Ray Comfort v. RRS: Does God Exist?
May 9, 2007 by rivalarrival
I don’t know which was a bigger letdown this week, StumbleUpon killing a group over religious disagreement or Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron making complete asses of themselves under the guise of Proving God’s Existence.
The videos of the full debate are available below the fold. I’m reviewing them now, so this is a bit of a work in progress… Bear with me 
A little background: Ray Comfort (the guy who claims that a Banana is an Atheist’s “Worst Nightmare”) claimed he could scientifically “Prove” the Judeo-Christian God’s existence. The kicker was that he claimed he could do it WITHOUT referencing Faith or The Bible.
Although a letdown, the day wasn’t a complete waste. I learned something. I learned a Brand New Logical Fallacy (Our returning visitors might know that I am a fan of Logical Fallacies)
Today was the first time I have seen a self-proclaimed professional debator use the “sui ad hominem” fallacy. (I apologize to anybody who actually know Latin. Mea culpa) Several of his arguments were such that he insulted himself just by using them.
Most of the debate is available in the following 5 videos. (The edited versions is available)
Part 1: Introductions and ground rules
In part 1, Ray calls Atheists “Criminals”.
Part 2 - Ray’s opening argument
Ray opens with the Coke Can theory of creation. This is one of the “sui ad hominem” arguments I was speaking of. Strictly speaking, it is a Straw Man: Ray attributes his theory of Coke-Can evolution as the real Evolution theory.
He hits the “Painting had a Painter, Car had a Maker, thus Creation had a Creator” point (another sui ad hominem). He goes on to the “Perfect Creation” argument - We have Eyes, Ears, Eyelids, a redundant respiratory tract (wait, why redundant? I thought we were created perfect… He later gets creamed from an audience member on this “perfection” issue)
Conscience is up next. Morality is apparantly only a Human issue. And here, in his opening statement, Ray claims that the Ten Commandments are necessary to understand God. He says that rapists and pedophiles will go to hell because of their seared consciences. He falls back on his “Have you Sinned? Then you’re a sinner!” argument for a couple minutes, then moves on to preaching more and more biblical crap. So much for proving God without Faith and the Bible.
I’ll take my leave now. I was going to review the rest of the debate, but it’s all old news that has been rehashed, time and time again.
Theists: Find something new. Your old, recycled, half-baked arguments are boring me. I don’t even consider myself anything more than an amateur as far as Atheist Proselytizing, and I can destroy these arguments in my sleep.
Part 4:
Part 5:
I’ll keep cleaning this post up as the rest of the details become available. Hopefully, a full, uncut copy of the debate and the ensuing discussion with the audience will be available shortly. I hear it comes out on Thursday afternoon, EDT.
How did you get that on here so fast? I just turned off the tv from watching it! One thing that I didn’t get was why some Christians accuse atheists of being “angry” and “sarcastic”. As a person who was raised Roman Catholic, I have to admit that I am angry. The woman in the audience who asked about cancer is also angry, and it’s because neither of us can believe in a god who makes the people he “loves” suffer. I don’t think that the atheists made people “confused’ as one of the Christians put it. I think that they are just worried that they made people think.
[Reply]
Recovering: I’m still trying to find where these videos originated. I picked them up from another website, http://www.bsalert.com/artsearch.php?fn=2&as=1807&dt=1
The first one (obviously) came from the Rational Response Squad themselves.
I apologize for the numerous changes, and there will be a few more before I leave this alone. I wanted to get this out to our audience quickly.
[Reply]
I want to see the complete, uncut version of this debate.
[Reply]
no doubt about it, cameron and comfort were not ready to debate against evolutionist fanatics. despite their ineptitude, the evolutionists proved nothing either. also the debate was not supposed to include references to the bible yet there was the girl using to put words in their mouths and misinterpreting it badly. evolutionists have forever said that the bible is not fact but the facts are: that there is more basis on fact in the bible than there is in any evolutionists argument. if dinosurs have been extinct for “millions of years” then why is the coelacanth alive and well i the Indian ocean? also why do scientists find a single tooth, then build some huge hominid out of it but when ID supporters find an anomaly that debunks evolution, they are shouted down, insulted and worst of all, ignored. carbon dating is also not accurate. scientists will carbon date a fossil and call it “120 million years old” and call it “fact”. then why have other scientists taken samples from recent volcanic eruptions that they KNEW the date. within the past 10 years, but carbon dating calls it 40 million years old? Unreliable folks. Wether you believe Jesus was the Son of God is entirely up to you but it is indisputale fact that there WAS a Jesus Christ. I hope you aren’t doing this to lead people astray intentionally because if did more research and with an unbiased eye, you would see that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does ID. Peace
[Reply]
Vic, just because the eruption happened 10 years ago doesn’t mean that the material that came from the eruption was only ten years old. The material could have been millions of years old and only came to the surface with the eruption.
