In about 2 and a half hours from now, I will be posting a fully free film for your viewing!
I would like to hear your honest thoughts on the facts presented - please watch the film in its entirety and carefully considered the facts before responding.
I am interested in what you have to say.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Rule 12 refers: No advertising or self-promotion.
@FishNChips: I am interested in what you have to say.
Ok. I'm going to say that I'm not going to watch your free film. It's not free, because my time actually has value.
By all means put forward arguments for debate, but don't expect me to waste my time doing homework.
What big Al said.
(1) No self promoting
(2) Have no interest in any 'free film" you might present without a summary of the contents at the very least. No interest if it is presenting your religious beliefs.
(3) As it is I have almost zero in the tired apologist drivel you have been posting . I am happy to look at any claim of empirical evidence
for the existence of god you may have .
(4) Have no interest in christian theology, apologetics, hermeneutics or exegesis. This is due to having been bored rigid by them over the last few decades. Plus, you're very bad at it. I've been bored by the best ; priests and protestant clergy trained in the mental masturbatory disciplines I just mentioned.
I spent several years of my childhoid sitting on uncomfortably hard-ass church pews for 45 minutes to an hour at a time listening to various preachers drone on and on about "the glories of god." And during all that time all I wanted to do was get home so I could go play with my friends. So, if I didn't want to be there then as a child, why would I want to waste two point five hours (Or however long the "movie" is.) of my adult life watching a video about basically the same thing? And my time now is waaaaay more valuable to me than it was back then. Just so you know...
I’m gunna re-watch my favorite movie: Blue Velvet
@Cyber Re: "I’m gunna re-watch my favorite movie: Blue Velvet"
I think I'll have to go with "The Blue Lagoon."
Really? Not "Love actually" or "PS, I love you"?
(doG shakes head slowly and thinks..."It's a strange world, isn't it?")
"I’m gunna re-watch my favorite movie: Blue Velvet"
Great movie, and a young Elizabeth Taylor is wonderful ---------- Ah, wait, I think that's the wrong Velvet ---isn't that the one in which a very louche , very camp Dean Stockwell lync sincs Orbison's 'In Dreams'?
Yup, found it:
...I’m too busy dancing...
...I'm to busy playing with my banana.
I'll watch it until it says something that is clearly false. Anyone want to bet (no actual money!) how many minutes that will take?
@Nyar Re: "Anyone want to bet (no actual money!) how many minutes that will take?"
Minutes???... Hell, I was thinking more like, "How many seconds?"
I will NOT take that bet.
I didn't make the film, therefore, it is not self-promoting. Nor is it stealing, as the production company has made this movie free for anyone who wants to watch it.
So, for whoever wants to see it, it is here:
Ray Comfort is a woefully ignorant creationist, and you'd have to be an imbecile not see that video is one giant god of the gaps fallacy. The evidence...
In that video Ry Comfort proves he doesn't know that human horticulturalists created the banana he is holding, and he has obviously never seen a fucking coconut in his life, as its existence destroys his facile creationist verbiage.
I'll say it one more time then, 1) not having an explanation for something does not validate unevidenced superstition.
2) The complexity of living things is explained by the scientific theory of evolution, and all the scientific evidence supports it, and is contained in the theory.
3) The origin of life is currently unknown, theistic creation myths are errant nonsense, that are roundly contradicted by objective facts.
4) All of the current scientific evidence for the origin of the universe supports exclusively natural phenomena.
5) Not once has any objective evidence ever been demonstrated for any deity, or anything supernatural.
6) You have dishonestly ignored my request for you to demonstrate objective for any deity, not even acknowledging the question.
Shel, I have not ignored your question, but I have given the evidence.
I will try to illustrate this evidence for you:
First, I will recap the basics of the evidence which I have already shared on this forum.
If you look at a building, what evidence do you need in order to know that there was a builder? The building is the evidence. A building does not build itself.
