1. Comment #429559 by mordacious1 on November 4, 2009 at 11:03 pm

Let me speak for Ray,

There were too many words in Origin, way too many words...

You can't expect people to read a book that is that long, can you?

Other Comments by mordacious1

2. Comment #429562 by Thurston on November 4, 2009 at 11:13 pm

That Eugenie Scott, the educator's educator, has to waste her time responding to Ray Comfort, the idiot's idiot, is such a shame. Needless to say, she does a fantastic job, but she might as well be explaining relativity to a chimp.

Other Comments by Thurston

3. Comment #429563 by Rodger T on November 4, 2009 at 11:16 pm

Unfortunately, even replying to idiots like Ray gives them more credit than they deserve.
This mental midget and his studied stupidity really just need to be ignored or laughed out of town.

Other Comments by Rodger T

4. Comment #429569 by Grace Margaret on November 4, 2009 at 11:37 pm

So Comfort censors out entire CHAPTERS of Origin? Why would that be, I wonder? Legally, should he be able to sell or give it out telling people it is a copy of Origins if he butchered and censored it? Are there any laws against such sleazy, blatant misrepresentation?

Other Comments by Grace Margaret

5. Comment #429572 by cafeeine on November 4, 2009 at 11:43 pm

Apparently this was discovered in the RD.net forums a while ago, but a question of whether he plagiarized parts of his introduction has just been mentioned on PZ's blog.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/no_surprise_at_all.php

Other Comments by cafeeine

6. Comment #429579 by rod-the-farmer on November 5, 2009 at 12:09 am

"Too many words" ??

I am reminded of the movie Amadeus, when the patron of Mozart commented on his new piece

"Too many notes".

Just take some out - which ones ? Aaaaccckkk.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

7. Comment #429580 by Sally Luxmoore on November 5, 2009 at 12:11 am

Comment #429576 by cvaster

Odd comments, verging on the offensive, from a christian apologist...

See previous posts:
http://richarddawkins.net/userComments,page1,60157

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

8. Comment #429582 by Grace Margaret on November 5, 2009 at 12:11 am

Young Christians who read Comfort are not going to know that they are being lied to because lying and stealing (plagiarism) is a sin and they will assume he is, um, AWARE of that. As a former Christian, I know I completely trusted that the adults around me were telling me the truth. I don't know how he sleeps at night.

Other Comments by Grace Margaret

9. Comment #429583 by debridement on November 5, 2009 at 12:13 am

6. Comment #429576 by cvaster

Speaking of DUMB comments... that was a doozie

Other Comments by debridement

10. Comment #429586 by Kmita on November 5, 2009 at 12:25 am

Ray Comfort on The Origin of Species:

"TLDR!"

Other Comments by Kmita

11. Comment #429588 by Ygern on November 5, 2009 at 12:31 am

cvaster, seriously, is that the best you can do? - attacking a relatively unimportant sentence in the article neither damns the argument nor the author. If Eugenie Scott has a defining characteristic, it is certainly not arrogance or egotism.

This series of articles highlights for me just how much time, energy and money is wasted refuting old nonsense over and over.

It doesn't seem to matter how many times ID or any of the tired old Creationist arguments are completely disproved and rebutted, they just keep on repeating the same old stuff.

I accept that no matter how many times this stupid propaganda is raised, someone has to stand up on the side of science; and we are very fortunate to have someone like Eugenie Scott to keep doing this.

Other Comments by Ygern

12. Comment #429590 by Century25 on November 5, 2009 at 12:32 am

Sisyphus had a walk in the park by comparison. The machinations of 'creationism cum intelligent design' is eternally revolting.

Other Comments by Century25

13. Comment #429591 by alaskansee on November 5, 2009 at 12:34 am

@ Comment #429576 by cvaster

Take a chill pill, the big question here is not the vagaries of Comforts statements of financial constraints (he may or may not be telling the truth - he's lying for god after all) rather why the Origin was abridged in the first place AND why this was hidden.

It's good to see Comfort manning up in the latest reprint but as has been posted already I doubt Banana Man understands little if any of the discussion he's involved in.

Other Comments by alaskansee

14. Comment #429592 by mordacious1 on November 5, 2009 at 12:43 am

7. Comment #429579 by rod-the-farmer

...and I thought the reference was too obscure.:)

Other Comments by mordacious1

15. Comment #429594 by chewedbarber on November 5, 2009 at 12:45 am

He must understand most of the discussion because it seems clear to me that he understands the implications of being wrong, and that is something that the more sophisticated theists have yet to understand.

How can he be a creationist?

Well, how can you accept evolution and ponder the exact point in time when the ape received its soul? --what!?

