American Atheists, Inc., Challenges Filmmaker to Release Unedited Interviews

0

American Atheists, Inc., today tweeted to its 31,000 followers for producer Ray Comfort to release unedited footage of interviews he conducted with four evolutionary scientists for his new film. 


In the film, "Evolution vs. God," the scientists are unable to offer any observable scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution. The tweet said, "Ray, we challenge you to post the unedited interviews of the scientists — We'll help promote them if you do." They're not the only ones who want to see the raw footage, according to the producer. These are just some of the many demands from atheists to see what didn't make it into the movie: 

Andrew Dougy Rutherford: Yeah, getting to see the full unedited interviews would be great. If you case against them is as solid as you claim then you would have no problem doing this. 

Tommy Harris: Liar. Release the raw, unedited footage, Ray. 

Written By: CNN iReport
continue to source article at ireport.cnn.com

NO COMMENTS

  1. Hah. An evolutionary biologist that can’t provide 1 piece of evidence for what they’ve spent at least a decade studying? Even the crazy homeless guy who says aliens bugged his teeth can come up with 1 piece of evidence(albeit bad evidence). Pretty obviously an editing trick.

    • You have the best username ever.

      In reply to #1 by TheHardonCollider:

      Hah. An evolutionary biologist that can’t provide 1 piece of evidence for what they’ve spent at least a decade studying? Even the crazy homeless guy who says aliens bugged his teeth can come up with 1 piece of evidence(albeit bad evidence). Pretty obviously an editing trick.

    • In reply to #2 by IDLERACER:

      So Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron both have new films coming out? Talk about overkill. I’m sure they will both be about as popular (and effective) as Ben Stein’s embarrassing fiasco.

      Yes, it is Lying for Jesus Redux. See the long discussion we had about this back when “Expelled” came out. Also, I have written about this on my blog.

  2. Comfort said, “They are worried, and they’ve got a right to be. ‘Evolution vs. God’ shows that there’s no evidence for Darwinian evolution — that it rests on nothing but blind faith.

    Ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

    So they are hoping to find some ‘silver bullet’ in what wasn’t used that will discredit the movie.

    What makes people think Ray would cherry-pick, quote-mine, and misrepresent statements from scientists? – Err! Past records perhaps!

    They know that millions are going to end up seeing evolutionary scientists from USC and UCLA gasping like fish out of water, as they try to think of scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution.”

    Would those fish be Tiktaalik, Coelacanths or Mudskippers?

  3. Not that it will matter much to either the creationists who watch the film with popcorn and confirmation-bias goggles, or your average viewer who hasn’t given it much thought and is easily manipulated due to his lack of knowledge on the subject.

    Still, it’s important to call them out on it. Obviously.

    • Religious people’s tendency towards projection never ceases to amaze me. “Richard Dawkins is the atheists prophet, atheism is a religion, acceptance of evolution is based on faith” I’m not sure if these people’s tactics are aimed at completely discrediting science or just muddy the waters enough to make it look as if nobody really has any solid answers about important questions so you mine as well believe whatever makes you feel good. Whatever these peoples motives are, it’s clear that all of the Ray Comfort’s of the world seem to think lying isn’t as big of a sin as accepting modern biology.

      In reply to #5 by Kevin Murrell:

      *”if you believe in evolution, prepare to have your faith shaken.” *

      I don’t have faith, only proof.

      • In reply to #7 by Ryan1306:

        Religious people’s tendency towards projection never ceases to amaze me.

        That’s the thing about films! They use projectors!

        In the film, “Evolution vs. God,” the scientists are unable to offer any observable scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution.

        Ray has just taken the projection one stage further!

        I am sure we will be astoundingly underwhelmed by his impressive “observable evidence for gods”! – Or at least his fallacious belief that undermining evolution will some how enhance “god-did-it-by-magic claims”, without any actual evidence for gods!

  4. No way he’ll agree to that. Ray may be a disingenuous liar, but he isn’t stupid. He’s been doing this long enough to know that red meat is best sold sans discussion of the butchering process.

  5. Just put this tripe on my watch later list at youtube. That was one of my first comments.

    Edit much, way of the liar?

    Will have to view this nonsense in five minute increments as I see my stomach will not stand for more than that at one time.

  6. I’ve just watched 11 minutes and 44 seconds of Evolution Vs. God and am finding it really irritating.

    Premise: A scientific method is based on “the collection of data through observation and experimentation…” – Science Daily.

