differently, and you trying to make weak arguments against him for that is just fucking moronic.

  • @atheistrocker100 You're an idiot. I challenge you to a live debate, and I'll see how well you can think on your feet. Five minutes of your time, VoIP program of your choice.

  • You did ridiculously well for the first time, and I also think you absolutely dominated on your second meeting with him. Those questions during the second meeting were designed to convert people on the fence about abortion, but you ended up giving an argument that I will use for all time when it comes to the issue of not only abortion, but also about life itself. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

  • I think, as with terrorists we miss that the religious are telling us the truth when we ask why and how. Ray repeatedly claims to have no morals of his own . He tells us clearly his morals are external to him - perhaps we should believe him. This brings up a scary question -how dangerous is a man with no morals who requires outside input to figure out right from wrong and takes no personal responsibility for those morals? What if the input is bad? Seems to explain religions actions.

  • I want to groom him. D:

  • No, I thought it was a good discussion. I mean, I learnt allot as a Christian watching it. I believe to be a thinker in this area you need to look at both sides of the argument before you come to a reasonable conclusion. I hope you continue to have discussions like this with religious figures in society. They're much needed.

  • I'll admit, he wasn't his best. Tfoot is used to making videos thus allowing himself time to prepare his eloquence. In fact, many of his videos present very strong arguments that tear down that of Comforts. Although, when it comes extemporaneous discussions such as this, it simply is not his area of expertise.

    However, this does not negate the legitimacy of atheism nor does it lift Comfort's arguments out of the heaping pile of nonsensical babble that they currently are.

  • Dude! use an iron.

  • A belief in the living God is more than just a belief in the bible. Ray covered all this but to repeat, 1. God screams through creation, 2. man has written down God's word = bible, 3. you can experience God and the truths in the bible for yourself, God experiential IE you must be born again where you will know that you know God is real! Todd would be a dead idolatrous god who has no life or truth in him!

  • @devonbiker Wonderful disclosure and nicely put!..Gods word is the bible,and as you say he has shown himself many many times,but the hardness of the hearts of some and satans attempts to blind man to the light of christ through god ,have not recognised the lord.

    Theres are figments and realities,truth and lies,love and hate....."Narrow is the way to life and few find it,but broad is the way to destruction"

  • @devonbiker So in order to know that god exists I must first accept that god exists in order to receive an experience confirming that fact? How circular is that! Like someone entering a house to see if it is haunted, but before they are allowed to enter, they must believe that it's haunted. How surprised would you be if they "saw" a ghost? & God screams through creation? Through each deformed baby? Each starving adult? Each animal eating another? Each virus that kills millions? You can keep him!

  • @matbroomfield No, that would be stupid and blind faith! I'm saying be open to the fact that God might exist! I know he does but as you do not beleive, simply consider the evidence readily available. To put your faith in God there has to be good reason and good evidence, which creation alone provides, excluding the many bible prophesies already fulfill with deadly accuracy in Jesus in his 1st coming.

  • @devonbiker I'm wide open to the evidence. Show me some.

  • I thought you did a good job.

  • nice hair

  • I like you dude. I thnk my buddies here in seattle would get on with you famously. keep it up and if you are in Seattle, drop us a line

  • I was disappointed with this video. I thought by the title that we would receive some words of grace from Thunderf00t. You know, that he would say something like he enjoyed his discussion with Ray and that he was a good guy and a gracious host - maybe even speak some about how lunch went afterward. But no, just after thoughts, attempted clarifications - and how he "really" didn't do that bad after all. It would have been nice for him to have been a bit more amiable.

  • You're a good man, any other person in your position would had assumed a mean and perhaps more aggressive position. That means that God is still acts in you. God's plan is for us to reject our selfish animal instincts. I'm sure you'll see the light someday, I was a non-believer too. I believe in evolution and in God without any conflict. You probably reject God because you reject man made dogmas. There's only one God, one divine consciousness with many names and many dogmas, but God is real.

  • Respond to this video... Well I think you did great ! You handled yourself like a true professional . I'm proud of you !

  • Comment removed

  • Tbh I thought you did extraordinarily well. You were on their turf and remained composed and attentive to the opposition. Ray's arguement was a simple one drawing from just one reference, the bible, whereas your arguement was much more complex, drawing on numerous different sources and fields. I think its also fair to say that Ray was equally fair in giving you both an opportunity to field and construct your questions and responces.

    But u could at least have ironed ur shirt 4 ur reflections lol

  • Really good conversation to watch. As much as I would have liked to see you strip Ray's beliefs to shreds I'm glad you didn't, it made the conversation appear as if the two of you were on a similar level. Clever trick ;) in all honesty though, the biggest frustration I had is the dam sound quality. The background noise pollution was just horrendous and if they call that a studio then they should have been able to fix it. I wouldn't mind fixing it myself actually.