Other Comments by chewedbarber

16. Comment #429598 by room101 on November 5, 2009 at 1:16 am

Why, why, why must this toad (comfort) be given a forum. And by the likes of USNews, no less, a (formerly) reputable magazine. I know they don't "take sides", but wtf.

Turns out (PZ's blog has links) that our good 'ole xtian friend mr. comfort likes to plagiarize. One would think USNews would investigate and if true, lay it on thick.

http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2009/11/ray-comfort-plagiarist.html

EDIT: Didn't see that cafeeine beat me to this discovery.

Other Comments by room101

17. Comment #429600 by SaintStephen on November 5, 2009 at 1:28 am

Can somebody please rub Ray Comfort's nose in a vat of banana DNA separated by pulsed field gel electrophoresis and turn the voltage up really, REALLY high? Then, as you watch him writhe and twitch in this de facto Darwinian electric chair, please read from the following script:

Meet your cousins, Ray! They're here to assist you in your own evolution!

Then (yes, I'm not finished), turn off the juice, and scrape Ray's comatose gluteus maximus with a rusty grapefruit knife and insert the modified Ray-Banana DNA obtained into a marsupial embryo (a kangaroo, perhaps) that is then brought to term.

The result? A bouncing banana man fully on-board with the tenets of evolutionary theory. He would be great at parties, too. Oh, and please discard the earlier Ray in the proper bio-hazard container.

(Okay okay, I'm going, I'm going...)

Other Comments by SaintStephen

18. Comment #429606 by Border Collie on November 5, 2009 at 1:50 am

Sorry, this is simply too ridiculous. I was raised and grew up with these wingnuts and know how they think. Engaging and or debating these idiots presents the illusion that there's something to debate about and gives them artificial credibility they don't deserve. We're doing exactly what they want us to do ... fiddle-farting around in their playground, wasting our time, while they giggle behind our backs, really not giving a shit what we think. They've been doing it for centuries.

Other Comments by Border Collie

19. Comment #429609 by room101 on November 5, 2009 at 2:11 am

Border Collie:

Engaging and or debating these idiots presents the illusion that there's something to debate about and gives them artificial credibility they don't deserve. We're doing exactly what they want us to do ...

Precisely...

Other Comments by room101

20. Comment #429610 by SaintStephen on November 5, 2009 at 2:12 am

Eugenie Scott linked to Todd's Blog. Here's a quote from Todd, a Young-Earth Creationist Scientist:

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

This, my fellow Dawkinsians, is called cognitive dissonance.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

21. Comment #429611 by prolibertas on November 5, 2009 at 2:40 am

'You're entitled to your religious opinions — but not to your own scientific facts.'

Exactly.

Other Comments by prolibertas

22. Comment #429612 by prolibertas on November 5, 2009 at 2:50 am

Border Collie said:

'Engaging and or debating these idiots presents the illusion that there's something to debate about and gives them artificial credibility they don't deserve.'

But if someone doesn't debunk them, they'll say it's because we CAN'T debunk them. At the end of the day, the debates aren't to convince those who are already deadset in their creationism, but to stop others from being convinced by creationism.

I propose a third way- we debate and debunk creationists every time they raise their ugly face, but rather than getting actual scientists to do it and risking giving them an air of credibility, we appoint high school biology students to do it. Have the kids do it for extra credit or something, where by arguing the opposition they demonstrate their knowledge of what they've learnt, while having the fun of pwning creotards.

Then the creationists can't say we're 'too afraid' to debate them, but neither do they gain any credibility through debating actual scientists.

Other Comments by prolibertas

23. Comment #429614 by Border Collie on November 5, 2009 at 3:25 am

prolibertas ... I agree with you. It's the current cultural context that puts US in the double bind, not them. But, I'm not sure we can ever do much convincing as long as complete ignorance remains the default setting. I guess we can tread water until the paradigm shifts. Also, we could have one of those TV reality shows something like "Are You as Dumb as a Tenth Grader" ... It could be a cable or satellite TV show on some obscure channel between the hours of 2 AM and 4 AM. Maybe the BBC there or PBS here could carry it. I know there are some very smart kids out there who could kick their little creationist arses with ease ... It's getting late, I'm getting stupid. Good night all.

Other Comments by Border Collie

24. Comment #429630 by Roy_H on November 5, 2009 at 6:54 am

To quote Eugenie C. Scott :"But I have faith that college students are sharp enough to realize that Comfort's take on Darwin and evolution is simply bananas." Oh I like that !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo&feature=related

Why Ray Comfort is a "Fruit cake"

Other Comments by Roy_H

25. Comment #429631 by prolibertas on November 5, 2009 at 6:56 am

Haha it'd definitely be fun to see the Comfort/Cameron villainous duo torn apart by a tenth grader.

