Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Ray's Outlandish Claim

I noticed in a transcript of Ray's radio interview that he said, "no chicken has laid an egg that hatched into a dog." I am absolutely weary of answering that kinda crap from him and I just couldn't bring myself to do it again.
He knows that is an asinine statement and I have come to think that he must think he is being cute, perhaps some New Zealandish type of humor I don't understand (I have sensed this quite a few times but cannot put my finger on it,) maybe even ai innocent fractured analogy to the theory of evolution. If that is true then his sense of analogy is not being seen for what he thinks it is.

It is obvious that Ray knows that is not the way evolution is explained. Since he is inferring that evolution is explained that way I am calling him out as a lying sack of shit. I consider the statement an outright tlie and an unethical attempt at obfuscation. I always hesitate to call someone a liar but in this case I am making an exception. Ray, that is a lie by inference. You know full well that no evolutionary biologists, or any other scientists for that matter explain evolution in that manner.

So, I went back half heartedly thinking I might respond to this horseshit and to my relief, found Steven J has again done a nice job:

Ray, if you think (as you said in your recent radio interview) that "no chicken has laid an egg that hatched into a dog" is some sort of refutation of evolutionary theory, then you don't understand the theory well enough to judge whether or not it is good science. If, on the other hand, you know that evolutionary theory does not posit such massive saltations (an individual of one species giving birth to an individual of a radically different species), and that no evolutionist from Darwin on has thought that mammals were descended from birds, then you are not honest enough that anyone should trust your statements about science.
August 14, 2008 12:57 AM


  1. Using the Hovind Scale to assign a value to how ignorant, scientifically illiterate and / or outright dishonest they are, I reckon this particular whopper comes out pretty badly.


    Belief in scripture
    Belief in scripture as the infallible word of God. Timeless, inerrant and absolute. (AiG/The flud etc.)

    Scientific Illiteracy
    Comfort Zone - As previous, but more extreme and puerile

    Kirk Cameron or VenomFangX

    Statement is logical and self-consistent

    Statement maker knows they are lying enough to try to mislead an educated audience, or they are repeating a lie that they have previously been corrected on

    Hovind Factor: 51

    30-59 - Profoundly Creotarded - A person who makes statements that fall into this category likely has little or no scientific knowledge, and they are probably to be found actively Lying for Jesus at every opportunity.

  2. Steven J wasn't the only one to call him out on that. I and at least three or four other people did as well.

    Ray ignored it. He'll no doubt repeat something similar in the future

  3. This seems to be how all his followers operate. Ethan makes a statement about atheists that he knows is untrue:

    I'm sure they also have the idea of "safety in numbers," thinking that when they do stand before God someday, that they'll have their angry mob to back them up.

    One thing you can say about atheists for sure is that they are not conspiring to band together to confront God in the hereafter.

    When I confronted Ethan he changed the subject and never answered the question. Keith jumped in and once again avoided the question. Never answered back.

    When confronted with a lie they don't back down. Neither Ethan nor Keith would admit that Ethan's statement was false. Why do they lie so much? How hard could it be to admit that the above senario would be impossible for an atheist? All I wanted to hear was for one of them to admit that statement was over the top. An exageration if the word lie was too much. How can you have a meaningful discussion with someone whose first sentence is a lie?

  4. Sorry guys,
    I had come upon Steven J's response first and reacted with that. I now see that y'all also jumped on this.

    "One thing you can say about atheists for sure is that they are not conspiring to band together to confront God in the hereafter."

    Yeah, Ihave never found freethinkers to particular clannish in any manner!

  5. And to think how I had to stand up for Ray and protect his reputation one day when someone said, "Ray Comfort eats shit sandwiches."

    I said, "Whoaaa! That can't be true, Ray doesn't like bread!."

  6. perhaps some New Zealandish type of humor I don't understand - Fuck no. I'm a New Zealander, and that's definitely not part of my humour heritage. NZ humour tends to be understated, self effacing, or taking the piss.


Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.