    The interviewer poses ‘can you show me observable evidence that evolution is true?’ By which, it turns out, they mean transformation above the Family level, the famous crocoduck. The interviewer asks for a difference of ‘Kind’, whatever that means, whilst dismissing the numerous examples proffered of speciation (saying ”there’s 14 different definitions of “species”!”). As usual, they will not accept that micro and macro are merely different views of the same continuum and are using this absurd simplistic definition (which it isn’t) of scientific method. You never see the guy asking the questions and the sound-bites are so small they nourish nothing (apart from annoyance).

    Just watched the rest and they are insisting that observation can be only of living things and ignoring the part of the logic of scientific method which duplicates, measures and describes with Occam adductive general principles. The distancing of ‘observation’ from observer bias and error by instrumentation and agreed method and measurement. Objectivity – no concept of anything approaching that.

    It attempts to jettison all evidence from Geology, Palaeontology, and Cosmology. They don’t appear to want to mess with Particle Physics, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Archaeology or Genetics (just ask stupid questions to mostly average college kids). The second half is devoted to lies of both commission and omission from a folksy but obviously prosperous Comfort.

    Comfortable, in fact. Slick as snake oil. Of course they don’t want P.Z.Myers actual comments to show. It will be interesting what (if anything) develops from this.

  7. It’s telling, isn’t it, that hardly anyone, if anyone indeed, from another Christian sect will choose to publically criticize this madness. Birds of a feather flock faithfully together.

    Mike

  8. Given the great number of people who would love to selectively quote or misquote scientists, I guess it will help if scientists providing interview have their own copy of the interview. It shouldn’t take a whole lot of effort to turn on the camera or audio recorder in the mobile and keep it in front while giving the interview.

  9. This film isn’t intended to convert scientists into creationists, its intended to reassure wavering members of the credulous (uneducated [is there any other kind] religious believers) with all the usual medacity and dishonesty we have come to expect from Banana Man.

    It is deeply ironic that he and Kirk Cameron make attacks of this kind on science and atheism, because they are almost certainly atheists. They believe in nothing, and make no effort to follow Christian dogma as they enrich themselves at the expense of poor the Christian who are their followers and victims

  10. No wonder everyone looked stumped when asked “Give me an example of evolution happening I can see right now”. It is a nonsense question. Natural evolution takes 100s or 1000s of generations to take effect. You have to observe (or have records of) something for that long to “see” evolution. That’s why things like the fossil record are great examples. Even forced evolution (eg: breeding only the biggest dogs) takes several generations.

    • In reply to #18 by Attofoxy:

      No wonder everyone looked stumped when asked “Give me an example of evolution happening I can see right now”. It is a nonsense question. Natural evolution takes 100s or 1000s of generations to take effect. You have to observe (or have records of) something for that long to “see” evolution. That’s wh…

      Its like give me an example of an acorn turning into an oak tree, or show me a transitional form between a baby and an old age pensioner., like they are expecting to see a haggard old man top half with a chubby baby legs bottom half. Ray is a muppet

    • In reply to #18 by Attofoxy:

      No wonder everyone looked stumped when asked “Give me an example of evolution happening I can see right now”. It is a nonsense question. Natural evolution takes 100s or 1000s of generations to take effect. You have to observe (or have records of) something for that long to “see” evolution. That’s wh…

      You’ve missed the entire point of the film, haven’t you? Ray’s aim is very simple. It’s to show that belief in Evolution is a matter of faith – a Religion if you like. There is no observable, repeatable evidence for it, so it does not belong to true science.

  11. As far as examples of evolution occurring currently, how about drug-resistant TB (and many other exciting diseases), as well as Roundup-resistant weeds. I suspect the interviewer got examples like that but didn’t use them.

  12. Ray Comfort isn’t ignorant. He KNOWS that the “facts” he presents are absurd as he’s been presented with evidence over and over and over again.

    Simply put, he is a manipulative and compulsive liar for Jebus.

    He’s just like the snake oil salesmen that went around flogging their knowingly useful products to the gullible.

  13. Ray Comfort’s banana fits securely into his hand. Or, does Kirk Cameron’s banana fit securely into Ray Comfort’s hand? Or, does Ray Comfort’s banana fit securely into a zip lock baggie? Or am I hammered? All I know is that bananas are fitting into hands or baggies or maybe Ray has a plantain between his legs or, well,,,,,,, I am in Aruba, it is late Friday night and, well, the day ray Comfort (or Kirk Cameron) tells the truth is the day that they both disintegrate spontaneously.