Other Comments by prolibertas

26. Comment #429633 by AshtonBlack on November 5, 2009 at 7:19 am

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere but:

http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2009/11/ray-comfort-plagiarist.html

The intro was plagiarised?

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

27. Comment #429638 by Stafford Gordon on November 5, 2009 at 9:01 am

It's 2009 and time to stop arguing about evolution; it's a fact and that's that; it is true!

The task is to teach children the truth before their native ability to think for themselves is damaged by adults who wish to control youngsters for their own selfish ends.

It appears that grown-ups who suffer from the effects of being fed pernitious myths in their youth have been rendered incapable of reasoning for themselves.

I don't think that any amount of discourse will free them from the fossilization of their mental faculties.

Those capable of learning and teaching should concentrate on doing so and not waste time trying to engage with individuals who are beyond the pale.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

28. Comment #429649 by UncleVanya on November 5, 2009 at 11:19 am

Oh dear - we seem to have been rumbled by Comfort:

"The Introduction also defines an atheist as someone who believes that nothing created everything—which is a scientific impossibility. Professor Dawkins believes that nothing created everything, and his belief is a big intellectual embarrassment to his followers".

You know, that has been something of an elephant in the room, all of us too embarassed to say anything about it.

Perhaps the worst part is the backhanded insult to Darwin:

"If he was alive today, I am sure that he would quickly rise to the top of Disney's imagineers or earn big bucks as a Hollywood screenwriter for science-fiction movies".

So, if the greatest scientist of a generation was alive today, he'd be working for Disney£ No offence to Disney, but that is quite a put down...

Other Comments by UncleVanya

29. Comment #429651 by Nunbeliever on November 5, 2009 at 11:21 am

I can't understand why a scientist would even have a conversation with a moron like Ray Comfort. He is so desperate for attention it hurts. We should just ignore him for the utter fool he is. He is not worthy of the attention that's been given him lately.

Can't we ever learn that we are playing right into the hands of the creationist by giving them attention. Their followers are not interested in facts or the truth. A good exampel of this was the debate between Dan Barker and the creationist Kyle Butt. After I saw the debate online I thought the creationists must be ashamed for not finding a more intelligent and civilized man to represent their faith. I mean, Kyle Butt is a moron even by creationist standards. Hence I was very suprised when I read the comments. Most creationists actually thought Dan Barker had lost the debate and that it was a great victory for creationists. That's when I finally realized we live in two COMPLETELY different worlds. There can never be a meaningful dialogue between creationists and sensible people any more than there can be a meaningful dialogue between people living in different universes.

In this respect creationists are as alien as E.T. to me. In a biological sense they belong to the same species, but not emotionally or intellectually. The only thing we can do is try to seize their power and try to isolate them and minimize their influence. But, we can never reach them. I'm sorry to say they are LOST!

Other Comments by Nunbeliever

30. Comment #429662 by Tyler Durden on November 5, 2009 at 1:08 pm

Ray Comfort must've hit his head while very young, or is suffering from some unknown condition which restricts learning, because he cannot be this willfully stupid, can he?

I just read the Ray Comfort Responds to Genie Scott on Creationist 'Origin of Species' link:

Scott quoted a famous geneticist, who said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." I would like to drop one word, so that the quote is true. It should read, "Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution."

Really? Nothing in biology? Comfort has no clue what he is talking about here.

Nothing we have in creation is half evolved. The cow has a working udder to make drinkable milk. The bee has working apparatus to make edible honey. We don't find a half-evolved cow or bee. None of the 1.4 million species on the Earth has half an eye.

Poor Ray, knows nothing about biology or evolution but thinks he can opine on the subject. The Argument from Design - yawn!

Darwin was certainly on to something when he said, "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy."

This is quote-mining i.e. taking Darwin out of context. A typical cretinist ploy. Lying for Jesus, again.

I also visited the evolution museum in Paris (Grande Galerie de L'Evolution). I took a camera crew, and we spent an hour looking for the evolution exhibit. It didn't have one. All it had were millions of fossils of fully formed animals that God created.

I visited the Grande Galerie de L'Evolution in Paris last summer. The clue is in the title Ray - the entire building is one complete exhibition on evolution. You obviously had your own agenda ("God") and failed to learn anything in one of the most spectacular arenas dedicated to evolution and science.

The irony is that I can see them (gaps), and I'm not an expert on the subject of evolution.

Ya got that one right Ray. What exactly are you an "expert" on?