  • man i love thunderf00t and i am a christian. and it doesn't have to be complicated! haha

  • A lot of angry people here.But not surprising as the bible states that his message will make people angry and that the truth will be willfully rejected due to mans pride.I just ask that you use simple common sense when it comes to abiogenisis

  • @shanematt Well I used science, reasoning and common sense . And thunderfOOt is right !

  • Guys like Ray really don't follow the rules of intellectual discourse very closely. Plus, you gotta remaember that they think they know everyyhing ther is to know.

  • @Thunderf00t, these debates are nothing but personality clashes. That is all there are. Most of what Ray says is bullshit. He is just skilled with delivering his propaganda, but it is still bullshit. Next time, call him on his bullshit!

  • Dear thunderf00t,

    I think Ray doesnt understand the implications of his own standpoint (which the interview made very clear) let alone yours.

    The IQ mismatch is so great it makes a proper and fair debate or conversation impossible, so dont beat yourself up.

    You made very good points, AND you let Ray make a fool of himself.

    Now lets ignore him, because his way of thinking, and especially the level of it, is not worth your effort, imo.

    have a nice day.

    gr from Holland

  • Thunderf00t needs to iron his shirt.

  • You stated that you don't know where the universe came from. So what information was presented by that statement?

    As for babies, maybe the better term is viable life.

    The thing in your mind is just that. God doesn't promise you a warm fuzzy because you believe. Besides, belief isn't the some total of the formula for being saved. Satan believes in God and Christ. Science hasn't proof of evolution, or creation just postulates and theories. Yet you believe.

  • @1timby actually from what i have heard they have proved evolution, and theories in science means a well supported fact

  • @sailornaruto39 Theories are a coherent group of general PROPOSITIONS used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. Not Facts. If evolution has been proven where are the things used to prove the Theory? There are no tangible evidence other than conjecture that time and mutation caused this phenomenon. So basically science has proven nothing and posed it as facts. While they admit they can't prove doesn't exist, in their OPINION He's a fallacy. How utterly arrogant.

  • @1timby i guess i have to look into it

  • @1timby Really? So show me the absolute physical proof that god created us and the universe! I I'm not talking about some verse from the bible ! ABSOLUTE PHYSICAL PROOF !

  • @420gma So show the absolute proof He doesn't exist or didn't create the universe. Have you been to the Eiffel tower? Do you think it just happened or did it have a creator? You believe that to be true. Science admits it doesn't' know how the universe was created. Yet you believe that God didn't have a hand in it even though science can't prove God doesn't exist or that He didn't create the universe.

  • @1timby God didn't create the Eiffel tower man did . Science is based on fact you only have a book written by a bunch of old farts thousands of years ago! From what I've seen from some of your creation videos you people just make things up as you go! No scientific fact at all.Yes science does have theories but those are based on previously discoverd facts.

  • @420gma Wow you can't understand an analogy. So MR Wizard since you are in possession of all the knowledge of the universe. Where did matter come from?How about life? What about what was the first spark that started life? Hmm

    Point being science doesn't know. Yet they state the universe didn't have a creator. It just happened. Matter just happened. Even though the odds strictly prohibit the occurrence. There are no discovered facts for these occurrences yet you take theory for fact. Again Hmm

  • @420gma BTW Mr Wizard, just because you don't believe and you opinion is that everything just happened doesn't make it factual. You & science wasn't there when creation happened. So science makes an attempt at reverse engineering creation. They utilize mans limited tool set to determine the 3 W's. However, if you wre honest instead of brainwashed you would agree that science has it's limits and can't possible understand how the universe was made. You may believe what you wish.

  • @1timby One creation video I saw stated that the earths core was full of water and that god spilt the earth. The water shot out at supersonic speeds and formed the comets. Seriously give me a break! People who make videos like these are nothing but fakes !And are taking advantage of your stupidly!

  • @420gma Wow I saw a video that stated that Zeus created the planets. So what's your point? You do know the difference between fact and fiction? If I read a book of science fictiondoesn't mean that it's factual. Please use some common sense. Science has been showing creation videos for years and they have no basis in reality. So again what's your point. Other than you can't accept that science could be wrong and God could have created the universe.

  • @1timby

    Science doesn't state their isn't a creator, it simply is used to observe facts and thus far there's no evidence to support god(s) exists.

