Ray Comfort's ongoing lies and plagiarism.

Hey -- guess what! I caught Ray Comfort in yet another tangled web of lies and plagiarism!

Shocked? Neither am I.

Over the past week, Ray has been leading a very cherry-picked study of the Book of Job, which used to be my favorite book in the Bible, followed very closely by The Book of Esther. In June 2009, I wrote my own study on the Book of Job, and gave you my personal opinion on what the book is really about -- a fictional tale of an innocent man who lost nearly everything, including his children, as a result from a cosmic pissing contest between Jehovah and Satan.

True to form, Ray would have you believe that he's more of an astrophysicist than Stephen Hawking, conveniently skirting the overwhelming evidence that supports the Big Bang theory. In his blogpost on Thursday, June 28th, Ray resumes his arrogance and smug sense of superiority by inferring that those of us who do not subscribe to his spiritual point of view have "a few intellectual problems."

He goes on asking questions that have already been answered hundreds if not thousands of times, but Ray just keeps ignoring the answers. Yet Ray continues, "What was in the beginning? What produced this huge, incredible natural world in which we live? If you say it was the 'big bang,' then where did the materials come from to make the big bang? If the Big Bang was the product, who or what was the producer?" Ray has received answers to these questions repeatedly and he knows it, but like a terrified puppy, he just runs with his tail tucked firmly between his legs.

Something about Ray's writing at this particular post didn't feel right. Not that it ever does, mind you. But I just had a feeling the words I read weren't his. I copied just one sentence from that post, pasted it into Google, and hit enter. Sure enough, I was right.

When Ray talks about science, his audience, Christian or non-Christian, must research what he says because when he speaks on matters of science, he lies. All the time. I don't just mean some of the time -- I mean all of the time. Ray likely lifted the forementioned sentence from this article written by Fraser Cain, publisher of Universe Today, and co-host of the AstronomyCast podcast. I could beat Cain with a wet trout for a week due to his shoddy writing; Cain should know better. Cain's article is based on this paper published in Astronomy and Astrophysics, May 2011.

Ray:

"Sound travels in waves as does light and heat, but unlike light and heat, sound moves by making molecules vibrate. So, for sound to travel anywhere there must be molecules for it to travel. Sound travels on earth to our ears by vibrating air molecules, but there are no molecules in space."

Fraser:

"Sound travels in waves like light or heat does, but unlike them, sound travels by making molecules vibrate. So, in order for sound to travel, there has to be something with molecules for it to travel through. On Earth, sound travels to your ears by vibrating air molecules. In deep space, the large empty areas between stars and planets, there are no molecules to vibrate."

Ray was then properly educated by the guests at his blog about cosmology and physics, which he will probably ignore. I'm still waiting for his response to my question regarding the source is for his claims.

Having my suspicions confirmed that Ray is a plagiarist, I did a simple Google search on Ray's plagiarism, and even I was a bit surprised at how much of this clown's work is not his. You may recall that in 2009, Ray pulled a stunt by releasing his version of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species". In Ray's bastardized version, he offered a brief biography of Darwin. As it turns out, large portions of the introduction were lifted from a paper entitled "A Brief History of Charles Darwin" written by Dr. Stan Guffey, Ph.D., professor of biology at the University of Tennessee. Read more about this story here.

They don't call it the Information Age for nothing, Ray. All I have to do to learn about any topic is punch in a few words and entire digital libraries are at my fingertips. Why, then, do you think that you're the only person who's smart enough to use a search engine? How stupid do you think the rest of us are?

We all know that you're a cowardly, lying, thief, Ray. By your own admission, lying thieves will be sent on a one-way ticket to Hell. Are you willing to finally face your opponents, look them in the eye, and admit that you're a charlatan? Have you ever apologized to Cain, Guffey, or anybody else for presenting their work as your own?

For a person who implores us to examine a religion you claim is the ultimate guide to morality, which condemns lying and stealing, why do you resort to these things, Ray? Do you ever feel even slightly ashamed for your intellectual dishonesty?

To the followers of this charlatan, how much of his intellectual feces are you going to eagerly consume while ignoring the fact that Ray is a liar? You readily accuse atheists and agnostics of being lying thieves without evidence, but you don't dare raise an accusatory finger at somebody who actually deserves it like Ray. A child could tell you that Ray's a lying thief, but grown adults give him carte blanche for no other reason than he professes the same faith that you do. If you know he's a liar, and you still refer to him is a good Christian, you're just as much of a liar as he is.

