I love this movie so much

Such a frustrating disappointment

Fantastic!

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

"Evolution vs. God: Shaking the Foundations of Faith" is an 38-minute documentary film from 2013, so this short movie will have its 5th anniversary next year. It is written by, directed by and starring the voice of Ray Comfort and in here, he interviews several people about why they believe in evolution and do not believe in God. This involves students as well as professors. The questions he asks are spot-on and you can see how he makes a difference in some of his interviewees' minds. I also want to give a thumbs-up for the people showing up in here because they have never used verbal abuse or anything and honestly that is a common reaction when you talk to people about why they don't believe in God. And it is usually these who cannot even name a single geological era. Anyway back to this film here, I believe that one of the best points Comfort makes in here is that you need to ask questions and look for solutions. Sure you can just blindly accept what your biology book tells you, a book that was perhaps written and illustrated by people who blindly believed what other people told them. But with that approach we'd still see the Earth as a disk. Is that the right word? Anyway, you get the point. I don't think it is accurate to call the Bible a work of fiction if you have never read a single page of it. You need to get an insight into the subject before making a statement because otherwise you are not different than fake news spread by propagandist media without checking their sources for credibility. This was the second film I've seen by Mr. Comfort and I would call it superior to his film about the holocaust of unborn babies, even if that one was pretty interesting as well. I also like his interview documentary style, even if that is a subjective statement and I can see why many don't. Obviously this film here is extremely underrated on IMDb and I wonder how many of those who rated it 1/10 actually. Probably not even half. And most of the other half stopped watching before the end. And that is why they will never get it. Blinly accepting what overall consensus sells you as correct, the thought of those who are too limited inside their minds to see how limited they actually are. I give this one a major thumbs-down. One of the best documentaries from 2013 and I highly recommend it.

Aside from flagrantly editing the interviews, Ray Comfort repeatedly demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge about both evolution and science in general. He uses the word 'kind' in reference to anything from species to domain, with six different definitions given. The one student he interviewed that was studying biology answered his questions very well, and was not heard from after the first ten minutes. The interviews with the scientists were cut into three second clips and involved Ray interrupting anyone when they went to give him an answer he wouldn't like. Altogether, those four interviews comprised just over four minutes of the 'documentary'.Examining the other people interviewed, the short clips of some people can be put together and clearly show one puzzled answer cut into four or five pieces and used in response to multiple questions.This 'documentary' is not just brain dead, but dishonest too.

This movie has believers in evolution up in arms, and without anything to back up their claims except some ad hominem attacks. They seem to be under the delusion that calling people names equals good logical facts. They come on here and rate it with a low score because they know it shows how foolish they are and do not want others to see the truth.The film itself is fantastic. Everyone from the highest level of professors in evolution to the common college student has no evidence for their believe in darwin's foolish theory. Science is fantastic, but unfortunately throughout it's history, snake oil salesmen have taught many silly theories as fact and people who do not think very deeply buy into it.

Ray Comfort (aka The banana man) is back with yet another disappointedly impotent 'critique' of Darwinian evolution. Apart from the numerous occasions of quote mining and selective editing of interviews throughout the film he has repeated his banana fiasco with both a lack of understanding of both science and evidence.Firstly, the film makes a false dichotomy between 'God' and Evolution. The theory of evolution, like all scientific explanations is methodologically neutral and naturalistic; to make it a conflict between God and science is deceptive and unwise.Throughout the film, Comfort interviews a series of professors and college majors and frequently asks if any of them can present 'testable', 'observable' evidence of change from one 'kind' to 'another'. They give examples of speciation but demands they show a change of 'kind'. He doesn't even define 'kind. Creationists have been unable to specify what the created kinds are. If kinds were distinct, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities, with kinds within kinds within kinds. For example, the twelve-spotted ladybug could be placed in the twelve- spotted ladybug kind, the ladybug kind, the beetle kind, the insect kind, or any of dozens of other kinds of kind, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter where one sets the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff. This pattern exactly matches the pattern expected of evolution. It does not match what creationism predicts. Comfort lacks any elementary knowledge of biology. He asks for changes overnight that modern biologists observe after millions of years. He is easily refuted by transitional fossils such as Tiktaalik (which shows primitive fish becoming amphibians) as well as Archaeopteryx (transition between dinosaurs and birds), which show a change from 'one kind to another'. In fact paleontologists argue whether some intermediates are for instance, reptile-like mammals or mammal-like reptiles; this means there is a multitude of intermediates dicovered.He ignorantly dismisses Darwin's finches as 'birds remaining birds' and the Lenski experiment as 'bacteria still becoming bacteria'; using the same ignorant excuse of 'created kinds'. Although major changes from one 'kind' to another do not normally happen, except gradually over hundreds of thousands of generations, a sudden origin of a new kind has been observed. A strain of cancerous human cells (called HeLa cells) have evolved to become a wild unicellular life form (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991). The film also says that evolutionists claim the appendix is useless because they call it 'vestigial'. This is ludicrous. "Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished". Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function.The appendix appears as part of the tissues of the digestive system; it is homologous to the end of the mammalian caecum. Since it does not function as part of the digestive system, it is a vestigial part of that system, no matter what other functions it may have. The film equates an acceptance of evolution with immorality and purposely edits and selectively quotes the interviewees. However, it is a great introduction to the terrible arguments that creationists push to achieve their agenda.