Thunderf00t debates Ray Comfort

The divine comedy
Creationism

Running gags

* Biblical literalism
* Young/Old Earth
* Intelligent design
* Creation scientists

Jokes aside

* Carbon dating
* Y-chromosomal Adam
* Transitional fossil
* Diamond

Blooper reel

* Creation Research Society
* Omphalos hypothesis
* Transitional fossil
* Firmament

Evolutionism debunkers

* Tim Ball
* Humans Are Free
* Sam Brownback
* Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

v \- t \- e

Below is RationalWiki's overview of two debates that occurred between YouTube user Thunderf00t and creationist Ray Comfort.

## Contents

* 1 First debate
* 1.1 Synopsis
* 1.2 Return of VenomFangX
* 1.2.1 Synopsis
* 2 Second debate
* 3 References

## First debate[edit]

The first debate between the two took place on 22nd July 2009 in Southern California. Thunderf00t is a popular YouTube user and rational thinking promoter who debunks creationist material. Thunderf00t calls himself a P.E.A.R.L.ist (Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic supporter) and Ray Comfort is a creationist Christian. Throughout the debate, Ray displayed impatience towards Thunderf00t's explanations and lectures. In conclusion, although Ray Comfort could not make a valid case, a large portion of Thunderf00t's viewers were disappointed, due to their high expectation of watching an intellectual hailstorm rain down upon Ray Comfort. Although Thunderf00t is a brilliant promoter of reason and makes many videos "pwning" irrational ideas, he is not a skilled live debater, but the strength of his logic and skepticism was very effective against Ray's claims.

### Synopsis[edit]

After the introduction, Ray's first question to Thunderf00t was about how he got his name. Ray asked if it was African-American, ancestors, etc.? When Thunderf00t (TF) explained that he "attained the nickname after playing certain sports," Ray expressed relief because he had thought that "thunder foot" was a nickname for stomping on Christians. TF says he doesn't care what people believe in the privacy of their own homes.

Ray says TF is an atheist, but he does not call himself an atheist. TF likes to call himself a P.E.A.R.L.ist. TF explains the importance of knowledge, and that logical thinking is beneficial to society.

Ray's next question to TF is, "What was in the beginning [of time]?" TF answers that, in scientific terms, this is an "unknown". Ray stops TF there and proclaims "I know". Ray repeatedly claims he knows what was in the beginning, as described in Scripture. TF disagrees, saying that is a statement of opinion, not a fact, because Ray cannot sustain that claim with physical evidence. Ray then asks TF if he believes that nothing created everything. TF responds with ,"There is still the assertion [that] there was a creation, but the fact remains it is still an unknown." TF says that we make assumptions, such as the assumption that since we live in a universe, we can learn something about it. Ray asks TF if he thinks the universe is eternal. TF answers, "I don't know." TF restates it's an unknown to everyone, including himself. Ray says that TF cannot make such an absolute claim, because TF isn't omniscient and certain people may know what was in the beginning. In fact, Ray makes the absolute positive claim that certain people - Christians - do know what happened in the beginning. TF says that there is a practical growth of knowledge dissent on what is real or not (the scientific method). TF mistakenly says the scientific method brought mankind from the Stone Age to modern day in 300 years, but what he meant to say was the Dark Ages.

> Every religion claims to believe as they do because of reason, education, or intelligence given by their god in revelation. But whether they admit it or not, all of them are assuming their preferred conclusions on faith, and this would still be true even if all of their gods exist. Believe as hard as you want to. But convincing yourself however firmly still can’t change the reality of things. Seeing is believing. But seeing isn’t knowing. Believing isn’t knowing. Subjective convictions are meaningless in science, and eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence.

> For example, if I go into my front yard and I see a large sauropod walking down the middle of my street, I will of course be quite convinced of what I see. I may be even more satisfied when I follow the thing and find that I can touch it, maybe even ride it if I want to. When I gather sense enough to run back for my camcorder, I may not be able to find the beast again, because I don't know which way it went. But that doesn’t matter because I saw it, I heard it, felt it, smelt it and I remember all that clearly with a sober and rational mind. But somehow I'm the only one who ever noticed it, and of course no one believes me. Some other guy says he saw a dinosaur too, but his description was completely different, such that we can’t both be talking about the same thing. So it doesn't matter how convinced I am that it really happened. It might not have. When days go by and there are still no tracks, no excrement, no destruction, no sign of the beast at all, no other witnesses whose testimony lends credence to mine, and no explanation for how a 20-meter-long dinosaur could just disappear in the suburbs of a major metropolis, much less how it could have appeared there in the first place, then it becomes much easier to explain how there could be only two witnesses who can’t agree on what they think they saw, than it is to explain all the impossibilities against that dinosaur ever really being there. Positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that’s what I’d need – since what I propose isn’t just extraordinary; its impossible. But since there's not one fact I can show that anyone can measure or otherwise confirm, then my perspective is still subjective -and thus uncertain. Eventually, even I, the eyewitness, would have to admit that, although I did see it, I still don’t know if it was ever really there – regardless whether I still believe that it was.

> It doesn’t matter how convinced you are; belief does not equal knowledge. The difference is that knowledge can always be tested for accuracy where mere beliefs often cannot be. No matter how positively you think you know it, if you can’t show it, then you don’t know it, and you shouldn’t say that you do. Nor would you if you really cared about the truth. Knowledge is demonstrable, measurable. But faith is often a matter of pretending to know what you know you really don't know, and that no one even can know, and which you merely believe -- often for no good reason at all.

TF talks about the importance of knowledge, how we know more than people living thousands of years ago did, and how this knowledge has benefited mankind and society. TF is glad for that, and dislikes it when people spout dishonest disinformation. Ray argues that every generation thinks it is right (TF did not and stated he would not make such a claim) but later generations could prove them wrong. He points out that scientists have been wrong; for, instance they once thought the earth was flat but now we know it is not. TF brings up Newton, who was not always correct, but Ray jumps in and says that later scientists have shown Newton to be wrong, and later in the future they will show that modern beliefs of science are wrong. TF disagrees, saying that Newton's ideas have only been modified, not disproved.

