Dr. Scott does a wonderful job of destroying banana man's ridiculous arguments here. But sadly, he will not listen. He is just going to continue repeating the lie that there are no transitional fossils. Even if you lay out every transitional fossil ever found in front of him to see with his own eyes, he will still deny their existence because he sees evolution as a threat to his religious beliefs. I guess he and Kirk Cameron are still looking for their crocoduck. Hey Ray, I am pretty sure that according to your ancient holy book, lying is a sin. Why do you keep doing it then? It is bad enough that you are distributing your bastardized version of Darwin's book with your deceitful introduction, but outright despicable that there are whole chapters missing from it. And by the way Ray, even if we did not have a single fossil, the genetic evidence for evolution is more than enough to prove it. You might want to try reading a book other than the bible sometime.
Skeptologicof CA6:13PM October 30, 2009
Really, Ray Comfort is just a zealot screaming into the cosmos. His tactics do nothing more than bolster the proverbial choir. I believe there isn't a single human being who will pick up Comfort's dishonest version of Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species", read it and turn away from reason and toward religion.
Reading a book like that is not what people of faith tend to do. They barely read their own books cover to cover. Many Christians can't quote from their own bible but anyone seriously interested in evolution can usually tell you a lot about what Darwin brings to the table. In other words, there is a vast difference between the faithful and the scientific.
Let Comfort wriggle in his waning world and let's just ignore the small people when they start shrieking nonsense. Eventually, they will coalesce into the separatist coven they are destined to become and we can all smile as we fly by them in our space rockets as they are terrestrial bound by their ancient beliefs and willful ignorance.
Emery Emeryof CA6:07PM October 30, 2009
Thank you Ms. Scott for the Sane Side of the discussion. The only side really. It is telling that Comfort would remove the portions of the book that would have made his one-sided, uninformed opinion piece in the front an obvious figment of fevered imagination.
The next two pieces eagerly awaited, though it is difficult to understand why breath - and writing time - need be wasted on this individual.
I also await the lier's response of "Scott and Comfort AGREE!!"
JackCof NY5:20PM October 30, 2009
Ray Comfort is not worth dealing with directly. He admitted just recently on his blog that there is nothing that will ever change his mind about the Theory of Evolution. Of course bashing the straw man of evolution he presents is how he makes most of his money, so why should he change his mind.
BeamStalkof OK4:45PM October 30, 2009
What's so ridiculous about Raytard's version is that he's afraid of letting Darwin speak for himself. Darwin made a very good case for evolution without the many transitional fossils that we now have.
Archaeopteryx is the quintessential transitional (a new study makes it even more primitive, but there's nothing new about the recognition that it wasn't the actual ancestor of modern birds--virtually no transitional is thought to be the actual ancestor of one of today's groups) that creationists like Comfort and Stephen Meyer are unable to explain, since it has the kinds of "poor design" that evolution predicts and explains. You'd think that they would get tired of making false claims about transitionals, but it's so hard to make any case when you're so wrong as Ray is.
A real introduction actually introduces the work, rather than doing little other than lying about it.
Reader Comments
Back to blog
Skeptologic of CA 6:13PM October 30, 2009
Emery Emery of CA 6:07PM October 30, 2009
JackC of NY 5:20PM October 30, 2009
BeamStalk of OK 4:45PM October 30, 2009
Glen Davidson of WA 4:12PM October 30, 2009