    Does that mean they still can' exist? No, but people shouldn't put their faith into the odd ball who comes along claiming divine prophecy; this is the cause of the world going insane, doing everything from burning people to hijacking planes and flying into building

  • @LadyAmaltheaUnicorn There is were you're wrong. Science observe perceived facts. Take sting theory. Many of the particles observed are effected by the instruments used for the observation. So they spout quasi facts.As for nut cases, folks that are non-believers are just as likely to cause major calamities. So should we just not allow anyone their rights to their beliefs? Or should we state that since your beliefs aren't mine then you're delusional. Just like Mr Dawkins has stated.

  • @1timby

    What's a perceived fact? If I say healthy grass is green and every source and provable observation supports this does that mean I'm just perceiving the grass to be green? In the case of science, someone saying that the grass isn't actually green, that we're all just perceiving it to be, is in the position to counter that fact with evidence.

    No one is saying you can't believe in whatever you choose, I don't know where you got that idea. Challenging your beliefs is not forbidding them

  • @LadyAmaltheaUnicorn

    btw, calling people who disbelief in invisible, unprovable things, nutcases made me smile : )

  • @LadyAmaltheaUnicorn

    disregard this reply, I misread 1timby's post

  • @LadyAmaltheaUnicorn A perceived fact is where the observer feels that what they are observing is reality . We perceive that planets millions of light years away have certain properties. When in fact they may not even exist as we are perceiving only the light emitted millions of years ago. However, it is used by some as factual. As for no one saying I can't believe, well then you need to read the others responses. Watch Dawkins vids to see how little tolerance to others.

  • @1timby

    Thanks for the clarification.

    In terms of anyone who stated you shouldn't be allowed to your views, I don't agree with their opinion. It's a slippery slope to fascism, and I'm not a fan of China style censoring

    and ftr, I agree with you about Dawkins. Although I have a lot of respect for him in many other ways I'm not at all a fan of his people skills; he has a tendency to speak to people who aren't as well versed in intellectual matters in a rather aggressively condescending tone

  • lol i would have just punched comfort in the face out of frustration. i´m usually not that agressive, but dámn, he´s annoying.. !

  • you did a stirling job! anyway who can calmly respond to Ray for that long, and not just reach over and tear his 'tache off while screaming in frustration.

    any comments over you being stammery are reaaaally grasping at straws.

    the only thing i was disappointed by was when you didnt crush him when the opportunity prostrated itself before you, no more clearly than with the abortion point. he was SO entirely stuck, it just seemed like a wasted opportunity. but i guess you're just a nice guy :)

  • I think you could have done a much better job if the discussion were more focused and you had adequate time to prepare.

  • addendum :

    wrinkles are "in" they stand as a symbol for the surface(cortex) of the reasonable brain of the "great apes"!!

  • I hear your explanation, and I agree, it could have gone somewhat smoother....

    Having heard you on other shows, you are more then capable of "slapping" a faithnick like Comfort.

    Then again, you did it, and anyone with an IQ, one up from his shoe size will have understood, who had the upper hand in this debate.

    So, thanks for the effort (and the success)despite the few hiccups!

    Reason 1---faitnicks 0!

    Patrick

  • You know how I know there isn't a god? There's ATHIESTS

  • Where can I find this coward Thunderf00t.........I want to debate him !!!

  • @nextgenvids some certainly make good kindle.

  • @AURORACELLIAULOS I poop on your god, your bible is shit, and you messiah is made of fecal matter. I'm burning a bible in your honor.

  • @overether I summed up a few billion years to the dipshit . Don't you love books.

  • @TheJohnFrum So that means that there were women before men because that is the set of Chromosomes responsible for the human reproductive differences so how did reproduction occur before the said Y chromosome came into existence.Since the evolution of a Genome take so long we must have had virgin births for us to continue existing and then we evolved when we doing fine to have the male of our species and other animals and God is all powerful so he can do anything and that is a fact

  • @AURORACELLIAULOS Genetic exchange. This is something even bacteria do during 'bacterial conjugation'. This is not true sexual reproduction, because only pieces of DNA are exchanged, not all of it. The advantage is that the bacteria can benefit from each other's mutations.

  • @AURORACELLIAULOS Diploidy. This is where some single-celled organism got interrupted in its division, after the division of its DNA, resulting in a double-copy of its own DNA. (In technical terms, it went from haploid to diploid. If you don't know the difference between 'haploid' and 'diploid', then you'll need to review your Biology textbook.) The advantage is that the organism can repair its own DNA.

  • Diploidy. Many single-celled organisms, (like amoebas) are diploid or have a diploid stage ... so that's evidence that diploidy happened very early in evolution. Fission and fusion. This is where a diploid cell can split into two haploid cells (fission), and two haploid cells can fuse together into a single diploid cell (fusion). Again, amoebas can do this ... again evidence that this occurred very early.