EDIT: Going to the Grande Galerie de L'Evolution and not seeing anything on evolution is akin to heading to see the Pacific Ocean and complaining you couldn't see it due to all the water.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

31. Comment #429663 by Jack Rawlinson on November 5, 2009 at 1:09 pm

cvaster goes after Scott for a casual, throwaway joke yet ignores the whole point of the piece?

I think we know what cvaster's deal is, don't we?

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

32. Comment #429665 by bendigeidfran on November 5, 2009 at 1:29 pm

We do have half-bees

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlrsqGal64w&feature=related

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

33. Comment #429668 by Tyler Durden on November 5, 2009 at 2:01 pm

Comment #429665 by bendigeidfran

Cyril Connolly? ;)

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

34. Comment #429676 by flobear on November 5, 2009 at 3:10 pm

Despite the deep pain it caused me, I still read all of Comfort's comments. I experienced a kind of dark pleasure from it and I fear this speaks to some kind of masochistic tenancies.

I'm guessing that all of the regulars on this site experienced the same feeling. Did you all find yourselves reading with your mouths progressively opening and your faces twisting into an expression of pain and confusion? Did your eyes bulge out further and further each time a new sentence was inflicted upon you? You should be inured to their arguments, but admit it - they still affect you (maybe not in the exact same way), even after the 100th time you've heard them. Yet, you read on.

Well, despite what the commenters have said, I don't think Comfort is an idiot. I think what pisses us off so much is that we know his arguments (however obviously wrong they are to us) might still work on some people.

Other Comments by flobear

35. Comment #429682 by SaintStephen on November 5, 2009 at 3:34 pm

25. Comment #429630 by Roy_H on November 5, 2009 at 6:54 am

Screenshot from the video link you provided:



Maybe it took God a few tries to get the anthropocentric design right...

Other Comments by SaintStephen

36. Comment #429683 by rod-the-farmer on November 5, 2009 at 3:46 pm

I too read the comments Ray Comfort makes. But I confess I have an urge to mark down every one he makes where I can rebut it, and publish my list. But then I say, way too much work, and he won't read them anyway, let alone correct his text/statements.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

37. Comment #429688 by Jos Gibbons on November 5, 2009 at 3:55 pm

Comment #429683 by rod-the-farmer

Mark down the ones you can't rebut. It will probably be shorter. Besides, it gives you an idea as to what to look up on Google.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

38. Comment #429689 by SaintStephen on November 5, 2009 at 3:59 pm

Flaubert on Comfort:

"To be stupid, and selfish, and to have good health are the three requirements for happiness; though if stupidity is lacking, the others are useless."

Other Comments by SaintStephen

39. Comment #429717 by Follow Peter Egan on November 5, 2009 at 5:08 pm

Some astoundingly stupid comments after the article.

Good articles by Scott, even if she is politely refuting the tiresome Mr Comfort.

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan

40. Comment #429828 by Rawhard Dickins on November 5, 2009 at 9:56 pm

Comfort is utterly convinced he is right, but don't forget what is at the core of his philosophy:

Comfort believes that God presides over the universe and has always been there, or perhaps made himself at some point.

We don't go along with that, for fairly obvious reasons, not least that we now have better explanations. That's the difference between religion and atheism, the rest is superficial.

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

41. Comment #429914 by crusader234 on November 6, 2009 at 5:55 am

Nature is merely callous and indifferent,thats how that annoying shit cumfart managed to sneak in.

Other Comments by crusader234

42. Comment #429978 by Roger Stanyard on November 6, 2009 at 2:17 pm

Flobear says

Well, despite what the commenters have said, I don't think Comfort is an idiot.

There is a good, balanced, case to suggest he is utterly out of his depth. Comfort has limited education - he can't even muster the basic intellect of a university graduate. Comfort, IIRC, left education when he was 17.

The problem isn't that he doesn't understand science. It's that he can't understand it, not even very basic science. He's had it explained to him, repeatedly, I understand, where he doesn't grasp simple since such as males and females of species co-evolved. He does not have the intellect to understand that evolutionary biologists do not and have never claim that males evolve long before females of the same species.

One only has to look back at the idiotic claims he made about bananas to get the point. he could have checked on Wikipedia to have seen how wrong he was.

Moreover, his apparent plagarism seems to suggest that he is unable to understand and communicate a coherent argument (in this case, his own).

Quite frankly, Ray Comfort isn't very bright.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

43. Comment #429993 by flobear on November 6, 2009 at 3:23 pm

42. Comment #429978 by Roger Stanyard:

Ok, you're right. He's an idiot.

Other Comments by flobear