Here are some cosmological and astrophysical terms for Ray, other creationists, and even Fraser Cain to research:

• Interstellar molecules
• Redshift
• Blueshift
• Molecular vibration
• Cosmic background radiation
• Cosmology

For a list of Ray's lies, click here.

Just for fun, watch the video below to see just how much of a dishonest, hypocritical douchebag Ray really is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbBYUgurfRU

Answering Ray's distortion of Einstein

Over at Ray's blog, in the header you fill find a picture of Einstein and one of his quotes that Ray cherry-picked to try to steer you toward Ray's perverted way of thinking.

Ray would like you (and himself) to believe that Einstein not only believed in God, but a very personal God at that. As always, Ray distorts the truth, if not outright lies through his teeth. While Einstein certainly did believe in God, he did not believe in the kind of God who played an active role in our daily lives. And though Einstein had a certain disdain for using his quotes regarding faith and God, here's one that Ray is wishing that Einstein never put to paper:

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Chew on that for a while, Ray. Watch the clip by Penn Gillette below, in which he reads the above quote from a letter that Einstein wrote to philosopher Eric Gutkind on January 3, 1954.

Ray loses. Again. (and again, and again, and again...)

In a couple of weeks, Ray and Kirk, along with their cohorts from ICR and AiG, are going to ascend on UC Berkeley en masse, where they plan to distribute their hacked up version of On the Origin of Species. They will attempt to convince students of all scientific disciplines that evolution is bad, that they know more about science than scientists do, and that they're all headed to a rather toasty eternity unless they turn to Jesus to forgive them of their sins, which includes accepting evolution.

In case you missed it, Ray has been muttering about his "debate" with executive director of NCSE, Eugenie Scott in US News and World Report. As usual, Ray's argument is the same old garbage that has been quickly disposed of - there are no transitional fossils, that evolution is atheistic, and species really means "kinds". Of course, Scott responded and handed Ray's rear end to him on a silver platter in the process. In his defense, Ray did post Scott's response at his blog. I have five points I'd like to make here:

1. It wasn't a debate, Ray. It was a beatdown, and you were on the receiving end.
2. Say it with me, Ray, and repeat over and over, "There are many examples of transitional fossils."
3. Evolution is neither theistic, nor is it atheistic. Evolution is a science, and like all science, it deals with empirical, observable, predictable evidence in a natural universe. That's all. End of story. Period.
4. Species is not the same as "kind".
5. You're not a scientist, Ray. Stop trying to fool everyone into believing that you are.

Scott stated that Ray apparently ripped out entire chapters from the book in his edition of Origin, and once again misrepresented science.

What? A Christian being dishonest? GASP!

I'm almost giddy with anticipation to hear about the aftermath of Ray and Kirk's visit to Berkeley. If you're a student or professor at Berkeley, please do us all a favor and record this debacle with your camcorder so we can all enjoy. Thanks!

The brainwashed mind of Ray Comfort.

Last week Ray went on one of his rants about how the Jews are Gawd's chosen people, all other races are gutter trash, blah blah blah. Apparently, Ray believes that since the Jews are still around while other nations like the Moabites, Jebusites, and Perizzites have gone the way of the dodo, somehow this means that Gawd loves them more than any other race and has protected them all this time.

Ray, if you're reading this, I would like to introduce you to an ancient nation known as the Egyptians. Some of the earliest known artifacts have been dated to around 3,150 BCE, and regardless of your pre-conceived, Bible-induced stupor about the Egyptians, they were among one of the most advanced civilizations in the ancient world. They were around long before the Israelites, and guess what, Ray? They're still here! I love how you conveniently left that little part out of your recent musings, by the way.

But what I really don't understand is that Ray believes Gawd led the Hebrews out of the hands of all those mean, horrible little nations and let the Hebrews rape their virgins, steal their land, and murder their infants, only to hand their descendants over to the Nazis 3,000 years later.

Can you explain that to me, Ray? Oh wait! Let me guess - gassing 6 million Jews was God's will. Right, Ray?

Your dinner invitation dangles by the slenderest of threads, Mr. Comfort.

Kirk Cameron and Ray are at it again!