    • In reply to #25 by crookedshoes:

      Ray Comfort’s banana fits securely into his hand. Or, does Kirk Cameron’s banana fit securely into Ray Comfort’s hand?

      While he thinks the bananas are designed to fit into his hand that is only because of the “bananas” indoctrinated into his brain!

  14. Shame on those scientists for agreeing to appear in the movie without some assurances that they wouldn’t be edited in such a way. Unless it was another Expelled situation, where they were mislead about what the movie was about and who was making it.

    • In reply to #26 by fuzzylogic:

      Shame on those scientists for agreeing to appear in the movie without some assurances that they wouldn’t be edited in such a way. Unless it was another Expelled situation, where they were mislead about what the movie was about and who was making it.

      Agreed. One wonders why they allowed themselves to be used by this dishonest snake oil pedler for his propaganda film when his mendacious methods are well known.

  15. This is a quote from the Evolution vs God facebook page:

    “Instead of accusations of deceitful editing, of lying, hijacking people, etc., simply provide scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution. Dawkins can’t do it. Neither can Krause. Darwin couldn’t, and you can’t, because there isn’t any. It rests on nothing but blind faith.”

    Who is Ray Comfort kidding? What does he think scientists have been doing for the past century? As for blind faith, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!

  16. Doctors are observing evolution all the time with the Aids virus. It evolves on a daily basis. I haven’t read all comments so maybe it has already been mentioned.
    I find this sort of BS so frustrating. Surely if someone is going to make a film about a topic they should at least have a basic understanding of the topic.
    Im a film maker myself. Perhaps its time for a film about Creationists BS!! But then where would it end… Psychics, Climate change, vacines…. there are people out there who are brain washed into a belief. Swallow it whole, and will distort the evidence or simply deny it in order to keep their delusion.

    Hmmm oh well, all the best to us all on this planet :))))

  17. ‘Can you show me observable evidence that evolution is true?’

    Lets just say that the H1N1 Swine Flu virus didn’t jump from pigs to humans because god thought of an ironic way of killing Jews and Muslims

  18. Has there been no comment from the scientists that were interviewed? It seems to me that they are the key witnesses and I would think they have a vested interest in defending their reputations. Frankly, uninvolved people standing on the outside stating that there “must” be deception/selective editing involved can look a bit pathetic. The scientists themselves need to be the ones demanding the footage…or American Atheists should turn their fire on the scientists.

    • If you head on over to Pharyngula, which is PZ Myers site (and is awesome!) you can read his comments as he was one of the scientists that was “shang hai’d” by Ray Comfort. Someone on his site has also been kind enough to provide the audio of the interview in it’s entirety.

      I frequent PZ’s site, but have had a hell of a time attempting to register my “crooked shoes” moniker so I have yet to comment over there. But, I do like the site.

      In reply to #32 by paulmcuk:

      Has there been no comment from the scientists that were interviewed? It seems to me that they are the key witnesses and I would think they have a vested interest in defending their reputations. Frankly, uninvolved people standing on the outside stating that there “must” be deception/selective editin…

        • Hey, I am either guilty of misreading something, mis-remembering a story, or worse, letting my bias cause me to make a claim (one that I really thought I saw). However, I have been scouring the site and searching tons of other places and once again, I am the dumb ass.

          I am wrong. I cannot find or provide the audio that I thought was there. I therefore humbly withdraw my claim and will do a better job in the future of vetting my sources and not shooting my mouth off.

          Sorry for getting your hopes up and/or wasting your time. There are lots of people calling for the full interview to be released. I will probably be the last one to know when (if) it becomes available.
          Humblest apologies,

          Crooked

          In reply to #40 by God fearing Atheist:

          In reply to #39 by crookedshoes:

          Someone on his site has also been kind enough to provide the audio of the interview in it’s entirety.

          Can you link please, I’d like to listen to it.

          • In reply to #43 by crookedshoes:

            Hey, I am either guilty of misreading something, mis-remembering a story, or worse, letting my bias cause me to make a claim (one that I really thought I saw). However, I have been scouring the site and searching tons of other places and once again, I am the dumb ass.

            I am wrong. I cannot find o…

            That’s Ok. (sigh!) :-)

            PZ did state he had bought a small recording device that he would deploy at all future interviews.