TF asks Ray a philosophical question: do you perceive the world as we see it? Ray answered no, nothing is as we perceive it. Ray says that TF could not point him in the direction where "up" is (because Ray Comfort is from New Zealand). TF said, in respect to gravitational fields, he could.

Ray asks TF why does he not think God exists. TF asks what evidence there is to sustain such a belief. Ray answers, "Creation! You cannot have a creation without a creator." TF repeats himself from earlier that it is an unknown, and Ray does not know if there was a beginning (he knows there is a universe, but not a beginning), and Ray admits that reality may not be as he perceives it. When TF tries to explain intuitive reasoning and mathematics, Ray jumps ahead and asks "So you are saying there is no evidence that God exists?" TF said if there was any evidence, he would be happy to examine it. Ray responds that Thunderf00t does not know how the universe began, and the smartest person in the world cannot create something from nothing. TF says that to a certain degree, we can create things, but TF points out that Ray is still making an assumption and that everything may not be as he perceives. Ray ignores him, and goes on to list things we cannot create from nothing. Ray says that it is intellectually dishonest to make the claim that, since we cannot create these things, they must have come about by accident or formed by themselves, or to say "we don't know" which Ray says is the "ultimate cop-out." Ray says God created everything, gave us all a conscience, and everything testifies to his existence. TF breaks down Ray's argument point-by-point.

TF begins to talk about life and biochemistry, but Ray interrupts him to talk about DNA as a language that could not happen by accident, and introduces a version of Paley's argument of finding words written in the sand. TF asks Ray, "How do you know that writing was done by a person?" Ray answers, "Because you are a reasonable being." TF points out the fallacy of making such a jump, but before he could further explain, Ray asks, "Do you think it happened by accident?" TF said that accidents are not really an option, and explains there's a difference between naturalistic and non-naturalistic patterns. When you see patterns in sand, or DNA, there must be a model or method to determine the difference between the two. Ray claims he sees the difference between humans and animals: humans are a "moral creation", animals are not. TF asks Ray what metrics he uses to determine that something had a creator. Ray answers "Common sense". TF points out that this is inductive reasoning, which is intuitive. Ray knows that a painting had a painter because he has seen many painters at work, but he claims he could still know a painting even if he had never seen the painter. Ray claims to know that the painting did not make itself; likewise he "knows" that God created everything "because it is written in Scripture."

TF askes Ray if snow was created. Ray answers that yes, God created it. TF is puzzled and asks, "So it has nothing to do with crystallization?" Ray answers that God created the meteorological process that makes snow. TF points out that this is a shell game, but Ray interrupts and asks TF to make snow from nothing. TF replies that Ray is asking him to violate the conservation of matter and energy, but Ray wants to move on to discuss the morality of humans and animals. TF, still not wanting to move the goalposts, says that while there is empirical observation of a painter making a painting, there is none whatsoever for creation of the universe; they are non-comparable events. Ray says that Thunderf00t cannot make an absolute statement like that. He says that TF can't make an absolute statement that "there is no evidence for god" because it would require omniscience, and people with limited knowledge can only say "I don't believe there is evidence." TF notes that if a person continues down this road, they will arrive at nihilism and know nothing about anything. Ray, calmly, responds that a person "could know the truth, it's all in Scripture". TF states that, regardless, Ray would still not be capable of knowing if he [Ray] existed, but Ray claims he knows he exists. TF asks Ray how he knows. Ray answers, "Because I am a human being. Being means you are aware of your existence." TF points out that Ray made assumptions to get there: 1) that the universe is real, and 2) that you can learn something about it. This is the basis for knowledge and collecting data. Ray pleads to move on to talk about morality between humans and animals. TF allows it, but notes that there is still the problem that there is no empirical evidence or observation of a god creating the universe (Ray responds "Well, that is just your opinion").

Ray says that he thinks the difference between people and animals is that a person is a moral being with a conscience, whereas none of the other animals cares about justice and truth.

> Does Ray really know that, does he have omniscience to know that? Ray is not just using a double standard here; he provides nothing to support his claim.

Ray says that man has a conscience, he knows right from wrong, appreciates the sunset, creates music, and such because he is made in the image of God. TF asks Ray to define "conscience." Ray says the word con means "with", and science means "knowledge", so conscience means "with knowledge", just as Scripture says that God has given man the knowledge of right from wrong. TF points out that conscience is an adaptation to help us determine the values and worth of behaviors within a society. TF asks Ray if he knows anything about the concept of a "biological leash".

TF explains the significance of language and passing on information. Regarding Ray's numerous attempts to talk about lying, TF explains that language shows us that we are a trustworthy species. TF says that in Africa, approximately 20 years, there was a village whose population was mostly deaf, and yet they developed a language of their own. Without addressing what TF said, Ray wishes to change the subject and talk about death.

Ray asks TF what he thinks happens to a person after they die. TF answers, "The same thing [as] before they were born." He does not say they no longer exist, and explains that the human body is made of atoms, the only thing that has changed is the electrical activity in the brain. Ray asks TF, "So you don't think you have a soul? A life? There is life in your body." When TF says he does have life, Ray declares that [life] is the soul. TF corrects Ray and says that life is the electrical activity within his body. Ray then asks TF, "So you are just electricity?" TF answers pretty much. Ray objects and says TF has a personality and morality (which are more than electricity). TF talks about humans and uniqueness, and concludes that no one is unique since everyone is virtually identical (practically clones) and the only difference between individuals is personality. Ray does not respond to any of that and asks, "So are you afraid of dying?" TF answers no, even though he had come close to dying several times. Ray says that TF has a will to live, but then asks TF, "If there is no afterlife where do you get your information from?" TF begins to talk about knowledge humanity has achieved thus far, but Ray interferes and say that most people believe in an afterlife. TF says there is no evidence for an afterlife, but Ray objects and says he does have evidence: the Bible. Ray bases everything on the Bible and concludes there IS an afterlife, because it says so.