  • @AURORACELLIAULOS True sexual reproduction. This is where the haploid cells from two *different individuals* fuse together into a new diploid cell. The advantage is that the new daughter cell has different genes than *either* parent ... so the organism can evolve faster in response to some threat (like a disease or toxin). Before sexual reproduction, evolution was dependent entirely on mutation.

  • At this point it's important to note that the same species can use *both* asexual and sexual reproduction. This happens both in single-celled organisms like amoebas, to some plants, and even some animals (such as aphids). Exclusive sexual reproduction. This is where a species uses sexual reproduction as its *primary* or *only* means of reproduction.

  • @TheJohnFrum A child could tell me that but to tell me why it is stupid that would be a first.

  • @TheJohnFrum was there before but God is the one who made it into a habitable planet and consider the Genesis account where woman was taken from man Genetics has only just recently confirmed this that the woman has 2 x chromosomes and so the man was on the scene first because we have the y chromosome which cannot be made carried by a woman.

  • @TheJohnFrum not represent what all creation think yes the earth was created as in the bible in 6 days and the seventh God rested and made holy his day that is where the week comes from all around the world you get time cycle so where did it come from as well as marriage and the bible says he made the heaven and the earth that is the atmosphere and earth as it is now and yes he made the stars as old as they are so the earth being old is no problem because the material for the earth

  • @TheJohnFrum has rules and standards he made everything and the universe is just a huge artwork with stars still being formed but still people who say there is no God can never answer where did the material come from in the first place the big bang someone spot that just after an eternity said okay time to appear into the present or God spoke the material into existence and created the stars the star systems and the Galaxies which we have present and thunderfoot making fun of creationist does

  • @TheJohnFrum there you go you think you decended from animals and think force is the way everyone believed in God before and it was foretold that there would be such.You say there is no God because of science but science is independent of God because God did not come as a result of science God made rule to govern the material world and spiritual so can you ascend to the throne of God he is above you and you are finite so to say that there is no God is jumping to a huge conclusion when the

  • 3) You should never debate such a person on the bible itself, because the 'logic' that goes with such a text is not what we normally consider logic, it exists in its own diegesis and the real world has no connection to it. This is the principal difficulty with debating creationists; they fail to acknowledge that it is a story and so you can only withdraw when it comes to analysis.

    I hope I don't sound condescending with this post. I think you are great and should never stop.

    Thank you.

    Ezili

  • 1) You acquitted yourself perfectly well as an orator. Yes, you are not Christopher Hitchens, but I don't think Dawkins would have done any better than you did. I was impressed.

    2) You need to offer some grudging respect for Ray who was clever enough to withdraw to a very different position than usual and (albeit implicitly) admit that all of his assertions were merely faith. That is the one area I would have liked to see you push him, but the fact you didn't is not detrimental.

    cont.

  • I am sorry that this comment is so belated; I only just joined youtube and have spent a day or so watching everything on your channel. The Ray Comfort debate was very interesting and potentially informative, though I feel your commentary here suggests you missed a few things, though doubtless your reflective nature will have revealed them to you. Looks like I will need a second post to offer my observations so I will finish with a colon:

  • no one expects you to convince him he is wrong, we all know he is to blind to be changed... you did a great job stating the facts and making him change the subject or ask to backtrack. cheers.. i wish that we could do more to help u .. solo it can be so hard. trust more are behind you than you know.

  • Yeah I used to be scared about dying until I realized that I won't be sad after because I won't be. Also, if I had to talk on camera it would be like "m..my..m.m.m.m.my n.....n.n.n.n.n.name is....i....m.m.my name is"

  • iron much? :p

  • You did great TF!

    You actually got him to admit that speciation happens! I was shocked!

    Just goes to show... It's such a simple concept that even a creationist can accept it lol.

  • People were upset about your performance? :O All that stuff about psychology and the desire to please others, as well as going further into evolution than I've herd other arguments with Ray and people like him. I think you provided a necessary component to debates such as these.

  • You did not lose that debate man.. You had a conversation with Ray Comfort, and I thought you were very civil! Losing in my opinion would have been praying with him and converting at the end!

  • Thunderf00t even though this was your first time, even tho Ray had more experience in the debate field, even tho this was not a competition, for most of the time Ray was completely speechless about arguments you were giving and could not debate those. I really wish to have your patients.

  • i admire your patience.... i would have hit that moron within 5 minutes

  • regardless of thunder foot looking like a mad hippy he is a sexy mother fucker!