Similarly, if you study a painting, regardless of how you interpret the brush strokes or what you believe the artist intended to communicate through the painting, you already know that there was in fact, an artist. The painting itself evidences that. Paintings do not paint themselves; if there is a painting, surely there was a painter.
Before we get to the next part, I would like to quote Charles Darwin:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”
What about the heart? How can the human heart exist if it was made by successive slight modifications? If that were the case, it would not have functioned and would have been phased out.
The heart needs blood in order to exist and maintain proper function, yet the blood needs the heart to pump it. And what about the blood? It needs veins to flow through, but the veins need the blood in order to exist and maintain proper function, and they need the heart to pump the blood through them, or else they would have no purpose and would have been phased out, according to your own theory.
This system portraits what is known as Irreducible Complexity. None of the components in this system could exist without the other. So which one "evolved" first?
Back to the evidence. A building is the evidence for the builder, a painting is the evidence for the painter,
creation is the evidence for The Creator.
I have already shared this. I have not ignored you, but have given you evidence. You didn't want to see it.
To say that everything just randomly fits together and formed itself is like saying that you can put all the parts of a watch into a box, and shake them up and that they will randomly fit themselves together into a functioning watch which also just so happened to set itself to the right time.
Again, I have not lied to you, Sheldon. I have given you evidence. You have lied to yourself.
Not this nonsense again, you have offered no objective evidence, as we see here you are making idiotic assumptions. We can see builders in actions, we can fully understand what they do and how, and we can see designers in action and designs at every stage of building work. That is objective evidence, and most of all we know buildings do not occur naturally.
Seriously your verbiage reeks of that idiot Ray Comfort, it's sad you cannot see how stupid that analogy is.
I ask again, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity? Please not the objective evidence I cited for buildings being designed and built.
I am not going to bother with the other analogies as they are idiotically irrelevant for the same reason. Do paintings occur naturally?
Your attack on evolution using irreducible complexity is:
a) A creationist lie, no one has ever had such an objection peer reviewed, if they had then species evlution would have been falsified, and it has not been.
b) Does not evidence any deity, why would it? Even in the astronomically unlikely event that species evolution were entirely reversed tomorrow, this wouldn't evidence the myth of creationism, or any deity. You don't seem to know what objective evidence is, so I suggest you learn that first before you proceed.
That is just a vapid tautology, it is also an argument from assertion fallacy, do you seriously think calling everything creation magically infers it is in fact created? This is the nonsense we have seen creationists espouse on here endlessly, it is not evidence, let alone objective evidence.
It's not evidence, you are simply asserting that things are designed, and asserting they are created, then making specious comparisons with things we can demonstrate objective evidence to show are designed, this is nonsense. Have you ever seen an architect's office, or designs in progress, then seen the designs being built? Have ever seen a painter and the tools they use creating a painting, do you ever see paintings or buildings occur naturally? This is not evidence it is absurd creationist nonsense, and blaming me for not falling for this garbage is absurd.
FYI, even were anyone so woefully ill-informed they accepted this creationist verbiage, how does it evidence a deity, let alone your deity? It might just as easily be assigned to magical Leprechauns.
Straw man fallacy, I have never remotely claimed any such thing, nor does science, nor does species evolution. Theism is your claim, it is for you and that idiot Ray Comfort to properly evidence that claim, not for others to explain unknown facts about the origins of life, what you are using as i have explained multiple times, is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, which you have also ignored and simply waved away, I'll bet you didn't even bother to look it up, or try to understand what it means. Species evolution involved random events, but the processes that drive it are not entirely random, far from it.
You have lied right there, as I asked what objective evidence you could demonstrate, and you have not offered any, just the worst cliched examples of creationist lies and logical fallacies.
You cannot simply call everything creation, this is argument based on assumption.
You cannot simply assert design in natural processes, you must evidence this.
You cannot point to gaps in our knowledge as evidence of ANYTHING, this is the very definition of argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
You cannot compare things we know are designed by humans, and can demonstrate objective evidence to support this, and that we know never occur naturally, like paintings and cars and buildings, with an unevidenced deity using unexplained magic.