TF addresses Ray's earlier comment about being created in the "image" of god. TF asks Ray if he believes God is human in form. Ray answers no. Ray states the "image" of God means that God gave man a moral understanding, the ability of reason, to enjoy the sunset, music, etc. TF asks about a literal description of God. Ray explains that pieces of the Bible that say the "hand" or "eye" of God do not literally mean a physical hand or eye. TF wonders why God would not make that part clear (but Ray says "It is clear to me") and points out there are hundreds of Christian groups who interpret this differently - showing that there is no clear understanding about the nature of God, even within the Christian faith.

TF asks Ray how he knows God, does he know him in his head? Ray answers "I know God like I know my wife." The trouble is, Ray Comfort probably knows Kirk Cameron better than he knows his own wife.

### Return of VenomFangX[edit]

On July 25, 2009, after Thunderf00t and Ray Comfort sat down for a conversation,[1] YouTube user VenomFangX briefly returned to post a new video on YouTube where he became unhinged, repeatedly invoking Godwin's law, and constantly expressed anger and antagonism towards Thunderf00t.[2] VenomFangX at this time was supposed to be permanently off YouTube due to receiving death threats and left for the sake of his family's safety as well as his own. If this was so, then why return and risk everything? The most likely scenario seems to be that VenomFangX never received the death threats in the first place.

#### Synopsis[edit]

In his response video, VenomFangX very childishly mocks Thunderf00t at every opportunity, even mocking the bits when Thunderf00t stuttered. The ironic part is that, in the video, VenomFangX specifically says, "Look, I don't want to make fun of the guy." Thunderf00t has documented Venom's hypocrisy regarding insults and name-calling in a video titled "Re: Love".[3] Rather than addressing Thunderf00ts main arguments, VenomFangX is more focused on ridicule than on having an intellectual dialogue. At the beginning of his video, he implies that a "rational discussion with Thunderf00t" was not likely possible. VenomFangX points out that Thunderf00t admits that the origin of the universe is unknown, arguing that Thunderf00t is thus not an authority on the matter. He also adds, "How dare Thunderf00t exclude God from the equation." However, VenomFangX is also not an authoritative figure to on the origin of the cosmos, because (as Thunderf00t mentioned) it is equally unknown to everyone, and VenomFangX can't provide any evidence that his particular version of a god is responsible for the origin of the universe. Of course, both VenomFangX and Ray Comfort will argue their holy book is an authorative figure; however, it provides no evidence at all to back up its claims. Any claim that has no evidence to support it can easily be dismissed.

VenomFangX does try to provide an argument for the existence of God as the creator of the universe by repeating a clip from one of Kent Hovind's lectures. Mr. Hovind split the word universe into two words: "uni" and "verse." He argues that in Latin, uni means single and verse means spoken sentence, therefore "God spoke the universe into being." However, this argument is faulty for several reasons. First, if a person dissected the word "watermelon" they could make it appear watermelons are liquids in the form of melons. Second, the word universe derives from the French word "univers" which was dervied from the Latin word "universum." Universum comes from the poetic traction "unovorsum", unos meaning one and vertere meaning rolled, rotated, or changed. Thus the word universe means either 1) everything combined as one (i.e. the cosmos) or 2) everything rotated as one.

VenomFangX claims that TF doesn't know the meaning of life because he doesn't know the reason why we are here, as evidenced by TF's comment regarding morality. What this comment actually means is that Thunderf00t does not know the meaning of VenomFangX's life; the meaning of Venom's life is up to VenomFangX.

VenomfangX displays moments of sheer anger towards Thunderf00t, claiming that TF wants to put us all in his "narrow-minded, naturalistic box. You do not want us to think outside the universe or what caused everything. So you are just a damn hypocrite, that's all there is to it. You're an absolute damn hypocrite." This petty rant by the creationist holds no weight and is nothing to his selfish and shameless act of tried to fraught all science in favor of delusion and irrationality back to the Dark Ages, plus this comment is vastly undermined due to VenomFangX's history of hypocrisy and stupidity. VenomFangX also exhorts Thunderf00t to "delete all your videos where you made fun of people who believe in God and encourage others to make fun of people who actually dare to think outside your stupid little box." Here, VenomFangX shows his shallow skin and his inability to withhold criticism on the internet, especially making absolute ridiculous claims like "the Grand Canyon forming in 5 minutes."

## Second debate[edit]

A second debate took place on Wednesday, July 20th, 2011 outside in a parking lot in Los Angeles. Again, there was no moderator, just a talk between the two. There were two cameras (one hand held by Ray Comfort) and a microphone (again held by Ray Comfort). throughout the debate, Ray Comfort makes his intentions clear, as you will see.

Ray begins the debate by asking Thunderf00t to clarify if he is an atheist. Thunderf00t says he is, but atheism tells people what you are not rather than what you are, so Thunderf00t likes to address himself as a rationalist.

In the last debate, the issue of morality was brought up. Now Ray asked Thunderf00t how does he govern his own morality and choose his moral standard? Thunderf00t explains there are several things that had to be considered. For instance, for life to prosper, you need things like oxygen (which is something we breathe and have control over), but there are innate forces and you have a degree of choice over. Before Thunderf00t could elaborate, Ray asks "So does that mean you go by your conscience?" Thunderf00t defines innate for Ray as something that is programmed into you (Ray inserts "conscience" and Thunderf00t says if Ray wishes to call it that then yes). Ray asks Thunderf00t what the word conscience means, and Thunderf00t repeats Comfort's apologetic word game saying it is a combination of the word con= with and science = knowledge. Ray informs Thunderf00t he had an inbuilt conscience, the knowledge of right and wrong. Thunderf00t notes that the issue of right and wrong is where it gets "fuzzy." Thunderf00t describes right as something that is beneficial for the individual as well as society. Ray asks Thunderf00t if murder is wrong? Thunderf00t says murder is an easy one because in every social species it is clear murder is wrong. A society of just murderers would not survive long, and thus we understand the evil of murder.

