Ray Comfort v Bill Maher

Next up: Ray Comfort challenges Mary Shelly to a debate on biology.

Ewww, I clicked into World Nut Daily on your link. Don't do that: now I have to boil my keyboard.

I have no degree in anything but a BS in Dilletantism and I've been kicking creationist butt for many years now. It doesn't take an oncologist to lance a boil and it doesn't take a PhD in evolutionary biology to lance a creationist.

I would love to see Bill Maher slice and dice a creationist!

Fair enough, Mr. Comfort. Next time, why not talk to -- oh, say -- Richard Dawkins? Or E.O. Wilson? Actually, come to think of it, it would be fantastic if Maher accepted the challenge and then brought Dawkins/Wilson out to speak instead.

As I noted to Ed in the email, if he wants to debate a media figure, I think Penn Gillette would be perfect.

Comfort proves himself to be an idiot the moment he opens his mouth. What possible scientific discussion could be concluded in a mere 20 minutes, particularly about an issue as complex as evolution? Also, he seems to be blissfully unaware that science NEVER proves anything, it merely disproves things.

Count your blessings, bsa - I'm on my laptop.

That actually is an interesting exercise, though, and I think it's worth trying (not as part of a debate!). I mean giving "the case for evolution" in 20 minutes. Naturally, approached in one way it would be like the "summarize Proust" competition from Monty Python; but in another it would be a quick primer on the formal and conceptual integration of the various scientific disciplines, and its significance for scientific inferences. Still, you'd have to talk fast. What would you say, Ed?

BTW while I was over at WND, I saw that James Kennedy will be "debunking the Da Vinci Code." Next thing you know they'll tell us Sherlock Holmes never existed. Sheesh.

Actually I forgot why I mentioned it, which was to comment on Tim M's comment. It's true that science never "proves" anything (and it's true that this leads some astray), but I don't like leaning on that point, as it makes scientific inferences sound more tentative than they actually are. Yes, they're corrigible; but for some things science does give us (not proofs but) conclusive evidence.

daveinci says:

Fair enough, Mr. Comfort. Next time, why not talk to -- oh, say -- Richard Dawkins? Or E.O. Wilson? Actually, come to think of it, it would be fantastic if Maher accepted the challenge and then brought Dawkins/Wilson out to speak instead.

Nah, as the mere fact of doing that would simply validate the wingnut in the eyes of the target audience. Why would "they" need to bring in Dawkins unless "they" were afraid of what Mr. Comfort has to say? What was actually said then would be totally irrelevant. In fact, such is usually the case anyway in such debates.

As I noted to Ed in the email, if he wants to debate a media figure, I think Penn Gillette would be perfect.

In which case we would likely see some real science plus the added bonus of some funny sarcasm. I don't know if I would trust Maher to do his homework on that one, but hoo boy there sure will be lots of sarcasm. Comfort is probably just looking to make a name for himself so any celebrity would suit him just fine.

Says Ray Comfort: "Mr. Maher, like all believers in the theory of evolution, simply has a blind faith in a theory-tale that can't be substantiated. It's just another opiate of the masses - a religion called 'Darwinism' that piously robes itself in what it thinks is 'science.' It is true science fiction."

Another opiate of the masses? What are you saying?

Also, he seems to be blissfully unaware that science NEVER proves anything, it merely disproves things.

That IS proving something, you twit.

If I had a nickel for each time that some fool with little to no understanding of science criticized someone else invalidly, I'll be able to hire Bill Gates as a foot massager.

Dave M./Caledonian:

I was making my comment in the context of Comfort's claim that he could scientifically prove ID (as opposed to disproving something) in 20 minutes (without further qualification, tentativeness, etc). While I am aware that any, currently accepted, scientific theory has been proven to be the best currently available explanation, given current evidence, I see no evidence at all that Comfort meant his claims to be taken in this manner (for one thing the extra qualifications make it highly unlikely that it could all be shoehorned into 20 minutes).

I think that a difference in viewpoints may be causing confusion here. Speaking as a Taoist and a Discordian, I distrust claims to absolute truth, and therefore trust science's claims more BECAUSE they are tentative. Therefore I see no reason to de-emphasise that tentativeness. Theists and/or atheists may see things differently.

