That being said, he was raised as an anglican Christian, So he tends to stick with that when he challenges specific religious claims. What he mainly does speak against, however, is Gods, any and all gods, the abrahamic, hindu, norse or greek gods, or the more deistic god of the enlightenment, and most certainly the creationist God that people try combating science with.

Speaking of Creationist loonies, Heard the recent exchange between Ray "The banana Man" Comfort and Blogger and Biology Professor PZ Myers? Its hilarious.


Ray Comfort:"I simply expose atheistic evolution for the unscientific fairy tale that it is, and I do it with common logic. I ask questions about where the female came from for each species. Every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. Evolution has no explanation for the female for every species in creation,"

PZ Myers response:"I know Ray is rather stupid, but who knew he could be that stupid. This has been explained to him multiple times: evolution does explain this stuff trivially. Populations evolve, not individuals, and male and female elephants evolved from populations of pre-elephants that contained males and females. Species do not arise from single new mutant males that then have to find a corresponding mutant female – they arise by the diffusion of variation through a whole population, male and female."

Comfort counters...At what point of time in evolutionary history did the female evolve alongside the male? And why did she evolve? Then explain, if you would professor, why horses, giraffes, cattle, zebras, leopards, primates, antelopes, pigs, dogs, sheep, fish, goats, mice, squirrels, whales, chickens, dinosaurs, beavers, cats, human beings and rats also evolved with a female, at some point of time in evolutionary history.

At this appalling ignorance, most of us would just give up, But not PZ, instead he lashes out the most embarrasing (for Comfort) putdowns in the history of ass-whopping:
Elephantine errors from Ray Comfort

Horrible. No primate is ever to be trusted, especially ones wearing nothing but denim suspenders.

Does anyone know a primate owner that is not crazy? I mean monkeys can be fun and all but you gotta have some screws lose to want to keep a monkey around the house.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
He seems like kind of a douche bag. On the one had he states he doesnt believe he's better than anyone else, on the other he describes Darwin's IQ as "down there in the toilet at 135."
Then he goes on (in the second and third parts of the series) to describe how to create an "elite race" by not letting un-intelligent people breed. That kind of social-darwinism is just flat out wrong.
ALSO since when is cranium circumferance the measure of intelligence???


yeah that circumfrence thing was a bit weird. there's loads of evidence that large cranial circumfrence size in newborn primates (human, chimps etc.)is predictive of developmental delay. also, what about larger mammals like dinosaurs and elephants? wouldn't their heads be much bigger than ours?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Thanks for your contributions Mr. Fisk - you're a credit to our homo family.

(and order of primates)

The primate uprising starts now! Congrats, fisk.

To the man who understands my fascination with and appreciation of Charles Manson, a toast!

Congratulations, and primate orgies abound!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'funny, animals, monkey, tigers, commedy' to 'funny, animals, monkey, gibbon, primate, ape, tigers, commedy' - edited by RhesusMonk

There once was a chimp from Madrass,
whose balls were made out of brass,
when he’d bang ‘em together,
they’d play stormy weather,
and lightning would shoot out of his... ok people, that's quite enough, really, you have dirty minds, get out of the gutter.

Go on, get out of it ya stinkin' primates, you're leaving your filth everywhere. I mean, you lot are... oh would you look at that, who knocked over the vase? Those were very expensive orchids, and now, well, they're not the same colour they used to be, let's put it that way.

Who's been sticking bananas into all of the usb ports around here? Huh? They are not USB2 compliant are they? No, no one ever thinks before they act around here.

It's always me who's left to clean up... always... *sigh*

I just... ooh... hang on *craps into hand*... POO FIGHT!

Shall I compare thee to a summer's primate?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate.

>> ^McFarQue:
>> ^jwray:
The sensationalized commentary was misleading.
So It can swing a 65 kilo doll around. Big deal. In a one on one fight for survival, a real live human would have a chance, with or without tools. If you can kick a football 70 yards, you can knock out a tiger. The obvious tactic would be to kick the shit out of it before it can even get in range to bite vital areas.

You really should do some research on the tactics a tiger uses to take down it's prey.
Kicking the shit out of it sounds like a great plan, with one small catch. You need to land those kicks, and plenty of them to win. All the while this cat is playing with you like a kitten with a sock. At the point that it gets tired and just jumps at your face, you better be ready to doge like a ninja or die like a chewtoy.