  19. Why waste time arguing with inadequate attention seekers? Why not just ask them to explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve, vestigial organs such as the whale’s hind legs, goose pimples, or any number of other falsifiable peices of evidence for evolution?

    Further, challenge them to gainsay people such as the Nobel Laureate Geneticist Theodosius Dobshansky, who stated: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”; sufficiently emphatic I think!

    That way they’d be exposed for what they are, either ignorant dolts or liars, children would learn about evolution and we’d all have a good laugh.

    • In reply to #33 by Stafford Gordon:

      Why waste time arguing with inadequate attention seekers? Why not just ask them to explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve, vestigial organs such as the whale’s hind legs, goose pimples, or any number of other falsifiable peices of evidence for evolution?

      That way they’d be exposed for what they are,…

      Trouble is, their answer to ‘explain this pointless piece of present anatomy’ is always something on the lines of ‘god moves in mysterious ways, ours is not to reason why, god has a plan’ . . . .blah, blah, blah. They are not interested in explaining things in any rational way. On the contrary, they want to stop all attempts at explanation and just plug all the enormous gaps in their knowledge and understanding with fairy stories. I’ve almost got to the point of thinking there’s no point in trying to reason with them – it’s like trying to reason with a geranium. Never mind the arguments they tried to put forward in the film, object to the deception of the editing – and as others have said, what do the scientists involved have to say about that? I beg them to sue everyone involved in making and distributing the film and give the proceeds to RDFRS.

  20. Just for you Ray Comfort….ya asinine prick….“Evolution 101″

    I worry about the human race, I really do…if anyone has watched any of those “fly-on-the-wall” shows like “American Pawn” they will see that “Idiocracy” is upon us…with IDiots like comfort spooning out the Kool-Aid we need to toughen up the censorship laws in order to avoid exposing the ignorant/stupid to the asinine.

    ” Los Angeles Times reviewer Carina Chocano described it as “spot on” satire and a “pitch-black, bleakly hilarious vision of an American future”, although the “plot, naturally, is silly and not exactly bound by logic.”

    That’s “Idiocracy” she was reviewing, not Banana Man’s “Evolution v’s God” in case anyone gets confused….btw, shouldn’t that be “Evolution v’s gods”?

  21. I watched some of the video on YouTube, and then had this imaginary conversation with Ray Bananna:-

    Ray – “What evidence do you have that you can walk 4 miles?”

    Me – “Well, I’ll show you. I put my right foot in front of my left, and then my left foot in front of my right”

    Ray – “But you have only walked a yard. You are still in the same spot compared to 4 miles. Show me how you can walk four miles”

    Me – “Well, I just walk a yard, and another yard, and do it 7040 times”

    Ray – “Then show me. Right NOW!”

    Me – “I can’t show you right NOW, it will take an hour to walk four miles”

    Ray – “So you can’t walk 4 miles. See, I told you, humans move by teleportation!”

  22. Ray Comfort and joined-at-the-hip Kirkoduck Cameron need to make like a banana and split.

    They have a “reality” show on a christian network – ‘Way of the Master’. Can’t figure out what the hell they are on about… Kirkbananaoduck just come across as narcissist buffoons.

  23. It’s funny how he insists on scientists providing evidence for evolution, but requires none for his assertions of the validity of Christianity. Just because these people couldn’t provide the kind of evidence he wanted doesn’t prove that Jesus rose from the dead. Drrrrrk!!!!

  24. Hello
    It is my greatest joy to say hi to you on this beautiful and lovely day.if you don’t mind i will like you to write me on my ID hope to hear from you soon,and I will be waiting for your mail because i have something VERY important to tell you.Please don’t reply me in my Facebook.Please try and write to me in my private email box,if your interested to hear the important too, i want share with you,Lots of love! mumemmy

    (mumemmy@yahoo.com)

    • obtuse asshole.

      In reply to #47 by mumemmy:

      Hello
      It is my greatest joy to say hi to you on this beautiful and lovely day.if you don’t mind i will like you to write me on my ID hope to hear from you soon,and I will be waiting for your mail because i have something VERY important to tell you.Please don’t reply me in my Facebook.Please try and…

  25. Just seen it on Youtube ! What a load of rubbish that was. Kirk has no understanding of Evolution what so ever. Why are they producing these films ? Because people are questioning the Bible and it’s silly stories.