Thunderf00t wants to change the subject to something less fuzzy: theft, but Ray did not want to change because he wanted to talk about Nazi Germany. Ray Comfort says Hitler killed about 13 million people; Ray asks Thunderf00t if mass murder wrong in Germany? This is where Thunderf00t gets to the point of what is beneficial to society. Thunderf00t points out the scientifically advance technologies that allowed Hitler to do what he did, but Thunderf00t addresses the statistics of WWII as a whole, and compares it to the scientific benefits to society. Thunderf00t focuses on fertilizer, which helps feed billions of people every day. Since science can be used for good or evil, this is where you have to figure out what is right and wrong (Ray says he already knows what is right and wrong because he has moral absolutes). Thunderf00t asks Ray if he could use science to save either all those lost in WWII (about 50 million) or save the people who survive because of scientific advancements in agriculture (which TF estimates is 1 in 3 people on earth, or 2 billion), and picking one would lose the other. Ray does not follow, so TF explains that nitrogen is the element in fertilizer that feeds millions of people globally everyday, but it is the same element used in missiles. TF asks Ray if Ray was given the choice to discover that element or not, to which Ray says "You can't make a choice like that because it is so nebulous." TF says for the sake of argument, it is a clear choice and nobody has died yet, TF is just addressing what is beneficial for the individual and society. Ray responds "So it comes back to money? Power?" TF says no, it comes down to what are the costs and who benefits? Ray changes the scene and says "So what about a society that thinks that rape is great because it is beneficial to man. A great benefit. Does that make it okay?" TF says hypothetically Ray can make scenarios like that, but TF focuses on our society which deems rape as immoral (Ray inserts "Just like euthanasia.")

Ray asks TF if he thinks euthanasia is wrong, TF says yes, but he tries to steer the topic back to whether to save 50 million or 2 billion and asks Ray what is the right decision? Before Ray can answer, TF tries to explain what happens in your brain while making complex decisions such as this. TF then brings up that Americans were willing to work side-by-side with Stalin (a man they knew was a murderer - but had no knowledge that Hitler was a murderer) in order to end the war. TF brings up the parts of the brain that empathizes, as well as the brain that causes emotions (all of which TF explains can be examined under MRI's). TF brings up the moral question of killing one man and collecting his organs to save five. But Ray, without addressing the sciences of the brain, changes the scenario and asks TF a moral question: TF is in Germany, 1933, and has Hitler in his sights. Would TF kill Hitler? TF says he does not know because the genocide in our history is instrumental and it taught us a lesson. Ray says (with a whine) "You do not know that." TF says the converse cannot be known either. TF asks Ray if he would kill Hitler, in which Ray responds "Well I'm not asking the question at myself, but I will tell you in a moment." Ray moves the scene to 1903, and TF has Hitler's mother in his sights, would he kill her? TF is unsure, while pointing out this is very similar to the moral problem he brought up earlier about killing one man to save five others. Ray goes back to TF's remark about the death of all those in WWII taught society a lesson, but TF says it one of those questions that is impossible to answer. Ray does not agree, he claims that with the removal of Hitler, there would be no Third Reich or genocide, but TF says mankind is very unpredictable. Hitler did do several good acts, but then went off the deep end, and if it was not Hitler than it could have been somebody else. TF says that if the genocide did not happen, then the negativity of genocide would not have existed, in fact the word itself would not exist. The word genocide was constructed and recognized after WWII. Ray says people could have discovered genocide by reading the Bible, but TF says if people read it in the Bible nobody would care. Genocide is not a dirty word in the Bible, nor would anyone know the consequences of letting evil men in power with the technology of today.

> Thunderf00t's point about the word, meaning and massive impact on the word genocide probably would not exist until man experienced it.

Ray tries to "pin you [TF] down, is murder right or wrong?" TF asks Ray if he could make a distinction between murder and killing someone. Ray says "Nope." TF asks Ray if killing someone is immoral? Ray answers "No, if someone is going to rape my wife, running at her with a knife... I would kill that person, there is nothing wrong with protecting yourself, but back to the question: is murder wrong?" TF answers it is contingent to the circumstances. TF pointed out that Ray was using self-defense, but then Ray says there is a difference between self-defense and murder. Ray then asks the question, but before TF could answer Ray says "You want to know why you cannot say it? It is because if you say there is absolute morality, then you are in trouble. Because where do you get that from?" TF answers it is innate to your (point to his head, but then there was a cut in the interview).

> Hold on, if there is nothing different than killing some one and murder, then by default causing the death of anyone is murder. This includes self-defense, because the result is killing someone. So Ray just put himself is a corner. Murder is not a black and white issue. In courts, we have something called involuntary homicide, in which if a person accidentally and unintended kills someone (like in a car crash) the penalty is not the same as cold-blooded murder.

After a brief interruption, the show goes on. TF goes on about murder and morality and the benefits to the individual and society. For instance, killing your wife and children is not beneficial to anyone, rather it is the opposite, and thus deemed wrong. This is why we never see a social species kill their babies and mates. Ray points out abortion is wrong, but TF says "But it is the same fundamental question: if you knew abortion would save a million people in the future, would you abort a thousand?" Ray answers "That question is ridiculous." TF disagrees, because Ray is the one who asked TF if he would kill Hitler's mother, which is essentially the same question TF just asked Ray. Ray Comfort states 50 million babies were aborted since Roe v. Wade, but states he "would never justify abortion."

> The only one here asking ridiculous questions is Ray Comfort. Each of his arguments is based on a pre-assumption that his God exists, it is the only God, and said God built a moral standard with an honest and non-deceptive intentions. It is also based on his own narrow interpretation of Scripture. Many Christian churches worldwide allow and support abortion. As for Ray's moral absolutes and seemingly ironclad belief abortion is wrong and goes against God, then let's examine this. If abortion was wrong, then why does God promote it in the Bible? If God is in control of everything, all-powerful and has a plan, then he is responsible for all the miscarriages (which annually outnumber the number of abortions 3:1)? In Matthew 19:12, showing his pro-life sensibilities, Jesus encourages castration: “There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Modern believers are eager to interpret this verse figuratively. The New International Version loosely (and hopefully) translates “Made eunuch” as “renounced marriage.” But the literal meaning is “castrate” and many devout Christian men in history have done it themselves, including the early church father Origen and entire monastic orders. Jesus gives no indication that he is speaking in a parable, or that his words mean anything order than what he said. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. This is no moral precept — this is sick. Castration keeps babies from being born just as effectively as abortion, so why aren’t pro-lifers picketing churches that follow Jesus? After all, Jesus never once mentioned abortion, pro or con. He never gave advice to women about how to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. So, modern Christians who do hive such advice are acting very un-Christlike.

