So, the whole Ray Comfort vs. Thunderf00t discussion was posted on YouTUBE. Thunderf00t spends a great deal of time speaking against Creationists, and anyone else who misrepresents empirical scientific knowledge about the world and our universe. As such he runs afoul of people like VenomFangX who from day one regurgitated the well-debunked lectures of Kent Hovind (convicted fraud, felon serving time in prison for his crime.)
He posts videos revealing the bad arguments, propaganda, and intellectual dishonesty of the Creationist movement and its proponents.
Shortly into the video, I saw this:
Uni = One
Verse = A spoken sentence
VFX has his etymological background messed up, verse in universe is from vertere, which is “to rotate or turn.” This sort of poor scholarship is indicative of VFX’s dishonest presentation—not because he gets things wrong, but because he gets them wrong, gets corrected (over and over), and never chooses to learn from it.
Thunderf00t doesn’t ridicule people about their delivery; but he does shine light on the ridiculousness of the content. Making fun of Tf00t for stuttering while having a cordial discussion with Comfort and then using that as a segue to claim that Tf00t is a hypocrite for showing people to be ridiculous is pure asshattery.
Tf00t has never claimed he has an absolute understanding of everything and he doesn’t claim to know things he doesn’t—in fact, this is the point that VFX harped on all through the first five minutes of the video. But then around 5:54 VFX says, “…you claim that you have an absolute understanding of everything.” How transparent is that?
6:25 VFX looks to an exchange where Comfort plays a game of equivocation with Tf00t. In a friendly discussion everybody doesn’t force everyone else to define everything, but according to Comfort’s context he basically tried to say “life = soul.” And Tf00t is thinking that Comfort is referring to an untestable, uncorroboratable supernatural force and is arguing against that.
I recognize the “your dog and your horrible neighbor are drowning which one would you save?” question, and I’m puzzled why Tf00t even answered it—although, he does seem to be Aspergers to a bit, which means that this honesty is going to be very pointed. Why he didn’t just turn it around to: “A white man and a black man are drowning, who would you save?” or even “A man and a woman are drowning, who would you save?” to Comfort. The positive effect of this hypothetical situation is designed to provide values for lives, and it’s intrinsically true that as social creatures we do automatically apply value to life when in life or death situations. Come to think of it, the pointed question back to Comfort would have been to take away the “dog” (inhuman) status from the friend.
So VFX: “Your sister (or how about best friend) and your horrible neighbor are drowning, you can only save one—who would you save?” By the way, we’ll flash “Love your enemy as yourself,” on a billboard as you’re deciding. Using this sort of question is really uncalled for in any sort of cordial debate.
VFX’s not-return video is poor criticism and in the vein of his usual disingenuous presentation.