  26. I went through an evangelical church in my youth here in Christchurch New Zealand, one in which Ray Comfort was one of the pastors.  I left said church in part because I became tired of the lies and deliberate misrepresentations of what scientists were actually saying in the literature sold by Mr Comfort in his Christian bookstore (and at church).  There is no charitable way to say this (as Lewis Black puts it) christians such as Ray Comfort are stone, cold f#@k nuts!  They are insane and hopelessly delusional.  Of course Comfort is reluctant to release full interviews, what else would you expect?  He has a history of lying by omission or using straw man arguments (e.g. a whole eukaryotic cell couldn’t possible have just assembled itself!  Never mind scientists have never actually said this) which in itself I would have thought constitutes (as he demands) sufficient reason to release the complete footage.  Don’t hold your breath though, like the literature I read in his church this movie preaches to the converted, to those without sufficient critical thinking skills or education to defend themselves… it was never seriously aimed at those who have actually taken the time to inform themselves about evolution. 
     
    The thing that irritates me the most however is the fact theists such as Comfort would never subject their own belief systems to the same standards of proof they demand of evolutionary theory.  If they did the whole stinking edifice would fall down around their ears e.g. where are the miracles the bible promises people like Comfort should be able to perform?  Why have not he and Cameron dropped to their knees and demanded all gay people be made straight or emptied hospital wards with their prayers?  Perhaps Ray might also give an explanation as to the failed prophecies of Jesus return in the 1st century AD.  The bible contradicts reality and itself, something Ray manages to get around only with the most absurd mental gymnastics… Comforts whole life can be summed up as a denial of observation so faith can be preserved.
     
    When reality is decided by your subjective feelings dignified and deified with the term “faith” and you can pull a miracle out of a hat whenever confronted with an inconvenient “fact” then you can be made to believe pretty much anything.  Problem is, you have no way of ever knowing if you are wrong.  Comfort and Cameron’s world view is predicated on the monstrous presumption that their subjective feeling are the arbiter of reality.  Their entire philosophy is laid on a foundation of hideous arrogance.  They have made a god of their subjective feelings, a truth discerning machine of god-like omnipotence and infallibility, they are in short idolaters.

  27. Interesting to read this discussion. Not one single contributor has come up with one single observable, testable piece of evidence for Macro – evolution. Not one. All we have is ad hominem attacks.

    No wonder Dawkins is afraid to debate him.

    Evolution is a religion – a matter of blind faith.

    • In reply to #56 by McMurdo:

      Interesting to read this discussion. Not one single contributor has come up with one single observable, testable piece of evidence for Macro – evolution. Not one. All we have is ad hominem attacks.

      No wonder Dawkins is afraid to debate him.

      Evolution is a religion – a matter of blind faith.

      Your question shows you have no understanding of the facts of evolution. The evidence is overwhelming. Perhaps this website will enlighten you:
      http://www.talkorigins.org/
      As I said earlier, there is about as much evidence for creationism as there is for fairies at the bottom of my garden.

    • In reply to #56 by McMurdo:

      Interesting to read this discussion. Not one single contributor has come up with one single observable, testable piece of evidence for Macro – evolution. Not one. All we have is ad hominem attacks.

      No wonder Dawkins is afraid to debate him.

      Evolution is a religion – a matter of blind faith.

      I’m not Richard Dawkins and can’t speak for him, but I’d not be surprised if part of the reason weren’t the very high degree of dishonesty that creationists seem to use as a matter of course. But I’m not going to waste space rehearsing the litany of creationist misdirections, of which this film may be yet another one. Instead, I’ll direct my post to the cartoon-style use of ‘macro’ evolution, as if it meant anything other than ‘micro’ evolution that had had a very long time indeed to operate.

      It seems to me that many creationists erect an artificial barrier between ‘kinds’ (an ill-defined term in itself) of living things and baldly state that no adaptation can cross that line. This is the equivalent of setting and exam pass-mark at (say) 70 and declaring that those above ‘pass’, those below ‘fail’, but it is more serious in the creationists’ case, because as a corollary to the artificial barrier, they declare that non-acceptance of their view is worthy of scorn, ridicule, the deployment of the tools of misdirection and the assertion that ‘evolution relies on blind faith’. The latest manifestation of this seems to be the mantra that no-one has ever seen macro-evolution happening before their eyes.

      Now it seems to me that all this amounts to is a version of the argument from ignorance – no-one has seen macro-evolution happening, therefore it doesn’t.