Ray, still attempting to "pin" Thunderf00t, asks TF if rape was wrong? (Ray adds, "You could just say, 'oh it could be for the benefit for society.') TF, taking a step back, and informs him that they were addressing these topics as if they were on the same level in regards to morality. TF, briefly addressing the murder topic, says you cannot kill more people than you reproduce- in which Ray interrupts and says "No you are talking about expedience, I am talking about morality." TF says it is a functional morality, but Ray interrupts again and says "Are you a machine or a human being, c'mon! I want your conscience to work here." TF asks Ray if he is a machine? Ray responds "You tell me. Is murder wrong and is rape wrong?" TF responds with "I can tell you that the reason you are breathing is because you are a machine." Ray states "But I have a soul, I have a life, I have a morality, I have a conscience." TF asks Ray if they agree that on certain levels that we are machines, in which Ray says "I am a machine, but I have the life of God in me. I have a soul, I know right from wrong. I know that rape is wrong, I know that murder is wrong. I am not afraid to say they are wrong because I have moral absolutes. Is lying wrong?" TF brings up the role of language, but before he could answer Ray asks "Is stealing wrong?" TF says stealing is an interesting one, and asks why would God want us to have property? Property, the concept that people could own things, if it did not exist then how could you have theft? Many cultures do not have the concept of property, so stealing does not exist to them. Ray says, "Do you mean communism?" TF answers no, small tribal cultures in which everything belongs to everyone (the tribe as a whole).

> If rape was wrong, then why would God allow the Israelites to rape their captures? And if Ray was listening, he would tell that TF is addressing morality and not expedience. Ray Comfort, Thunderf00t and all humans are machines, but there is zero evidence for a soul. This is wishful thinking on Ray Comfort's part. As for communism, it is even supported in the Bible in the book of Acts (in which a couple is murdered for not giving up their property).

Ray (getting upset here) says "How could we go off on a rabid tribal of Indians when asking if lying is wrong. C'mon, is lying wrong. Is stealing wrong." Not ready to be distracted, TF attempts to explains why these talks and examples are necessary, but he asks Ray "Is chopping your children's arms off wrong? Ray answers "Yes." TF asks Ray how did he come to that conclusion? Ray answers "I have an in-built knowledge of right and wrong by God. Conscience means 'with knowledge' it is wrong to bring harm to any other human being." TF says that is not wrong to chop your child's arms off in the Bible? TF addresses the Ten Commandments and the main ones being addressed are the ones required for a stable species. TF uses piranha's as an example, but Ray (again, with a whine) says "No they are not. They are not. They are knowledge of right and wrong which reveal God's righteousness so we can see our need of his forgiveness." TF asks again why would God care about property? In a low voice, Ray answers "Because it is only right if you earn something it is yours." TF points out that is another societal thing, and it can vary (just as TF pointed out earlier that some societies do not have the concept of property). TF asks Ray is those societies that have no concept of property ungodly? Ray does not answer, rather he says "So is lying and stealing wrong?" TF says lying is a requirement for language, to which Ray says "Oh stop that. You can't build any relationship on lying." TF points out that is exactly why people who are alone have no one to lie to, but for those who interact with others they can lie. It is tautological that lying requires more than one person.

> If chopping your child's arms off is wrong, while you claim to have built-in moral compass by a divine figure, then why said divine figure allow the removal of childrens arms? Ray Comfort, whining with defeat, refuses to connect the dots. As Thunderf00t explained that murder would not be beneficial, therefore murder makes an unstable species. Piranha's do not kill each other for that very reason. It is the same for stealing and other factors. The Hebrews who understood this (as well as countless societies and animal kingdoms around the world) were sure to forbid murder and others that cause un-sustainability. Ray's whining and denial does not change that. As for building a relationship on lying, it may seem highly improbable, but not impossible.

TF, addressing moral absolutes, asks what is the right color for the wheel? Ray responds "That has nothing to do with morality." TF pointed our that Ray said there was absolute morality, and if this were so there must also be an absolute right choice for everything. It is easy for questions like murder, lying, and stealing, but Ray (talking over Thunderf00t) "It is easy for you because you do not know. You are like quicksilver. Do you know what quicksilver does? If you pick it up, it runs away from you." Ray then asks TF to make a choice: there is a German officer with a gun pointed at TF's head. The officer wants TF to get in a bulldozer and drive forward into a pit with 300 Jews in it. They have already been shot, but some are still alive. The officer wants TF to bury them alive or he will shoot TF, and then the officer will do it himself. Ray asks TF would he go through with it, and "Do not say I do not know." TF says in that case, if he was teleported back to that time with the brain he currently poses, he would look at the officer, give him the finger and tell him to "go @&^# yourself." Ray says "You cannot say that." When TF tries again, and says he would just give him the finger, and say -but suddenly Ray says "No you cannot do that either. Would you just say no I would rather die?" TF says there are worse things than death, but Ray asks him "Do you value human life?" TF says there are benevolent social structures, like the Nazis propagated on the large part through complicity. Ray asks him to put that in English, but then asks TF "So would you not do it to save the Jews, you would not do it, you just do not like how the Nazis do things?" TF says if the Nazis weren't killing Jews there would not be any real point in the question.

> Ray tries to avoid the obvious problem to holding moral absolutes. How can Ray give Thunderf00t a hypothetical situation and then tell thunderf00t he cannot say or express himself as he would? This is just an example of Ray Comfort trying to control the outcome of his scenario to brand Thunderf00t as clueless and immoral.