That is a variation on Hoyle's fallacy, it is a well known creationist fallacy:
"Hoyle's Fallacy (the Junkyard Tornado): An argument used to derive the probability of both abiogenesis and the evolution of higher life forms as comparable to “the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747.”
"The "Tornado in a Junkyard" analogy is an example of an argument by false analogy, a logical fallacy. It is also an example of denying the antecedent: when confronted with the claim that adding energy to a system can give rise to complexity, creationists simply present an example of a situation where adding energy to a system does not give rise to complexity."
Far from demonstrating any objective evidence, all you are doing is illustrating how little objective research you have done, and how closed minded you are pursuing a single idea, despite the dearth of any objective evidence, or rational arguments to support it. You don't even seem to know the difference between rational argument and objective evidence, even after several posters have taken the time to explain it to you more than once.
Here is a link to the talkorigins website, http://www.talkorigins.org/ I suggest you educate yourself with some basics first and foremost, that site also a master list of false creationist claims, some of the more commonly used you have rehashed here, look them up on that site, it debunks these using objective scientific evidence.
Now, one last time, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
Please do learn what the phrase objective evidence means, and then give an honest response nest time.
Oh look. I thought it wouldn't be long before our latest mythology fanboy outed himself not only as a creationist, but, like every other creationist I've ever encountered, a duplicitous creationist into the bargain. The tell tale signs were present long before he bailed out of the original thread and launched this latest one.
So, let's take a look at this latest tsunami of tard, shall we?
Here's a clue for you, boy. Blind assertions and ex recto apologetic fabrications do not constitute "evidence", except perhaps of your own inadequacy.
Oh dear, not this fatuous apologetic horseshit.
What part of "we have observational data telling us that humans build houses and other buildings" do you not understand?
First of all, no one here is doubting for a moment, that manifest human artefacts are produced by humans. But I'm used to this level of discoursive inadequacy emanating from creationists.
And once again, no one doubts that manifest human artefacts are the product of humans.
But please, do continue displaying your inadequacy here.
Refreshing to see that for once you didn't resort to the usual quote mining we see from your ilk ...
First of all, you obviously never paid attention in a biology class, otherwise you would have learned that there are organisms that don't possess blood of the sort we possess, and for that matter, don't have a closed circulatory system. Arthropods have haemolymph, not blood, and also have an open circulatory system. For that matter, there are organisms that don't possess even haemolymph or a heart, but still manage to function - Cnidarians being the classic example.
Then of course, it's obvious that you obtained this drivel from some sad little creationist apologetics website, and drank their Kool-Aid uncritically, without bothering to ask yourself the elementary question of whether or not you were being lied to. I've never encountered a piece of creationist apologetics that didn't contain at least one egregious lie somewhere along the line, and this is no exception.
Evolution of the heart? Strap yourself in for the roller coaster ride, boy. Starting with the numerous scientific papers covering the evolution of the heart, such as:
Gene Regulatory Networks In The Development Of The Heart by Eric N. Olson, Science, 313: 1922-1927 (29th September 2006)
Further on in the paper:
Later on, the author provides this:
The author then provides this:
I'll cover some of the author's remarks on Drosophila, as these are of import later:
Later on, the author provides this:
Next, we have this paper:
Gene Regulatory Networks For The Development And Evolution Of The Chordate Heart by Yutaka Satou & Nori Satoh, Genes & Development, 20: 2634-2638 (2006)
So, alteration in the expression of one gene in Ciona intestinalis results in a dramatic morphological change, from a single-chambered heart to a two-chambered heart. Hmm. Looks like those biologists know more than they're given credit for by the mythology fetishists, doesn't it?
There's more. Viz:
Later on, the authors provide this:
So, a change in the expression of one gene, resulted in the emergence of a two-chambered heart in an organism that previously only had a single-chambered heart, by the recruitment of neighbouring embryonic cells that usually have a different fate.