One good kick to the right part of the head could give it a terrible concussion, depending on what sort of shoes you're wearing. As bipedal primates, our kicks are much more agile and long-range than those of quadruped mammals. Tigers rely on stealth and striking from behind because of the ridiculously short range of their main weapon (the teeth). If you see it coming, you have a good chance. Humans are better at long-distance running, too, because we don't overheat as easily. A tiger can sprint faster than a human athlete for only a very short distance. And humans are much better than tigers at climbing trees, or picking up wood from the ground and using it as a weapon (which increases the difference between the tiger's strike range and your strike range). If it tries to pounce from 6 feet away, you have plenty of time to knock it sideways while it is in an unstable posture with only half of its limbs on the ground (its usual prey are quadrupeds whose limbs aren't well oriented to do such a defensive maneuver, and who couldn't turn quickly enough to maintain an orientation facing the tiger).

Why is it a covenant between a man and woman? And don't say, "because that is the way it is defined", that is begging the question.

If it is the word marriage then you should advocate that the state only be able to grant civil unions, and religious institutions have the ability to perform marriage.

Your bicycle analogy is a non sequitur. Marriage again is a legal contract between two people; that maintains the equal division of assets, right to medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment, and several others see below.

etc. http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/

Your incest and primate arguments are examples of reductio ad absurdum: the slippery slope logical fallacy.

Polygamy is not a legal agreement between two people, therefore the rights hitherto are not so clearly defined. See http://www.videosift.com/video/Huge-Prop-8-Protest-outside-of-Mormon-Temple-in-Utah#comment-572747

Your next series of comments are non sequitur and the evil dictator argument.

Look it is simple, they want the right to form a specific legal contract (without having to write a 1000 page document and have ridiculous legal fees) do you really care? And how can you justify not allowing two consenting adults not having the rights? If it is the word, then fine... but then no one should be married.

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/

>> ^quantumushroom:
Your assertion that the majority vote should always be made into law is ridiculous. What if "Mexifornia" voted to make atheists wear a patch on their sleeves to protect us from "Communists"? Would that be OK to implement even though it conflicts with the Constitution in probably dozens of ways?
That's the difference between fake "rights" like the "right" for gays to marry and real rights like the right to a fair trial.
Sixty years ago, people like you were saying that blacks were fighting to "redefine the very definition of marriage", i.e., a holy union between a man and a woman of the same race. How are gay people not fighting for the same rights as straight people?
First of all: "people like you?" I know you'd take offense to that, as do I. And once again, let's try to keep focus on the issue at hand and not make everyone who opposes gay marriage into a nazi.
Segregation versus gay 'rights' is Apples and Oranges. As segregation ended, the right for people of different races to marry became "self-evident". Both those who opposed and supported mixed race marriages knew what marriage meant: a covenant between one man and one woman.
Straight people can get married, and gay people can't. Gay people want to get married too. It's pretty simple, QM.
Gay people cannot get married because marriage is legally and culturally defined as between one man and one woman. You're free to drive on the freeway if you're driving a car. You're not free to drive a bicycle on the freeway; if you change the law to make bicycles equal to cars on the freeway, then you have changed the purpose and use of a freeway into something else entirely.
The legalization of gay marriage would allow any two consenting adults to get married, which is one step closer to marriage equality.
Well, I know you won't like the following arguments, but they're valid. You say two consenting adults is the only criteria? So incest is OK? And why the bias towards human primates? A scientist can't marry his lab monkey?
And what do you say to the polygamists in line right behind you? Don't they have a right to marry who THEY want? Shouldn't the love between THREE people outrank your gay-between-only-TWO people?
Children cannot enter themselves into legal contracts because minors are only capable of assenting, not consenting. An adult cannot marry a child without the child's guardian(s)' consent, and furthermore the age difference between the two must not be great (e.g., an eighteen-year-old and a seventeen-year-old can usually get married with the consent of the eighteen-year-old, the assent of the seventeen-year-old, and the consent of the seventeen-year-old's guardian(s).
I know all this, but let me act out the next phase in this phony "rights" game: "But don't you see, age is just an arbitrary and artificial limit set by an evil, heartless society! There are some 10-year-olds with the intelligence of 18-year-olds! And besides, every day you meanies make us wait to get married is a day that either of us could die! We're in love NOW!"
I'm not touching your last point because I don't know what you're talking about.
I voted for Schwarzenegger because he was replacing an absolute, corrupt turd. But I knew even on Schwarzy's first day unless he had the same endoskeleton as the T-101, he would be eaten alive. He was: he devolved into a useless R.I.N.O. Republican In Name Only. Recently he suggested tax hikes of around 5 billion. He didn't suggest sealing California's border against invaders or ending welfare for illegals the way the citizens of California voted in the 1990s, a vote overturned by a single corrupt activist judge.