If you pay any attention to the creation vs. evolution debate, you know that Ray and his clone Kirk Cameron are releasing Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" in its entirety, just days before its 150th anniversary, with one catch. Ray is going to put his own foreword in the beginning of the book. All 50 pages of it.

There's so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin. I've gotten to the point where I believe that Ray is totally void of any kind of critical thinking skills. I've lost count of the number of questions that I've asked him at his blog, all of which went unanswered. I know that Ray's a very busy person, what with all the books to sell and money to steal from otherwise good, honest people. But he can't convince me that he's so busy that he can't take five minutes to answer even one of my questions.

Ray and Kirk plan to go to the University of California at Berkley to distribute their book to students, as well as students in the top 100 universities in the country. I want a ringside seat if he comes to Penn State. Now that would be entertainment!

Meanwhile, the goons over at the WND is tripping over their tongues in defense of this ruse from Kirk and Ray. Cameron states, "An entire generation is being brainwashed by atheistic evolution without even hearing the alternative; and it's radically changing the culture of our nation." Irony of ironies! Once again, Cameron doesn't, nor has he ever, stated the fact that there are many Christians including geneticist Francis Collins, biologist Ken Miller, and paleontologist Robert Bakker, who accept evolutionary biology as fact.

Besides, Kirk, everyone in the United States who is capable of learning has heard about the creation narrative(s) in the Bible. A poll conducted in 2004 by ABC News revealed that 60% of those surveyed believe that Noah's flood was a historic event, and about 61% believe in Biblical creation. Ergo, we've all heard your alternative, Kirk. It's bullshit, and people are starting to realize it.

The introduction is also supposed to mention Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon as examples of scientists who believe in God. But typical of Ray, what he doesn't mention is these men were occultists and alchemists. The article also mentions Copernicus. A word to the buffoon who wrote this article, it's spelled Nicolaus Copernicus, not Nikolas Capernicus.

Kirk and Ray also want to discuss the intricacies of DNA. I don't know if they knew it or not, but DNA was discovered by James Watson and Francis Crick. Watson is an atheist, while Crick, who died in 2004, was an agnostic "with a strong inclination towards atheism". But, again, this is something that you'll never hear come from the mouths of Ray and Kirk.

I'm still scratching my head over what Ray thinks will happen when this fiasco takes place. Ray, if you're reading this, seriously - what the hell? People, particularly students, are starting to realize that Biblical creationism is demonstrably false, hence the reason so many are starting to think for themselves. Do you think these same students are just going to drop what they're doing, confess that you're right and every scientist who accepts evolution is wrong? Do you really think you're going to make a difference?

Again, Kirk and Ray, take my advice. Instead of blathering on and on and on and on and on about how scientists who've dedicated their lives to the scientific method push a lie in order to save their jobs (which is itself a lie), get an education. Go to an accredited university like Penn State, the University of Chicago, M.I.T., Arizona State, or USC, and study any of these sciences:

Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Genetics
Geography
Paleontology
Astronomy
Geology
Seismology

After you've attained a Bachelor of Science in any of these disciplines, then you can make a reasonable argument against evolutionary biology. But just repeating that creationism is a scientific alternative to evolution doesn't make is so. Again, creationism can retreat to the safety of a creator when all else fails and the evidence is stacked against it. And since science deals with what we can empirically observe in a natural world, a supernatural creator is not a scientific hypothesis.

One year from now when your book has been all but forgotten, I'd like for you to reflect on how monumental of a failure this debacle has been for the both of you, and everyone at AiG.

YouTuber ZOMGitsCriss summarized it best. Hit play.

Justice!

Poor Kent Hovind.

Sitting in jail for fraud and stealing from the government and ripping off his employees. Not only does he have about 7 years left on his sentence, but a federal judge has given the green light for the Feds to seize his creationist ermm...ahem, "theme park" for restitution. $430,400 and change. Ouch!

I seem to remember Ray saying something a few weeks ago about money being well spent on scientific research. I agree. I say the Feds should give that money to the National Science Foundation for research into evolutionary biology. That would be money well spent.

Whaddya think, Ray?