I could find more papers in a similar vein if I wished, but these were the ones most quickly available to me.
Moving on ...
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!
If you think that the caricature of "irreducible complexity" as peddled by that charlatan Behe counts for anything, you really are ignorant. Because, wait for it, "irreducible complexity" wasn't first proposed by Behe, but , who first presented the concept way back in 1918, and who furthermore presented the concept NOT as a "problem" for evolutionary biology, but as a natural outcome of evolutionary processes. In short, evolutionary biologists have known that Behe's canards on the subject were canards sixty years before Behe was born.
The relevant scientific paper in which Müller presented the genuine concept of "irreducible complexity" is this one:
Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids and Constant hybrids in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors by Hermann Joseph Müller, Genetics, 3(5): 422-499 (1918) [Original paper downloadable in full from here]
I shall quote directly from that paper for your convenience, highlighting the relevant parts in blue (bottom of page 464 to top of page 465 in original paper):
In other words, "irreducible complexity" was arrived at by Müller before Behe was born and was posited by Müller not as a problem for evolution, but as a natural outcome of evolutionary processes. The so-called "Müllerian Two Step" is summarised succinctly as follows:
 Add a component;
 Make it necessary.
This was placed upon a rigorous footing by Müller himself, along with others such as Fisher, by the 1930s, and so Behe didn't even find a gap for his purported god to fit into. Biologists have known that Behe's "irreducible complexity" nonsense has been precisely that - nonsense - for a minimum of six decades. Indeed, the community of evolutionary biologists have a term to describe the Müllerian Two Step in more formal language, namely 'bricolage'.
All Behe did was coin a soundbite, and then present this duplicitously as if it constitutes a "problem" for evolutionary biology, when it does nothing of the sort. So-called "irreducibly complex" systems were postulated by Müller in 1918 to be a natural outcome of evolutionary processes, as the section of his paper I quoted above establishes. Behe simply erected a blind assertion (one of many, I might add, that were all refuted during the Dover Trial), to the effect that because he couldn't work out how testable natural processes achieved the end result, this purportedly meant that no testable natural process could achieve the end result, and therefore, a magic man was purportedly needed. Those scientific papers I presented in that other post destroy this myth utterly. Behe's sad little canard was known to be a canard before the sperm met the egg to form him.
So if you think no one here has dealt with the canard of "irreducible complexity" sensu Behe before, you're sadly mistaken. I subjected this canard to demolition along the above lines, getting on for twelve years ago over at the old Richard Dawkins Forums, and no IDist has ever produced anything other than worthless apologetic fabrications in order to try and address said demolition.
Once again, game over for your canards.
Moving on ...
Guess what, boy? I have a challenge for you. If you think, naively and stupidly as you do, that it's purportedly "obvious" when something is fabricated, I've a little test for you, which NO mythology fanboy has ever even dared to undertake when presented with it, let alone pass it. I'm attaching a nice little image to this post, of some rocks. ONE of those rocks is a Palaeolithic stone tool, while the rest are simply everyday rocks shaped by the everyday forces of nature. Can you tell the human artefact from the non-artefacts from that picture? I'm willing to bet you can't, and I'll enjoy watching you fail if you try.
Plus, there are many regular structures in existence, that are not the product of human, or for that matter, any other sentient entities. The Richat Structure in the Sahara desert was produced by mindless erosion. The Pamukkale Formation was produced by mindless precipitation of minerals from water. Fingal's Cave was produced by a mindless basalt lava flow. The Cave of the Crytsals was produced by mindless precipitation.
Just because you're too stupid to understand how testable natural processes can produce entities of this sort, doesn't validate your imaginary cartoon magic man.
Oh for that matter, we also have the Oklo fossil nuclear reactors to bring to the table. Yes, that's right, we have evidence that nuclear reactions occurred in natural rock formations 1.7 billion years ago, long before there existed humans to build nuclear reactors. Anomalous isotope ratios allowed for the detection of these fossil reactors, when material was being checked for nuclear proliferation compliance.