But back to the issue of marriage: I'm for civil unions for gays and even binding contracts for polygamists; I think traditional marriage, as one of the foundations for society, should be left alone.
For the record, I think gay marriage will eventually become legal in all 50 states, because the pillars of society as well as the foundation are crumbling. How long the USA remains a free country under the weight of all these made-up 'rights' remains to be seen.


Everything you just said is totally wrong. This country has never been more aware of its roots and morality. We've never been more free, the future looks bright with this new president, and I foresee no problems in the next 4 to 8 years. Also, I hate my life and Oprah is hot.

Your assertion that the majority vote should always be made into law is ridiculous. What if "Mexifornia" voted to make atheists wear a patch on their sleeves to protect us from "Communists"? Would that be OK to implement even though it conflicts with the Constitution in probably dozens of ways?

That's the difference between fake "rights" like the "right" for gays to marry and real rights like the right to a fair trial.

Sixty years ago, people like you were saying that blacks were fighting to "redefine the very definition of marriage", i.e., a holy union between a man and a woman of the same race. How are gay people not fighting for the same rights as straight people?

First of all: "people like you?" I know you'd take offense to that, as do I. And once again, let's try to keep focus on the issue at hand and not make everyone who opposes gay marriage into a nazi.

Segregation versus gay 'rights' is Apples and Oranges. As segregation ended, the right for people of different races to marry became "self-evident". Both those who opposed and supported mixed race marriages knew what marriage meant: a covenant between one man and one woman.

Straight people can get married, and gay people can't. Gay people want to get married too. It's pretty simple, QM.

Gay people cannot get married because marriage is legally and culturally defined as between one man and one woman. You're free to drive on the freeway if you're driving a car. You're not free to drive a bicycle on the freeway; if you change the law to make bicycles equal to cars on the freeway, then you have changed the purpose and use of a freeway into something else entirely.

The legalization of gay marriage would allow any two consenting adults to get married, which is one step closer to marriage equality.

Well, I know you won't like the following arguments, but they're valid. You say two consenting adults is the only criteria? So incest is OK? And why the bias towards human primates? A scientist can't marry his lab monkey?

And what do you say to the polygamists in line right behind you? Don't they have a right to marry who THEY want? Shouldn't the love between THREE people outrank your gay-between-only-TWO people?

Children cannot enter themselves into legal contracts because minors are only capable of assenting, not consenting. An adult cannot marry a child without the child's guardian(s)' consent, and furthermore the age difference between the two must not be great (e.g., an eighteen-year-old and a seventeen-year-old can usually get married with the consent of the eighteen-year-old, the assent of the seventeen-year-old, and the consent of the seventeen-year-old's guardian(s).

I know all this, but let me act out the next phase in this phony "rights" game: "But don't you see, age is just an arbitrary and artificial limit set by an evil, heartless society! There are some 10-year-olds with the intelligence of 18-year-olds! And besides, every day you meanies make us wait to get married is a day that either of us could die! We're in love NOW!"

I'm not touching your last point because I don't know what you're talking about.

I voted for Schwarzenegger because he was replacing an absolute, corrupt turd. But I knew even on Schwarzy's first day unless he had the same endoskeleton as the T-101, he would be eaten alive. He was: he devolved into a useless R.I.N.O. Republican In Name Only. Recently he suggested tax hikes of around 5 billion. He didn't suggest sealing California's border against invaders or ending welfare for illegals the way the citizens of California voted in the 1990s, a vote overturned by a single corrupt activist judge.


But back to the issue of marriage: I'm for civil unions for gays and even binding contracts for polygamists; I think traditional marriage, as one of the foundations for society, should be left alone.

For the record, I think gay marriage will eventually become legal in all 50 states, because the pillars of society as well as the foundation are crumbling. How long the USA remains a free country under the weight of all these made-up 'rights' remains to be seen.

This guy makes a big deal out of the clerks not checking for IDs. As if they would check IDs for someone buying nitrous, which isn't illegal. I say, anything that brings the human mind back to the primate stage is just fine with me.