1 Peter 3:15: Why fundies hate it

Debate any creationist on astronomy or evolution, and you're likely to be met with a sneer. If you ask them to give a scientific alternative to either of these topics, they'll shut right up. If you ask what the red shift is, and they'll shut right up. Prove that their holy book of choice is not inerrant, and they'll shut right up. Ask them to reconcile Matthew 2:1-6 with Luke 2:1-6, and they'll shut right up. Nope, it's not very difficult to pull the rug out from under a fundamental creationist. Especially those who claim to love science, but don't have the first clue about the scientific method, let alone a theory.

Over the past few weeks I have been debating the fundies over at Ray's blog. The more questions I ask, the more I'm met with silence. It's annoying.

Skeptics often ask creationists for evidence of their claims, which always starts with, "In the begininning..." or some variant of "Abracadabra!" But whenever a creationist asks for evidence for the Big Bang, or evolutionary biology, they practically have the evidence thrown at them. Taxonomy, geology, astrophysics, chemistry, genetics, biology, you name it - the evidence there by the boatload for them to sift through. But the moment it's given to them, creationists just shrug it off like it doesn't exist. And the whole time, they say they love science.

Bologna sauce!

Enter 1 Peter 3:15. It says:

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

In other words, if you want to put that loud-mouthed, sniveling, snot-nosed creationist in their place, ask them a question about life or the universe based on science, cite this verse, and they'll flee from the Bible like a plague.

Creationists, listen up!

Meet Dr. Richard Lenski. Dr. Lenski is an evolutionary biologist at Michigan State University. He has won multiple awards in the field of microbiology, and is a fellow at the American Academy of Microbiology. We'll forgive him for teaching on behalf of the Spartan nation.

Over the past 20 years he has studied 12 populations of bacteria that have gone through a total of ~44,000 generations. Through successive mutations between 31,000 and 32,000 generations, the bacteria developed the ability to consume and metabolize citrate, something previous generations were unable to do. In other words, the e. coli developed a beneficial mutation.

This is just one of the hundreds of thousands of pieces of empirical evidence that evolution is ultimately fact. Organisms evolving beneficial mutations is is something that most of you regard impossible. But Lenski has proven you utterly wrong.

There are those of you who frequent Christian apologetic blogs like Ray Comfort's. Everyday when I go to Ray's blog I read commentary to the gist of, "Evolution is evil," "evolution doesn't exist," "there is no proof of evolution," etc. I have tried to reason with you. I've asked you to give a testable, scientific alternative to evolution, but you refuse to do so. The word "testable" is very important, and here's why.

Science deals with the physical, natural universe - that which we can measure and test.

You love to proclaim that there is scientific proof of God. But something that very few of you either seemingly accept or understand is that God is supernatural, and is therefore outside of space and time. God is spirit. God is unable to be measured or tested. Therefore, invoking a creator or deity of any kind is not science because every time you mention your god you invoke the supernatural, and put the clamp down on scientific research. Every time you mention a creator, you commit intellectual suicide.

I'm finding that it is impossible to reason with the unreasonable. You insist that people like Dr. Lenski and Ken Miller are evil monsters bent on turning children into godless drones. But you refuse to go to college, get a degree in biology, genetics, or engineering, to challenge evolutionary biology. Even a geography degree would help!

I have a challenge for you all. I want you to provide a testable, scientific alternative to the theory of evolution.

If all you can do is quote Genesis 1:1 to me, don't waste your time. I won't even read it.

Get busy!!!

Uhh, Ray? You might want to read this.

Science has once again trounced Ray's myopic worldview. From the New Scientist, March 10, 2009:

"For the first time, these scientists were able to demonstrate that the coevolutionary process is dependent on ecological conditions. Indeed, under certain conditions, the prey becomes resistant to the predator, which itself evolves so that it can attack this new prey. In addition, the scientists issued a warning against the previously envisaged use of this predator (Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus) as a "living antibiotic" because, like other antibiotics, this could lead to the selection of resistant pathogenic bacteria."

"Scientists in the Laboratoire Écologie et Évolution have used this type of experiment to understand how the environment influences the evolution of a pair of bacteria. One was the predator, Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus, and the other the prey, Pseudomonas fluorescens. The predator penetrated the prey and killed it by consuming it from the inside. This predator is a relatively common bacterium, one which British researchers have suggested could be used as a 'living antibiotic'."

In other words, not only has evolution been observed in a lab (again), but the predator/prey relationship is now even more fully understood, and that evolution is beneficial to humans.

Don't cry, Ray.

Ray's epic fail; creationists just don't get it.