      The problem arising from the last sentence is that, for most creationists, ‘macro’ evolution by definition implies the (artificial) barriers, so that ‘macro’ evolution can never happen. They have simply defined away the problem.

      What creationists need to do is to provide evidence of the biological barriers between ‘kinds’. They must be there, presumably in the DNA. It would be interesting to see them. In the meantime we are left with (for example) human embryos that grow yolk sacs that are never filled with yolk, even though we are mammals that don’t produce reptilian eggs anyway. (We do have the genes to produce the yolk still, though they’ve been deactivated, since we evolved from reptiles long ago.) Or there is lanugo – the hair that covers human babies at six months, but that disappears before birth. The only explanation would seem that we evolved from creatures that were covered in fur. And – hey presto! – the other great apes’ babies produce lanugo at a similar stage of development, but they keep theirs. Or there’s human chromosome 2, which just happens to look like two chromosomes fused together end-to-end, and which explains why we have 23 pairs of chromosomes and the other great apes have 24.

      Of course there’s more, much, much more. But creationists will dismiss it all because we didn’t actually see it happening.

      Instead, consider this. If we adopt the creationist argument that major changes can’t occur since we’ve never witnessed any, we’d have some difficulty proving that old people developed from young people, from babies, or from foetuses. We don’t see that happening either, at least not in the sense that I suspect a creationist would accept.

  28. “Interesting to read this discussion. Not one single contributor has come up with one single observable, testable piece of evidence for Macro – evolution. Not one. All we have is ad hominem attacks. No wonder Dawkins is afraid to debate him. Evolution is a religion – a matter of blind faith.”

    How completely contrived. The question or observation is made in such a manner as to have the pre-determined answer in it already. To be scientific an hypothesis must be based upon observable and repeatable experiments? This is precisely the issue Darwin faced, how to demonstrate the scientific veracity of something that would be difficult to replicate in a laboratory situation. Anyone who has read Origin of Species should know this.

    Firstly microevolution occurs, just ask any antibiotic resistant bacterium. The assertion that microevolution cannot lead to macroevolution is a “just so” story that follows from the faith-based axiom that the bible is inerrant while reality is frequently in error therefore since the world is only 6 thousand or so years old macroevolution cannot have occurred. Yeah, really scientific. No wonder creationists want evolution to be just another religion and define science to suit their preconceptions so it’s determinations can be as readily dismissed as any faith-based fantasy.

    I find it hard to believe McMurdo is so ignorant as to be unaware of the work of Karl Popper on falsifiability. To be scientific an hypothesis in principle must be falsifiable which makes evolution “scientific” in so far as the theory makes predictions that can be tested. Blind faith has nothing to do with it, rather multiple lines of evidence from many disciplines come together into a cohesive mutually reinforcing whole. If we were to apply McMurdo’s “must be repeatable in the lab” demand universally we would never convict a criminal on forensic evidence unless we could precisely replicate the crime… after all we merely infer what has happened based on the evidence remaining.

    FYI An exceedingly quick look on the net re: macroevolutionay examples garnered this amongst other sites: http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/evo-creation/evo-vs-creation1b.shtml

    Consider also this same reasoning applied to the tenets of Christianity. Jesus birth and resurrection occur only once, either replicate this performance for me so I can witness it or I can legitimately conclude the whole thing is just one religion amongst many and reject it.

  29. Wouldn’t it be great if Mr Dawkins and Ray Comfort had an open debate? I’d bet my bottom dollar that Mr Comfort would decline the invitation, for fear Mr Dawkins would wipe the floor with him. What a pratt!

    • In reply to #60 by Hallelujah:

      Wouldn’t it be great if Mr Dawkins and Ray Comfort had an open debate? I’d bet my bottom dollar that Mr Comfort would decline the invitation, for fear Mr Dawkins would wipe the floor with him. What a pratt!

      You might be interested in the “Thunderf00t debates Ray Comfort” series…of two…but nonetheless interesting. The YouTube video can be found on the links at the bottom of the wiki.

      • Thanks for that. I’ll take a look.
        In reply to #61 by Ignorant Amos:

        In reply to #60 by Hallelujah:

        Wouldn’t it be great if Mr Dawkins and Ray Comfort had an open debate? I’d bet my bottom dollar that Mr Comfort would decline the invitation, for fear Mr Dawkins would wipe the floor with him. What a pratt!

        You might be interested in the “Thunderf00t debates Ray Comf…

Leave a Reply