[Reply]
So I guess we’re back a square 1.
[Reply]
In response to “vic”
Comfort’s proposal was to provide proof of god, scientifically and without calling upon scripture. He failed miserably on both counts. Your labeling of “fanatic” for his opposition is absurd. A fanatic is “a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics”. Belief based on logic and science IS critical at its core. It’s those who have unwavering faith in something abstract and constructed without any foundation in fact that are fanatics.
“there is more basis on fact in the bible than there is in any evolutionists argument” Ridiculous. Evolution is fact, beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence is overwhelming and verifiable. Other than those few bits of the Bible that are basic historical accounts that are supported by other texts, the Bible is hogwash without any evidence whatsoever of the magical events it portrays. Star Wars is equally likely to be true.
So, coelacanths are still around, what’s your point? We still have crocodiles, tortoises, cockroaches, dragonflies, ginkos, ferns, and many other ancient forms that have managed to occupy their niches without being completely displaced by later evolved forms.
Experts in their field can tell you a lot about something from little evidence. A tooth may only be an indicator of general size and possibly diet to a layman, but a paleontologist who has studied many thousands of specimens from creatures living and extinct can tell a lot from a tooth or bit of bone. Joe Bible on the other hand, having no such experience or education is naturally dismissed when he weaves some tale of intelligent design from whole cloth with no data to support him.
Radioactive carbon dating is reasonably accurate, but limited to about 70,000 years. Whatever this 40 million years carbon dating of recent volcanic material is that you are babbling about is clearly bogus, even if contaminated. What is your source for that, the hole between the pads you sit on? There are other radioactive isotopes useful for dating however, with some having half-lives beyond the age of the Earth itself, making dating in any strata possible. Fossils and their location in Earth’s strata along with radioactive isotope dating and other methods, from examining ice cores and even tree rings, give a very clear picture of the progression of life on Earth.
“it is indisputale fact that there WAS a Jesus Christ” Oh, really? Actually, that’s quite debatable. Other than the books of the New Testament there’s very little evidence that Jesus was even a real person. That parts of his alleged history from virgin birth to resurrection were stolen from older religions hurts the case for Christ even more. Other than, “it’s in the Bible”, what have you got to show? I’d say it’s quite possible there was a person of that name who participated in some of the events described that are not supernatural, but the magic stuff is no more real than the parlor tricks of Sai Baba.
Science and logic are all about the “unbiased eye” because that’s the only way to get at the truth. It’s religion that suffers from blind bias, refusing to see what’s solid and real in order to maintain the fantasy of its myth. The truth is in cosmic background radiation, doppler shifts, sedimentary layers, and so on and is found by people with telescopes, microscopes, and petri dishes. The ones who base their view of humanity and the cosmos on mythical ramblings written on animal hides by oil lamp are the ones who have gone astray. Earth is not flat, does not rest on four pillars, and is not the center of the universe, much less the solar system, despite what those writers of religious texts long ago may have thought. Man is a late-comer among life on Earth and evolved from earlier forms - the evidence is literally written in stone. Science has shown us the truth and will continue to reveal more.
[Reply]
Thank you, handheadman. Your response saved me quite a bit of time.
[Reply]
I hate the fact that douche bags like Kirk Cameron and this guy are who get chosen for a ‘debate’ on evolution and creationism. It’s pathetic when someone tries to use a work of literature and use it as a text book. It’s like me arguing with you about why Shakespeare is so much better than Chapter 1 of that Organic Chemistry book. When you think about it the two couldn’t have less to do with each other, there’s nothing to debate.
[Reply]