Less than 2 weeks after it went on sale, Ray Comfort's book "You Can Lead An Atheist To Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think," has plummeted to number 1,366 on Amazon's book sales rank at the time of this writing. I've reviewed some of the commentary about this book, and even left some commentary myself. It should come as no surprise that this book has only garnered a whopping 2 out of 5 stars by it's reviewers.

As expected, the apologists for creationism have offered their best arguments. And as usual, they have failed. The usual tactics were used; quote mines, misquoting the Bible, taking quotes out of context (for some reason they love quoting Hawking), and ad hominem attacks. But they've come out with a new argument that I haven't heard before; atheists and agnostics just hate logic and science.

But the tactic that I love the most, is their invocation of creationists as part of their argument. Let me be the first to admit that, yes, creationists have done and continue to do great things for the advancement of science. Most notable of these creationists is Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the magnetic resonance imaging system, or MRI. You have to give credit where credit is due, and Mr. Damadian certainly deserves credit. By the boatload.

But creationists, don't stop with Damadian. They're quick to tell you about every other creationist who have made great contributions to science, as well as their status, what they've done, where they've been, where they're going, publications, political opinions, birthdays, and blood type. For instance, one poster at Amazon had this to say:

"Dr Raymond V. Damadian-Inventor of the MRI (The Nobel Committee snubbed him-probably because he is a creationist-and instead awarded Lauterbur and Mansfield, for their discoveries concerning MRI scans.)
Dr. John R. Baumgardner (Geophysicist) "the world's preeminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection."
Dr Ian Macreadie (Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist) Australia's Principal Research Scientist.
Dr. Ben Carson- the World's foremost Pediatric Neurosurgeon (the brain cannot be an accident of evolution)
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a 3-star NATO General) A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.
Dr. Robert Gentry- the world's leading authority of nuclear physics research. When he began his research, he was an evolutionist. Today, Dr. Gentry is a fully convinced young earth creation scientist.

Shall I go on? There are thousands of brilliant Creationist Scientist. And what about the Creationist Scientific Heroes of the past? Take a look:

Louis Pasteur- Father of Modern Microbiology, invented the pasteurization process and opposed evolution theory
Johann Kepler- Father of Physical Astronomy
Robert Boyle-Father of Modern Chemistry
William Kirby -Father of Entomology
James Clerk Maxwell -Father of Electromagnetic Theory
Charles Bell-Premier Anatomist and Surgeon
Michael Faraday-Father of Electromagnetism
Gregor Johann Mendel-Father of Modern Genetics
Isaac Newton -Father of Universal Gravitation
George Washington Carver-Father of Modern Agriculture
And many, many more."

The logical fallacies in this argument are blatant, but Christian creationists are so blinded by their own smug sense of superiority that they will never see them. First, and perhaps the easiest to see, is that these creationists used their logic and reason to make their mark in science; not their faith. Aside from that, most of the scientists that creationists will mention have died long before evolution gained solid scientific ground. Secondly, for every scientist that accepts creationism, there are 20 that dismiss it. Thirdly, they'll never mention an Islamic creationist who has done great things for science, like Ulugh Beg (astronomer), Abu Rayhan Biruni (earth science), or Ibn Zuhr, who was performing experimental surgeries and dissections around 1130 C.E. If he were Christian, he'd likely have been convicted of crimes against God and humanity and subsequently drawn and quartered, or forced to spend the rest of his natural life under house arrest like Galileo.

I don't know about you, but I love when creationists use people they've never met, and mention sciences that they have no concept of, to support their argument. They'll never, ever open a textbook to do any real research, and offer a scientific alternative to evolution. But they'll spend hours looking for quotes to bolster their argument, while bashing people who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of science just because they don't subscribe to their particular creationist worldview. What's worse, some have even started to refer to Ray as "Dr. Comfort," or "Professor Comfort." At which point I must remind them that even Ray is honest enough to admit that he's never received formal training in any of the sciences at anytime in his life.

Also, something that many Christian creationists do not realize, or will never admit, is that some of the icons they use to strengthen their argument were occultists. For instance, Galileo and Newton were practicing occultists throughout their lives. Newton even sent several men to their deaths because of fraud and forgery. Christians will say that this was a very Christian thing to do, of course, to which I ask, didn't Jesus implore us to forgive our debtors instead of killing them?

