thethreeheadedmonkey Says:

Sep 26, 2009 - I'm sorry, do I have to explain everything to you? In essence, your response was "no you", whether you like it or not. I don't have enough characters to explain that in one message. Second; what do you mean by "I concluded that were by your arguments against ID"? That sentence does not make sense. I assume that since you did not counter the other 3 logical fallacies, you agree that you were wrong by using them (though you likely just tried to ignore them in hopes they would go away).

supergreenangeleyes Says:

Sep 26, 2009 - I concluded that YOU were by your arguments against Intelligent Design. I addressed everything that you stated. Although I can go further into the "not you" argument. All belief systems have the tendency to deny evidence agaisnt it. This includes Atheism. I do not deny evidence. The evidence is clear and obvious. I would be without excuse to deny truth.

supergreenangeleyes Says:

Sep 26, 2009 - Obviously it is you that lacks comprehension, or patience.

thethreeheadedmonkey Says:

Sep 26, 2009 - If atheism is a belief, then I am not an atheist, because by definition, I do not believe. Not believing is not a belief, that's like saying not driving is a form of driving. This is going nowhere, I've been through this with people like you before. You would not become an agnostic or an atheist under any condition, whereas I would become a Christian upon witnessing evidence of Jesus/God, what have you.

supergreenangeleyes Says:

Sep 26, 2009 - If science is the only evidence that is acceptable to you, then Atheism must be abandoned. Not believing without evidence that something isn't there, is a belief and driven by faith.

thethreeheadedmonkey Says:

Sep 26, 2009 - I never said I was against ID. I said I was against the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient deity. Not that I'm not against ID, it's just that you still made a non-sequitur which you refuse to admit (you make those a lot, might want to look into the definition). Your fondness of logical fallacies is astounding. Because all belief systems have the tendency to deny evidence against them, this does not mean that all things that deny evidence against them are belief systems. Sheesh.

supergreenangeleyes Says:

Sep 26, 2009 - I have a very good grasp on definitions. You use the term too loosely and it doesn't seem that you are capable of applying it to yourself. I have not made a statement asserting that all things that deny evidence are beliefs systems. You are grasping. And you are twitsing what I write to fit your discrimination.

supergreenangeleyes Says:

Sep 26, 2009 - You are correct. I have gone back and I can see where you have stated that science cannot refute God. I apologize.

thethreeheadedmonkey Says:

Sep 26, 2009 - You speak as if there is other evidence that counts than scientific evidence. I find that amusing. Do you mean subjective evidence? You know, I once had a dream I was God. Does this mean I will be God in the future? I fear you will not understand the analogy, but hey, I'm bored enough to be discussing religion with a high-school dropout who probably never even took religion in high-school, but still, it's worth a shot.

thethreeheadedmonkey Says:

Sep 26, 2009 - Thank you. It's good to see that you can admit when you're wrong.

supergreenangeleyes Says:

Sep 26, 2009 - Took religion in high-school? Is the Gifted Program and Hope Scholarship considered "dropout" material? This is not to say that someone intelligent is incapable of dropping out, but is more unlikely. It is apparent that "conclusions" and 'evidence" are determined in an unscientific manner in many cases. Regarding implications of evidence is not scientific. But it is also human nature to do so.

thethreeheadedmonkey Says:

Sep 26, 2009 - I was under the impression that most developed nations taught about various religions and philosophies in secondary school. I apologise if this is not the case. I do not know what "The Gifted Program" or "Hope Scholarship" are. Non-scientific evidence is the same as subjective or invalid evidence. Subjective evidence being valid only when validified by objective evidence (and is often interpreted to what suits the person having experienced it best).

supergreenangeleyes Says:

Sep 26, 2009 - Yes I know this. Subjectivity is not scientific. It happens too often and is shameful. The only acceptable science is objective. Religion is not taught in high school. Universities offer religious curriculum.

TheMekWorkshop Says:

Sep 27, 2009 - Thunderf00t keeps falling over himself, most of his talk is a stutering of a letter. He keeps forgetting theories and ideas, like he keeps saying a beginning is an unknown rather than directly saying maybe everything is just continuous and our minds cant perceive something that never begins or ends. and doesnt bring up collapsing universe theory.

SunderB00t Says:

Sep 29, 2009 - Thunderf00t got himself schooled on the matter by the master

TheDarnell07 Says:

Sep 30, 2009 - lol....

JamesTheTank Says:

Oct 2, 2009 - To be fair, Thunderf00t is so far ahead of Ray Comfort intilectually he's probably stuttering because he's constantly being dumbed down and/or being forced to communicate at Comfort's level. Also Comfort is a public speaker, this is how he has continued to make his money. Comfort may be more charismatic by if was going to have a beer with these cat's I'd be talking to Thunderf00t.

JamesTheTank Says:

Oct 2, 2009 - SunderB00t- You're damn funny. Is Ray Comfort your "master"?

TheMekWorkshop Says:

Oct 2, 2009 - Yeah, Thunderf00t doesn't have much experience with Public speaking, hence the stuttering and meant his arguments weren't as straight forward as the could have been. Hopefully he'll have more debates and come out much better.

GunShyLoyalist Says:

Oct 6, 2009 - Nice intro song.

plastichrist Says:

Oct 7, 2009 - he based his nickname on a paltry condescension for thunderf00t the comment is not only fundamentally wrong, but painfully predictable

Peatypals Says:

Oct 13, 2009 - I'm ashamed to call ray comfort a fellow New Zealander.

MichaelGabrielR Says:

Oct 18, 2009 - Thanks, amazing video. Too bad that Thunderf00t what practically defenseless when it came to accounting for morality and that he haven't even read the book of Hebrews. Plus, as the guy pointed out, he fell victim to the modern gospel (which is not the Gospel at all). The Gospel is clearly stated in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

ghandi8749 Says:

Oct 20, 2009 - You think Ray Comfort is god??? haha

ghandi8749 Says:

Oct 20, 2009 - Ray knows nothing about what Thunderf00t is talking about