Thanks for your post. Since you were kind enough to make a passing reference to veritasdomain as another Christian blog, I thought I’d answer your critique of the debate point by point.
For 0:10 you mention that it’s sad to to start off a video with fear mongering. However, pointing out that Ray Comfort is trying to “peddle” fear doesn’t prove anything but your opinion. “You’re not crazy if they’re really out to get you.” Likewise, it’s not mongering, if hell exists.
For 0:30 you say he has a problem with definitions. Your answer that modern science defines creation “as a universe that is” isn’t a definition at all. Nor is it science. What kind of experiments did modern science conduct to determine that the universe is a “being or a state of existence.” How many universes did you test? What was the mean and standard deviation from the mean? Your explanation (not definition) deals with the metaphysical, therefore is philosophical not empirical in nature.
In your second paragraph, you can’t make up your mind. On one hand, you say creation is bad evidence of God. On the other hand, you say that God expects you to believe without providing any evidence. If you think God “did a really bad job,” you cannot say he didn’t give any evidence, only that you don’t like the evidence God provided.
0:53 Proving you can find out the building’s architect and name of the construction company doesn’t disprove the analogy. On the contrary, more power to you, you illustrate his point.
1:55 I’m also not planning on breeding like rabbits. But that is not relevant. Neither is your plan to not breed like rabbits.
2:04 Calling someone a liar isn’t an ad hominem if he is one before God. Neither is calling someone an adulterer or murderer at heart.
5:15 By Comfort saying “you will think about this” is not the same as touching people or causing people to fall backwards. Nor is it hypnotism. Getting people to reduce their skepticism isn’t “converting” people.
In your second to last paragraph you also fail to understand definitions. Defining birds as cause and effect is not a definition.
You also try to make the distinction between accident and chance. However, Ray Comfort wasn’t arguing or implying the birds flying over was accidental. This isn’t an example of a “Christian fundamentalist not understanding what he is detracting against” but an example of a red herring.
hi dizzy, i went ahead and posted a reply on your site, i was careful to make sure you got credit and there are three links to your blog on it…you didnt seem to mind before so i am sure you wont now, if you do let me know