THANK YOU SO MUCH for bringing this to my attention! My childhood best friend and I live 3000 miles apart now. But we get together via phone to watch Ray and Kirk on "Way of the Master" -- for rip-roaring laughs and non-stop entertainment. My DREAM(!) is to run into Ray and Kirk on the street and "witness" to them about the error of their ways.

BTW - I'm pretty sure that my friend, Veronica, and I have seen every episode of "Way of the Master" and all of the "Left Behind" movies.

...the boneheaded apologist who thinks ID is true because bananas fit perfectly in the hands of primates...

Update: Ray Comfort conceded the banana argument to an atheist. The banana is no longer the atheists' nightmare. So no more banana jokes please. Mr. Comfort also theorized that the banana peel may serve no useful function. E.g., at least you can put orange peels in cakes and stuff. (I'll note that Woody Allen once made a movie called Bananas and when asked why he gave it that title he said it was because there are no bananas in it, QED.)

I was making my comment in the context of Comfort's claim that he could scientifically prove ID (as opposed to disproving something) in 20 minutes (without further qualification, tentativeness, etc).

Your comment was incorrect, ignorant, and downright stupid regardless of the context it is placed in. You can't run and hide behind the idea that you were somehow misunderstood. You *were* understood, and that's why we know you're a fool.

Caledonian says:

Your comment was incorrect, ignorant, and downright stupid regardless of the context it is placed in. You can't run and hide behind the idea that you were somehow misunderstood. You *were* understood, and that's why we know you're a fool.

I think this comment was uncalled for. Whether or not you agree with him, Tim Makinson's point was not so unreasonable and he personally was not deserving of such a harangue.

Caledonian:

1) Try using logic instead of personal abuse - your rants have no more meaning than telling me "your mother wears army boots and your father smells of elderberries." I personally don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys what a contemptible little troll like yourself thinks of me, so your abuse is just so much hot air.

2) The fact that Science works by disproof (i.e. Falsification), not proof is an important concept in the Philosophy of Science. By going ballistic at my mention of it, you just show how clueless you are. From this I take it that you have little or no background in Philosophy or Formal Logic, and most probably not much background in the sciences either.

Jon Rowe: Jillette actually talked about the banana thing a couple of weeks ago on his radio show. I agree, it would be hysterically entertaining to see the two debate. Though personally the way Jillette yells; i would never debate him.

2) The fact that Science works by disproof (i.e. Falsification), not proof is an important concept in the Philosophy of Science.

1) Science can only examine the totality of the evidence and show that it is more or less compatible with specific hypotheses. It never rules out any explanation with complete certainty; it approaches proof without ever reaching it.

2) Disproving a statement IS proving its negation, and vice versa. There's no difference between the two, only in the perspective involved; your distinction is invalid. It is particularly ironic that you would chide me on my supposed ignorance of formal logic when you possess no actual understanding of it yourself. It wouldn't surprise me to learn you've been formally educated in philosophy -- the sort of incompetence you've demonstrated is rampant in that field.

Some free advice: it's better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it. Stop confirming it.

Caledonian:

Disproving a statement IS proving its negation, and vice versa. There's no difference between the two, only in the perspective involved; your distinction is invalid.

This rather trivial observation only has relevance to the issue at hand if you accept Creationist's (false) dichotomy, that disproof of Evolution equates to proof of ID. This argument has been debunked often enough elsewhere (including in the Dover Decision) that I see no reason to recap that debunking here.

More generally, scientists tend to frame their hypotheses fairly tightly and specifically, making their negations fairly broad and vague, and thus the 'proof' of these negations generally fairly scientifically uninteresting.

This rather trivial observation only has relevance to the issue at hand if you accept Creationist's (false) dichotomy, that disproof of Evolution equates to proof of ID.

No, it has relevance to the issue at hand because you asserted otherwise. You brought the stupid to the table, and now you're using the utter pointlessness of your "contribution" to deflect the corrections.

What are you, a stealth ID proponent? Your intellectual skills would be a perfect match for their rhetorical style.

Caledonian, let me explain this in simple terms so that even a brain-damaged troll such as yourself can follow it.

1) Comfort claimed that he could scientifically prove ID in 20 minutes.

2) I pointed out that science doesn't prove, it only disproves.

3) You repeatedly harp on that disproof of something is proof of its negation.