Or take Jack Parsons, the brilliant rocket scientist who gave us solid rocket fuel, and co-founded JPL. If it weren't for Parsons, our space program would not be as advanced as it is. It should be noted that Parsons was hand-picked by Alistair Crowley to help lead the Ordo Templi Orientis. Parsons was a devout occultist, and even prayed to the god, Pan.

Other notable occult scientists were John Dee, Francis Bacon, and Franz Mesmer, from where we get the term, mesmerize.

All the time that creationists spend looking for quotes to support their lame, antiquated, misleading arguments and reading Ray's books would have been better spent reading an actual biology book.

Good luck with that.

200 years in the making; Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin!

What a day.

Between helping my ailing wife, boning up on my geopolitical intelligence, and cooking, I took some time today to read some of the commentary about Charles Darwin, the man of the day, 200 years after his birth. It appears that the nation is still sharply divided over the evolution "controversy," even though there is no such thing. From those celebrating "Darwin Day," to "Academic Freedom Day," aka., "Academic Make-Up-Whatever-The-Hell-You-Want Day," I took in as much as I could.

Deciding to take a break from my homework, I sat rooting through the various cable news networks. MSNBC, Faux, when lo' and behold, whose face do I see gracing my television set; none other than Ray Comfort himself!

Ray was a guest opposite Pat Robertson on the 700 Club this morning doing his usual best to indoctrinate the masses and pimp his new book mentioned in my previous post. The interview kicked off by Robertson imploring, "Tell me about the essentials of Darwinism."

Ray responded, "Well, Darwin was a very bitter man who went into the ministry, fell away, never knew the Lord, lost his daughter at the age of 12, became very bitter at God, denied his faith and came up with this fairy tale for grown-ups." Personally, I can think of no greater fairy tale for grown-ups than that a man was made from dirt.

He continues, "It's basically idolatry, creating god in your own image. A god that doesn't demand moral accountability, and that's why it's so embraced by this generation." He goes on to say that atheists lack common sense, and are "not intelligent."Ray seems to be missing the well-established inverse relationship between fundamentalism and morality/intelligence; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

I'm not an atheist, but the last statement really cheesed me off. How much more insulting can you be, Ray? I'd like to see you tell Hawking that. You wouldn't last a nanosecond.

In short, the interview is 6 minutes of Ray verbally eviscerating those who don't believe as he does; that atheists are trying to take over the world and are immoral, evolution is evil, and anyone who "believes" in evolution is un-intelligent. I don't "believe" in evolution, Mr. Comfort; I accept it as a scientific fact.

Anyway, I just wanted to toss in my two cents and say thank you, Mr. Darwin. And Happy Birthday.

Watch Ray make a complete ass of himself below. Fast forward to 10:10.

Pro-Darwin billboard inflames Ray Comfort

Creationist fraudster Ray Comfort is releasing a book on February 12th entitled, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence But You Can't Make Him Think. This title has got to be the mother of all ironies. For those of you who don't know, Ray Comfort believes that mankind walked along dinosaurs and the Universe is around 6,000 years old. He also believes that the banana is the "atheists' nightmare" because:

1. It has a non-slip surface.
2. It is curved so that it can be eaten easier.
3. It has multiple sides for a better grip, thereby fitting perfectly in your hand.
4. It has an tab at the top, so that you can pull the skin away.
5. It's color-coded.
6. Once the skin is pulled away, it hangs eloquently in over your hand.

What Ray doesn't tell his audience is that the banana has been domesticated for at least 5,000 years, and that the wild banana is inedible. Listening to him speak is truly a "facepalm" moment.

Meanwhile, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has recently posted a billboard celebrating the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin. Not to be outdone, Ray has posted his own billboard calling Charles Darwin an atheist. Ray lies to his audience once again by leading them to believe that Darwin was an atheist, even though he was not.

"An agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”

Charles Darwin - 1879

Ray, if you're reading this pay close attention. An atheist is someone that does not believe in the existence of a deity of any kind, while an agnostic is someone who believes the existence of a deity cannot be proven nor disproven; in short, they just don't know for certain.

Anyway, leave it up to Ray Comfort to trash 200 years of scientific research for the sake of espousing his particular religion. Read more about this story here.

Watch a hysterical parody of the "atheists' nightmare" below and laugh at Ray. He deserves it.