>> ^ponceleon:
Fuck Ray Comfort and everyone who thinks like him.


Why?

Fuck Ray Comfort and everyone who thinks like him.

>> ^kceaton1:
Wow, this video would make Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron spin circles in their graves as well as having a MIND-blowing experience.

Oh, they're not dead yet? I think they should broaden their horizens. God was most likely a pro bowler, just look at those coconuts!


I'm going to start eating bananas more often, and with this "new" open-from-the-bottom- technique, just to spite Creationists.

Wow, this video would make Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron spin circles in their graves as well as having a MIND-blowing experience.


Oh, they're not dead yet? I think they should broaden their horizens. God was most likely a pro bowler, just look at those coconuts!

Religion is just a big *cult. I really want to call lies on it too, but the guy in the middle is speaking all sorts of truth.

When I see Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron I immediately want to punch someone on the ovaries.

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

"Funny how many of the “proof” comes out forged or plain false? If it is so clear and logigal… why the need to forge things? Funny how these known forgeries are still used in school text books today?!"

Hoaxes are not made for the betterment of the theory, they are made for personal gain. The people who make them are intellectually dishonest and should never be scientists.

And as usual Ray Comfort has no idea what evolution is - his interviewees don't really understand it either.

>> ^Arg:
I'd be amazed if this man is capable of tying his own shoelaces.


I meet him and he is an intelligent, funny and likable guy. Of course you can mock and spout something about a person that you don't know instead of dealing with what he says.
Ben Stein was considered one of the smart guys before he decided to make his movie about Evolution. Now (even though he is not a Christian) he is mocked in similar fashion.
I was under the impression that this is a country where people can speak their mind and challenge thought?! Isn't that, an open discusion and reasoning, what makes sience worthwhile and lead to something?
Funny how nobody wants to talk about the things that Darwin said would have to fall into place to prove his theory. Funny how many of the “proof” comes out forged or plain false? If it is so clear and logigal… why the need to forge things? Funny how these known forgeries are still used in school text books today?!

Just to name a few:

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!


Nebraska Man from the Illustrated London NewsNebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.


Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)


Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)


Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that the human fetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of eight different embryos in three stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was hailed as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist. (source: Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered", Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51)

>> ^vairetube:
the banana thing really explains... evolution and natural selection...
animals preference = most used; propagated seeds in excrement = natural selection of the most used = handy banany!
all he proves is that animals know what they like to eat... he could have made a much more confounding (read: better, to creationists) argument out of the origin of such preferences.


Unfortunately, it doesn't work quite the way you put it. I wish it did, because it would be so much more hilarious.

Cultivated bananas are sterile so the seeds in excrement don't do anything. Banana plants are propagated by offshoots. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana#Cultivation)

What it does demonstrate is evolution by artificial selection, which shares many similarities with evolution by natural selection.

Ray Comfort is right that the banana is intelligently and ingeniously designed. Humans made it.

It has been suggested to me that I may have fell victim to "Poe's Law" in my previous comment, and that this video is supposed to be a meta-spoof of some kind. But if you've ever watched Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort make complete asses of themselves, I cant just sit back and tell myself "Relax, noone can be this retarded. Not even retards" because yes, yes they (peanutbutter)can.

Also, looking at the Youtube description and the original posters really sincere creationist comments, I will assume this to be a serious attempt at making fun of atheists. Again, nothing wrong with making fun of us atheists, but please, if your're gonna do it, shame and ridicule us, not yourself in the process.

1. This is a form of the argument that accuses atheists of replacing religious belief with scientific belief. But science is driven by evidence and rationalism whereas religion is driven by revelations and dogma. Science isn't perfect, but it is the best tool we have for understanding the universe. Also, evolution is not about chance. Natural selection is the exact opposite of chance.

2. Wow. Three well trodden fallacies all wrapped up into one. This guy reads way too much Ray Comfort. To answer his primary question, Why is ther something rather than nothing? Well, we don't really know. To suppose that the universe was created by some powerful, divine being doesn't answer the question of First Cause because now you have the presence of a God to explain.

3. Morality is generated by culture. Culture is a set of baseline assumptions that people in a community take for granted. It enables us to communicate efficiently. Having a conversation where you had to define each and every term would be tedious and extremely time consuming. Morality, or the division of actions between Right and Wrong, is woven into the fabric of our culture. So, of course, religion influences morality, as does every cultural institution, but it is not the originator of morality. We create morality. And we are decidedly not Gods or divine.

4. This is more or less the same question as question 3. Morality evolves because of culture. Language allowed us to pass information and knowledge from generation to generation. Culturally speaking, a new generation does not start from scratch. It builds upon culture that has already been established. Also, his caveman example is ridiculous because it is entirely fictitious.

5. Yay! The argument from design rears its ugly, battered head! Why the fuck won't this one go away? When life first started here on Earth it was exceedingly simple. The diversity and complexity we see today is the product of 4 billion years of evolution. FOUR BILLION MOTHER FUCKING YEARS. That is a lot of years. I'm seriously. Although I give him credit for using a wood carving as an example instead of a pocket watch. I haven't heard that one before.

Ray Comfort = *lies

interesting video - but Ray Comfort is failed in logic (atheists nightmare anyone?)

They say God cannot be disproven, but that's only partially right. It all depends on how you define God. If, for example, you define God as Omnipotent, Omniscient and Benevolent, then it is rather easy to disprove God.

If this God is our designer/creator then he's either not omniscient or not omnipotent as any one of hundreds of design flaws can show: cancer, wisdom teeth, the optical nerve, etc. If you believe that these flaws were intentional, then God is not benevolent.

The classic "pain & suffering" argument also applies. If God has the power to stop pain and suffering but doesn't, then he is not benevolent. If he does not have the ability, then he is not omnipotent.

Ray Comfort would tell you that it's because we live in a fallen and corrupt world; that this is Lucifer's influence. An all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent God would not be challenged by Lucifer. Even if he were unwilling to kill him, certainly this omnipotent, omniscient God would not be foiled by one of his own creations. The negative aspects of our own existence are sometimes chalked up to "free will", but Lucifer was an Archangel and angels are generally not attributed free will. The only explanation for any of this if you believe it is "God fucked up."

There are hundreds, if not thousands of examples such as these that prove there is no benevolent, all-knowing, all-powerful God.

I'm a bit wary. This video seems closer to how Ray Comfort would describe evolution than it is to how a biologist would.