4) I point out that this is only relevant if Evolution and ID are a dichotomy such that Evolution is ID's negation (and vice versa), so that you could prove ID by disproving Evolution. If such a dichotomy doesn't hold (and I claim that it doesn't) then how the hell can you "scientifically prove" ID by disproving its negation? And if you can't, then what the hell is the relevancy of "disproof is proof of the negation" to discussion of Comfort's claims?

You aren't "correcting" me, you are ranting about a hair-splitting irrelevancy.

I may, in your psychotic opinion, be bringing the "stupid" to the table, but it is you who is bringing the rabid, foaming at the mouth, ad hominem-spitting anger. It brings far more heat than light, and makes you a boring sparring partner. You are less pleasant to debate than the most bigoted, self-righteous, egocentric fundamentalist Creationist.

2) I pointed out that science doesn't prove, it only disproves.

And again, you're wrong, and on multiple levels.

Proving necessarily involves disproving, and vice versa. Science does neither; all it does is show that various hypotheses are compatible or incompatible with the available data.

Your statement is simply wrong. If you don't accept that the correctness of arguments is relevant to the discussion, you have problems.

"Debate", which this has NOT been, isn't supposed to be pleasant. Correction, which this IS, isn't supposed to be pleasant either.

And again, you're wrong, and on multiple levels.

And again, you are HARPING ON about this one hair-splitting point, COMPLETELY IGNORING the wider argument.

...all it does is show that various hypotheses are compatible or incompatible with the available data.

So tell me WHAT THE HELL THE DIFFERENCE IS between "disproving" something and "showing that it is incompatible with the available data"?

Your statement is simply wrong. If you don't accept that the correctness of arguments is relevant to the discussion, you have problems.

INCORRECT! I have acceded the point that disproving something is equivalent to proving its negation as a matter of hair-splitting logic, I have just claimed that it is IRRELEVANT to the question of whether you can "scientifically prove ID":

4) I point out that this is only relevant if Evolution and ID are a dichotomy such that Evolution is ID's negation (and vice versa), so that you could prove ID by disproving Evolution. If such a dichotomy doesn't hold (and I claim that it doesn't) then how the hell can you "scientifically prove" ID by disproving its negation? And if you can't, then what the hell is the relevancy of "disproof is proof of the negation" to discussion of Comfort's claims?

So Caledonian, try saying something that is (1) relevant to the matter under discussion (Comfort's claims) and (2) isn't another steaming pile of personal abuse!

Your representation of the scientific method and what it can accomplish is completely wrong.

If you think that's trivial, that it's a tiny hair being split by the narrowest of criticisms, then you're certainly not capable of speaking intelligently on the subject.

ID is rejected because ID isn't science. What is and is not science is therefore of paramount importance to understanding. There are many ignorant and unintelligent people who do not understand what science is and does -- most, but as you have demonstrated not all, argue for Intelligent Design.

has anyone ever listened to ray comfort's ministry hell's best kept secret? it contradicts his christ-based philosophy regarding lying, adultery, theft, hatred, etc. he claims once you're saved you're always saved. first, he insists that if you ever stole anything, regardless what it is or when you did it you're a thief. if you ever lied you're a liar. if you looked at a woman lustfully you already committed adultery with her in your heart. if you hate you're a murderer. these are in scripture by the way. but he's taking the whole thing out of context i'm sure. it's like saying if you have a big steak dinner and a baked potato you're a vegetarian. if you ever look at a joint and even think about taking a toke you're a drug addict in your heart. yet, he doesn't call himself a liar when he claims he can convince a person there's a god in two minutes though he never does. i have listened to this guy preach and i'm not impressed. he looks more like a publicity hound than a preacher.

i forgot to post this but if those are the case than you're too late for redemption in his eyes. obviously those are unpardonable sins and he gives those people the cold shoulder. no baptism, confession or anything could make you born again according to him. he's a heretic, a blasphemer and abides by the tradition of exploiting "christ" as a crucifixion icon. remember 2 peter 3:16, this was given to paul, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which some things are hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the scriptures. the 2nd book of peter explains how false teachers like ray will tell whatever they want and believers can be decieved. how can mere mortals understand super nature? if we could then we'd be gods. we'd be the creators of all matter. we are not which is probably why we have souls if you believe in that sort of thing. if sinners go to hell then kirk camron and ray comfort may be prision bitches there.