And, of course, the evidence for the biosphere being the product of yet more testable natural processes, is documented in around 1½ million peer reviewed scientific papers, including tens of thousands of papers providing direct experimental test and validation of relevant evolutionary postulates. Don't even think of asserting otherwise, unless you want to unleash the avalanche.
First of all, you appear not to have noticed that testable natural processes have been found to be sufficient to account for vast classes of entities and interactions, including  entities and interactions that mythology fanboys like you, oh-so-confidently asserted in the past needed an invisible magic man to "explain" them, and  entites and interactions that the authors of your sad mythology were incapable of even fantasising about.
Here's a clue for you. The piss-stained Bronze Age incels who scribbled your sad little mythology, were not only incapable of counting correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses, and asserted within their diseased scribblings that genetics was purportedly controlled by coloured sticks, but they knew nothing of the existence of at least four major continental land masses on this planet. If as I suspect, you're residing in the USA, then you're residing on one of those land masses, and this should be a serious source of embarrassment to you. Apparently your cartoon magic man forgot to tell his goat herder ghostwriters salient features of Planet Earth, let alone anything beyond.
Furthermore, the semi-literate goat herders who scribbled your sad mythology, underestimated the age of the universe by at least seven orders of magnitude, and its size by at least nine orders of magnitude. Which means that your attachment thereto, from the standpoint of genuine knowledge, is farcical.
Second, I've already covered at length, the manner in which testable natural processes are perfectly capable of producing artefacts that look "designed" to the uneducated and gullible. The evidence for testable natural processes being responsible for the universe and its contents is present by the supertanker load, in upwards of five million peer reviewed papers published in a vast swathe of scientific disciplines.
What you've presented here isn't "evidence", it's the usual mythology fanboy blind assertions masquerading as such. Once again, your rectally extracted apologetic fabrications only provide evidence of your inadequacy.
And of course, no one who paid attention in class, least of all the requisite research scientists providing the peer reviewed papers containing the evidence for testable natural processes, asserts this fatuous caricature of scientific thinking, which is a duplicitous creationist fabrication.
Oh by the way, there are scientific papers documenting self-assembly of relevant structures, if you bother to look for them. Arising from nothing other than electrostatic forces and chemical reactions.
I'm sure Sheldon will subject this latest assertion of yours to the carpet bombing it deserves. On the other hand, what about the lies you've been telling yourself above, now duly exposed as such?
Moving on ...
Now a "who", but a "what". Try testable natural processes.
Excuse me, but I DEMOLISHED YOUR PREVIOUS ERECTION OF THE DUPLICITOUS "ATHEISTS THINK THE UNIVERSE CAME FROM NOTHING" LIES AND BULLSHIT IN YOUR PREVIOUS THREAD. Courtesy of this post, within which I provided a six step rebuttal of your canard.
But I'm used to the combination of intellectual indolence and duplicity that is a well-documented part of the creationist aetiology.
Simple question for you ... ARE YOU GOING TO STOP POSTING LIES?
As for that other possibility, try, once again ... TESTABLE NATURAL PROCESSES.
No you didn't. Blind assertions and ex recto fabrications do not equal "evidence", except as evidence for your inadequacy.
I notice you've been avoiding my posts the way Kent Hovind dodged paying taxes. I suspect others are drawing the requisite conclusions from this.
I will reply to this post, as well as something for all of you at the bottom of the thread
LOL...I have seen this comedy before...it's hilarious. I have heard that some people that fail at the basic human trait of reason, actually think this is poignant...which makes it even more hilariously priceless. LOL.
Here is my log of me watching it, I'll keep updating as I watch it.
5 seconds it in says Living Waters Production. Isn't that the banana man guy?
35 seconds in has the voice of Ray Comfort (the banana guy).
