December 1, 2009

Banana Dick Debate Continues

[click picture to play]

We all recently handed out some books at the Universities and Ray is catching some rude comments for doing so. Ray has asked to "keep Richard Dawkins in your prayers. Our aim isn't to make him an enemy, but to see him converted before he goes to meet his Maker."

On that same subject, apparently Ray also allowed an interview with the Friendly Atheist if you wish to check it out.

Also, consistent with his so called "scientific approach" to evidence, Dawkins asked all his atheist friends to rip out the introduction instead of examining the evidence presented in Ray's Origin of Species.


  1. The funniest part is when Dawkins pretends to not know Ray Comforts name. What a liar.

  2. Comfort-

    What a loon.

  3. Hello Dan, long time no see...

    (and hello again Rod, aka Makarios)

    So what's going on here. Dan supports Ray, no surprise here, but Makarios comes to cheer for him?

    I thought that you were on the "rational" side of Christianity Rod? How can you associate yourself with loons (thx Froggie) like Ray Comfort and his thoughtless supporters like Dan?

    Didn't we have discussion about the origin of the universe? about Big Bang Theory, relativity, things like that?

    It's not directly related to evolution of course but it's just that I don't understand how someone can believe the Earth to be billions of years old, but at the same time accept the creation story that humans were created "as is"...

    You guys believe in "micro-evolution", right?

    And you Rod seemed to accept the fact that the Earth is old (4-5 billion years). I dunno about Dan... I guess not... please correct me if I am wrong.

    So why is it so hard to believe that micro-evolution, given enough time, will yield macro-evolution? Don't you see that it's the same thing? that we simply call it evolution nowadays?
    We would not even need DNA or the fossile records to get the big picture (but we do have them anyway...)

  4. I've actually read Ray's introduction, and it's factually and scientifically incorrect. Point to any claim he makes, and I'd be happy to explain why.

    He also plagiarizes some of his work.

    I love my copy of Ray's OotS; in fact, I have an autographed copy in my library. He's just wrong though, and those in the field of biology overwhelming agree with me.

    Or wait, maybe all these scientists KNOW they are wrong, but they secretly must have an atheistic or anti-god agenda. *puts on tinfoil hat* ;)


Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>