Rays asks TF "So do you value human life at all?" TF answers "Yeah, life is pleasant." Then Ray asks TF how he feels about abortion? TF says it depends on the circumstances. TF addresses if it is just several cells, but Ray asks "When does life begin in the womb?" TF concludes perhaps when it is self-sustaining organism. Ray asks TF about a child already born but requires the help of its mother and others to survive, does TF consider it a self-sustaining organism when it is about 3 or 4 when it can walk and all? Ray points out he thinks that life begins at conception. TF, thinking for a bit, points out that Ray said he had a conscience, but at conception all there is a string of DNA (that's it) but Ray says "It does not matter, it is a huge vast library of information. Do you know how complex that is?" TF points out that is not what makes Ray Ray or anyone. When Ray asks what makes him him, TF tries to finish the point first. TF says a genome holds about a Gigabyte of information, and Ray's camera holds about 20. Ray asks when does life begin, but TF still remains on course. What makes a person a person is all in your brain. Every cell has vast amounts of information, but if you accept that is where life is then every time you take a shower you commit mass murder. Ray asks "So what you are saying is that the thing in a mother's womb is not human?" TF first asks Ray a question if a woman's embryo does not implant, does that make her guilty of manslaughter. Ray answers no, because life begins when the sperm meets the egg and conception begins. Ray repeats the question "So are you saying it is not a human until it is self-sustainable?" TF explains that we have gateways to determine when we become human, but Ray again repeats the question. TF thinks calling it human is a misnomer, since human rights are not extended to a single cell, but Ray says "I'm trying to pin you down. Are you saying it is okay to kill that thing whatever it is growing in the womb because it is not self-sustainable?" Ray still demanding a yes or no, TF gives in and says no, in which Ray asks "So at what month can I kill that baby?" TF is not aware of the legal system (Ray says at third semester) but remains unsure of the matter.

> Abortion, no matter how you look at it, is not pleasant. But Thunderf00t is correct to state that it depends on the circumstance. Sometimes it is the only answer, say for instance the mother's life is at severe risk. As for the question when does life begin, RW will not answer for Thunderf00t, but point out that based on Ray's reasoning that life begins at the DNA, thus DNA is the life source. By Ray Comfort's own reasoning that killing is the same as murder, then TF is correct that every time Ray Comfort or anyone takes a shower they commit a Holocaust of killing cells.

Ray flat out says "What I am trying to get you to say is 'no, it is not human so it is okay to take that life. That is what Hitler said, that Jews weren't human and what was his justification for taking the lives of so many?" TF points out it again all boils down to the costs and benefits they talked about earlier. Ray says "You are just as cold as the Nazi doctors. That is what the Nazi doctors said, killing millions for the betterment for society." Ray then had enough and begins to take Thunderf00t down the old are you a good person? tactic. When they get to the "Have you ever used god's name in vain" TF asks which god? Ray answers "The Creator, the on who made everything. The one that you deny." At the end Ray concludes that the reason why Thunderf00t denies God is because he is a sinner. TF asks Ray "Have you ever told the truth?" Ray answers "Yes." TF asks "What do you call someone who tells the truth?" Ray answers "Normal" but then later says "Honest." TF asks Ray have you ever helped someone? Ray, seeing where this is going, says "Yeah, but that is crazy, that is like saying 'have you ever not raped a woman then you are not a rapist' C'MON!" Exactly, TF says: Ray is not a rapist. Ray is an honest, helping man who does not rape. Ray says try using that argument in a court of law, in which God will only judge your for your crimes not good works. TF says in a court of law, we judge people based on the laws of society and not divine books. Ray says "You do, but God doesn't."

> Ray Comfort, knowing that he is not getting what he wants out of this talk, expresses it clearly for us: Get Thunderf00t to look immoral. As for the "Are you a good person?" tactic (which is sweetly, thoroughly refuted on the IronChariotss.org page), the same argument and logic can be applied to Ray for breaking the laws of Scientology or the Five Pillars of Islam. Thunderf00t does not deny any Creator to avoid anything any more than Ray Comfort is not a Muslim to deny his fate in Hell. Thunderf00t's approach is legitimate and does show the logical gaps in Ray's argument: one action does not dictate your entire figure. Lying can go both ways, but the Commandment does not say "No lying." It says to not give false witness to your neighbor.

TF says he can verify that society exists to base morality on, but not God because there is no evidence that God will do this or that. Ray ignores that and asks TF, based on the are you a good person? tactic if TF would be innocent or guilty. TF says it is an abstract question, in which Ray shouts "Yeah, IF! You would be guilty. You would be guilty." Ray asks TF if he would go to Heaven or Hell, in which TF says it would depend on the brand of Christianity, but Ray (in a tired voice) says "The Bible says you will end up in Hell." TF points out in Revelations that Jesus said people would be judged for their works, but Ray says "No that is for those who are justified through faith in his blood, then your works are acceptable to God." TF tries to find the passage in Revelations, but Ray says that TF should pay attention to the message of God as a whole and not pick out little things. TF, unable to locate it, asks Ray if there was no God, would Ray continue doing good works. Ray says "Of course not. I would be out living a selfish life." TF then finds the verse (Rev.2:23) "and I will give you according to your works."

After a talk about specifics in Christianity, Ray repeats his speech that Jesus paid for his sins and opened the way for salvation. TF says why would he accept a punishment such as eternal life? TF does point out that Ray's logic is based on the assumption that the premise is right, similarly it is like saying Allah would punish infidels. Ray dismisses Islam and other religions because they are based on works of righteousness and not through faith. TF asks Ray if he would believe TF if he announced the earth was flat? Ray says no, but if TF took him to a distance to see it was so, then yes. This is why TF explains that this is all a what-if game, and until Ray could establish that there is a God and will punish us, then these talks are meaningless. Ray says creation requires a creator (signs in nature reveal that it could not form itself), a conscience and we are special among the animals of the earth (Ray says we are not animals, we are made in God's image). TF gets the last note, and goes on what he sees: natural laws, chemical mechanisms, populations and adaption, physics determining the rotation of the earth (Ray jumps in and says "you do not think anyone is in charge, but I do"). TF decides to ask Ray one last question "If there is a god, how does the earth know what way to spin?" Ray, after a pause, just says "So obviously design tells us there is a designer."