[the first 12 minutes largely consists of Ray Comfort just asking questions of people (mostly atheists, if not all) on the street]
12:49 Mr. Comfort says "...cause an atheist actually believes nothing created everything..."
Now a question for you FishNChips007, before I watch anymore: is that statement I quoted from Mr. Comfort an accurate description of what atheists believe?
At least we now understand why FishNChips007 keeps posting facile appeal to ignorance fallacies, he is quoting Ray (teh banana man) Comfort ffs....
dear oh dear....
According to what I have heard from many on this site, most atheists do not say absolutely that there is no God, but they disbelieve.
If atheists do not believe God exists, then who do they say is responsible for creation? If not God, the only other possibility would be said, "nothing," being that creation could not create itself.
Why on earth would you think atheists believed in creation? You can no more evidence that than the deity you keep blindly asserting is responsible. You seem determined to use every known fallacy in informal logic there is. I don't know how the universe came to exist, beyond what science has so far been able to properly explain and evidence, and none of it requires anything but natural processes. That fact doesn't remotely evidence any deity, why on earth would it?
That is a false dichotomy.
You didn't answer my question.
I'll give you a hint, most atheists I've talked to, have no idea how the world reached its current state.
So again I ask you:
Is that statement from Mr. Comfort accurate?
Clearly it isn't accurate; and I don't think it takes a big stretch to believe that Mr. Comfort knows it isn't accurate. And I find it hard to believe he just misspoke, because the video was edited to include that statement in the final product. Why do you think that is?
Is it because Ray Comfort is a lying sack of shit? A duplicitous creatard with all the integrity of a politician on polling day, or a televangelist in full money grabbing flow.
@FishNChips007: You keep saying the same stupid shit. STOP.
"then who do they say is responsible for creation? "
You ask the wrong questions and you will get the wrong answers. You have committed a "BEGGING THE QUESTION" fallacy. You do not get to begin with a "WHO" without first proving there is a who. Your question ASSERTS there is a being WHO created the universe. YOU DON'T GET TO MAKE THAT ASSERTION WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
The proper question is "HOW did the universe come into being if it came into being?" HOW, NOT WHO.
Just a quick and limited update on questions and answers status in FishNChips threads.
FishNChips has posed 12+ questions, each more than adequately answered by more than one poster.
Of the 20+ questions presented to him, only one has been answered, which only showed his poor grasp of the subject matter.
And now this "Movie Night!" post has the whole experience spiralling into meltdown. The post cannot hold. The threads fall apart. This falcon is leaving, squawk! I resent you-tube preaching as forum contributions. It shows the sin of laziness, the substitute teacher trying to fill in time. ...added after posting...oh no Ray Comfort! who forgot to research the history of the banana before boldly presenting it as "the Atheist Nightmare" and irrefutable proof of "God"...you are in poor company Fish...
FishNChips, a respectful suggestion.
Spend some time researching science before you use it to defend your faith. Don't worry Science doesn't disprove anyone's faith in their god. There are many practising Christian who are fully qualified scientists who would find your posts, immensely embarrassing.
Frankly your apologetic suffers from the 1950's bible study handbook style critique of philosophy and science. Those tedious 'paradigm shift' stories about kind bus drivers and clumsy police officers don't do you any service either.
The cosmological, ontological, teleological and all those other dandy arguments are hundreds of years old and have lost any sort of relevance since the rise of scientific and philosophical enquiry.
I can recommend Isaac Asimov's Guide to Science.
My 1972 edition is pretty much dated but in an easy to follow format Asimov lucidly explains the history and development of the scientific method, it's researches and discoveries.
The 'cosmological principle' has nothing over 'quantum fluctuations'. You will never look at 'nothing' in the same way ever again. At the very least a revision of your knowledge might reveal to you a greater sense of wonder for the concept of your god. Good luck.
As of now I quit monitoring the questions on these threads. It was a stupid idea, why didnt anyone try to stop me? The pays is lousy, I have a pandemic to survive and the last 53 elements to memorise.