In the end, the two wrapped it up, had lunch, and the only thing that wore out Thunderf00t was sunburn.

## References[edit]

1. ↑ Thunderf00t and Ray Comfort on YouTube.
2. ↑ The video in question
3. ↑ http://youtu.be/cupYdCeFJzw

v \- t \- e

Articles about creationism

Types of creationism: |  Gap creationism • Day-age creationism • Old Earth creationism • Progressive creation • Hare Krishna creationism • Young Earth creationism • Intelligent design •
Evidence against a recent creation: |  Creationism and social history • Geomagnetism • Petrified forest • Radiometric dating • Carbon dating • Dendrochronology • Y-chromosomal Adam • Mitochondrial Eve • Starlight problem • Plate tectonics • Rotation of the Earth • Atmosphere of the Moon • Biogeography • K-Pg extinction event • Geologic timeline • Fossil • Transitional fossil • Fossil record • Lake Agassiz • List of transitional forms • Recent African Origin hypothesis • Punctuated equilibrium • Bird evolution • Geology • Grand Canyon • Evolution • Fossil fuel • Paleontology • History of the Earth • Evidence against a recent creation • Yellowstone • Diamond • Iron • Age of the Earth •
| Creationist claims: |  Geomagnetism • Do you want to be descended from a monkey? • Evolution and religion • Evolution and morality • C-decay • Peanut butter argument • Intelligent design and academic freedom • Science was wrong before • Science doesn't know everything • Catastrophic plate tectonics • Hydroplate theory • Lunar bukkake hypothesis • Creationist mathematics • Biblical literalism • Bumblebee argument • Orchidaceae • Irreducible complexity • Leap second • Wedge Strategy • Noah's Ark • 101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe • Noah's Ark sightings • Evolution conspiracy • Recession of the Moon • Rotation of the Earth • Atmosphere of the Moon • Lunar dust • Lunar radioactivity • White hole cosmology • Firmament • Evolutionism • Haji Yearam • Galactocentricity • Hanzi of Genesis • Historical and operational science • Proof of the inconsistency of arithmetic • List of creationist claims • Global flood • De-evolution • Microevolution and macroevolution • In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood • Borel's Law • Dinosaur denialism • Baraminology •
| Global flood: |  Flood geology • Noah's Ark • Noah • Lunar bukkake hypothesis • Fossil sorting by the global flood • Hydroplate theory • Global flood • Grand Canyon • Noah (film) • Epic of Gilgamesh • Didit fallacy • God's Love • Noah's Ark sightings • Haji Yearam • Lake Agassiz • Parasites during the global flood • Life and the global flood • Global flood chronology • Yellowstone • Petrified forest • Baraminology •
Intelligent design creationism: |  Falsifiability of creationism • Irreducible complexity • Cdesign proponentsists • Intelligent design and academic freedom • Argument from design • The Wonders of Creation Reveal God's Glory • Biological Information: New Perspectives • Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design • John A. Davison • Evolution Under the Microscope: A Scientific Critique of the Theory of Evolution • Rethinking Darwin: A Vedic Study of Darwinism and Intelligent Design • Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False • Providence Lost: A Critique of Darwinism • The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin • The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories • The Origin of Human Nature: A Zen Buddhist Looks at Evolution • Thomas Nagel • Darwinism Under The Microscope: How Recent Scientific Evidence Points To Divine Design • The End of Darwinism • Ask Darwinists • Polonium halos • Explanatory Filter • Flowers of asexually-reproducing plants • Eye • Argument from fine tuning • Argument from beauty • Argument from first cause • Flagellum • Moody Institute of Science • Intelligent design • Laryngeal nerve • Suboptimal design • Adam and Evolution: A Scientific Critique of Neo-Darwinism • Expelled: Leader's Guide • Banana argument • Vault-Co •
| "Intelligent" alternatives: |  Intelligent falling • Scientific storkism • Pastafarianism • Scientific Geoterrapinism • Wedgie strategy •
| Teach the controversy: |  Santorum Amendment • Missouri House Bill 1227 • Indiana Senate Bill 89 • Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District • Academic Freedom Act • Louisiana Academic Freedom Act • Tennessee monkey bill • Edwards v. Aguillard • Thomas More Law Center • School vouchers • Eugenie Scott • Teach the controversy • Truth in Science • McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education •
Creationists: |  Ben Stein • Barry Setterfield • Jonathan Sarfati • Ray Comfort • B.H. Shadduck • Kirk Cameron • Harun Yahya • Wendy Wright • Carl Wieland • John Ankerberg • Jack Cuozzo • William Jennings Bryan • Russ Miller • Lee Strobel • Brother Stair • Paul Nelson • James Nienhuis • Art Robinson • Alan O'Reilly • PPSIMMONS • Hank Hanegraaff • Charlie Wagner • Rush Limbaugh • Roy Spencer • Grover Norquist • Ann Coulter • Christopher Booker • Andrea Minichiello Williams • Tom Bethell • Chuck Baldwin • Rick Perry • Bradley Monton • Christopher Langan • Aimee Semple McPherson • Richard Kent • Ljiljana Čolić • Abuz Zubair • Scott Huse • Barry Arrington • Grant Jeffrey • Janet Porter • Alan Clifford • Kurt Wise • Kenneth McKilliam • Bradlee Dean • Hugh Ross • Geoffrey Simmons • James Le Fanu • Norman Nevin • Shaun Johnston • Issac Bourne • John C. Sanford • Fazale Rana • Benjamin Wiker • Hugh Dower • Lee Spetner • Mark Ludwig • Alan Hayward • Werner Gitt • William Fix • Maciej Giertych • John C. Landon • Barbara Cargill • Philip Snow • Ken Jopp • Frank Tipler • Richard William Nelson • Todd Friel • Bob Sorensen • Eugene Windchy • Berit Kjos • Glenn Beck • Robert McLuhan • George C. Deutsch • Ross McKitrick • Daniel Neiman • Ron Wyatt • Desmond Paul Allen • Jay Wile • Jack Chick • Ian Juby • Anthony Peake • Tim Ball • Sheik Feiz Muhammad • J. P. Holding • Michael Cremo • Chuck Norris • Steve Milloy • Rick Santorum • Christine O'Donnell • Larry Craig • Mike Bara • John Hawkins • Alan Keyes • Chris Carter • Ted Cruz • Bobby Jindal • James Ussher • Larry Pratt • Bob Dutko • Steve Fuller • Denyse O'Leary • Mike Huckabee • Babu G. Ranganathan • Ben Hobrink • Carl Baugh • Humans Are Free • Mary Lou Bruner • Educate-yourself.org • Andrew Schlafly • Ian Paisley • VenomFangX • Todd Akin • Paul Broun • James Manning • Shockofgod • Sye Ten Bruggencate • Brad Stine • Charlton Heston • Pat Toomey • Josh Axe • Ben Carson • William Dembski • Presents Of God Ministry • Jim Allister • Whale.to • Jonathan Otto • Becky Fischer • Roy Moore • David Wilcock • Jerry Falwell Sr. • Mark Dice • Ron Paul • Sam Brownback • Pat Buchanan • Don McLeroy • Marco Rubio • Michele Bachmann • Pat Robertson • John Hagee • Mary Fallin • The Vigilant Christian • Betsy DeVos • WND • Joseph Farah • Media Research Center • Theodore Beale • Encyclopedia of American Loons • Got Questions • R. L. Wysong • ProphecyFilm.com • Kent Hovind • Steven Anderson • Dennis Prager • Bernard d'Abrera • Mohammad Tawhidi • CJ Pearson • Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry • Eric Hovind • Cornelius Van Til • Frank Turek • Sarah Palin • William Lane Craig • Alex Jones (slovensky) • Charlie Kirk • Owen Benjamin • Steven Crowder • Rick Warren • Jerry Falwell Jr. • Ted Holden • Alex Jones • E. Calvin Beisner • Kate Tieje • Michael Denton • New Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Movement • Mark Cahill • Jim Inhofe • Gary Birdsong • R. J. Rushdoony • Pat Boone • The Washington Times • Canada Free Press • NewsBusters • Jimmy Swaggart • Miroljub Petrović • Marjorie Taylor Greene • Chuck Colson • Stephen E. Jones • Lew Rockwell • Tom Tancredo • John Kasich • Gary North • E. W. Jackson • Kevin Stitt • Steve Turley • Zachary K. Hubbard • Conservapedia • Mike Johnson • National Rifle Association • Butch Hartman • Joshua Feuerstein • Christopher Rufo • Peter Sweden • Alvin Plantinga • Tucker Carlson • Mission: America • American Thinker • Brandon Tatum • Nick Fuentes • Mike Pence •
| Fundie schools: |  Brigham Young University • Bryan College • Cedarville University • Patrick Henry College • Regent University • Patriot Bible University • Fundie school • The Master's University • Boston Baptist College • San Diego Christian College • Columbia Pacific University • Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools • Cornerstone University • Pensacola Christian College • Bob Jones University • Hyles-Anderson College • University of South Los Angeles • Cambridge Theological Seminary • Haven University • Liberty University • Louisiana Baptist University and Seminary • New Eden School of Natural Health • Georgia Central University • Andersonville Theological Seminary • Ambassador Baptist College • Hillsdale College • Illegal schools in the United Kingdom •
| Discovery Institute: |  Teach the controversy • Of Pandas and People • Wedge Strategy • Text of The Wedge Strategy • Explore Evolution • David Berlinski • Biologic Institute • Jonathan Wells • Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed • Michael Egnor • Douglas Axe • Academic Freedom Day • Casey Luskin • What is intelligent design? • Behe: The Edge of Evolution, Interview • Science and Human Origins • Wedgie strategy • Project Steve • BIO-Complexity • Texas Board of Education • Richard Weikart • Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District • Human exceptionalism • Darwin's Predictions • Stephen Meyer • Howard Ahmanson • Melvin Mulder • Lists of creationist scientists • Discovery Institute • Complex Specified Information • Michael Behe • Phillip Johnson • Joel Brind • Non-materialist neuroscience • Academic Freedom Act •
| Answers in Genesis: |  Answers in Genesis Dawkins interview controversy • Bodie Hodge • Andrew Snelling • Affirmations and Denials Essential to a Consistent Christian (Biblical) Worldview • Answers in Genesis/Creation Ministries International's Statement of Faith • Hanzi of Genesis • Atheists Outline Their Global Religious Agenda • 12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid • Creation Ministries International • Lists of creationist scientists • Answers Research Journal • Ark Encounter • Jason Lisle • Answers in Genesis • Ken Ham • Creation Museum • Buddy Davis • Bill Nye debates Ken Ham • Ham Hightail • Cedarville University •
|  | Answers Research Journal: |  Answers Research Journal volume 2 • Answers Research Journal volume 3 • Answers Research Journal volume 5 • Answers Research Journal volume 1 • Answers Research Journal volume 6 • Answers Research Journal volume 4 • Answers Research Journal • Answers Research Journal volume 7 • Answers Research Journal volume 8 • Answers Research Journal volume 9 • Answers Research Journal volume 10 • Answers Research Journal volume 11 • Answers Research Journal volume 12 • Answers Research Journal volume 13 • Answers Research Journal volume 14 • Answers Research Journal Volume 15 •
| Institute for Creation Research: |  Nathaniel Jeanson • Jeffrey Tomkins • Lawrence Ford • Henry Morris • Brian Thomas • Duane Gish • RATE • Your Origins Matter • John Morris • Jerry Bergman • San Diego Christian College • Timothy LaHaye • Russell Humphreys • Lists of creationist scientists • Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools • Andrew Snelling • Alpha Omega Institute • Jason Lisle • Institute for Creation Research • Danny Faulkner • David DeWitt •