WND: Ray Comfort Disputes Bill Nye

Buffoon Award

Our weekend tranquility was once again shattered by blaring sirens and lights flashing on the wall display of our Retard-o-tron™. The blinking letters on the wall said WorldNetDaily.

WorldNetDaily (WND) is the flamingly creationist, absolutely execrable, moronic, and incurably crazed journalistic organ that believes in and enthusiastically promotes every conspiracy theory that ever existed. WND was an early winner of the Curmudgeon’s Buffoon Award, thus that jolly logo displayed above this post.

The Retard-o-tron™ directed us to an article titled To Ray Comfort, Bill Nye’s ‘science’ is ‘science fiction’. That title appears beneath a banner which proudly declares: “WND EXCLUSIVE.” This is information you won’t be able to find anywhere else! Aren’t you excited?

You know who Ray Comfort is. The last couple of times we wrote about him were here: WorldNetDaily, Ray Comfort, and Brain Death, and also here: Flat Earth, Uranus, & WorldNetDaily.

And you already know about the video in which Bill Nye Blasts Creationism. Now we can learn what Ray Comfort has to say. The article is written by someone named Michael F. Haverluck. We found an earlier WND article he wrote, Does science prove Noah’s flood? (he claims it does), so he seems to be the perfect choice to write about Comfort’s reaction to Bill Nye. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

TV personality Bill “The Science Guy” Nye’s recent tongue-lashing for those who doubt evolution’s theory that sludge advanced itself to become man has drawn a response from renowned evangelist and author Ray Comfort.

Great beginning! We can’t wait to continue:

“Bill Nye is living in the same dream-world as Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins and their cut-and-paste clone believers,” Comfort told WND. “These devotees believe in the fairytale of evolution and quote Einstein (who wasn’t an atheist) and Mark Twain (who wasn’t an atheist) as though they too denied God’s existence, when they didn’t.”

This is even better than we had expected. Let’s read on:

“To use the word ‘evolution’ and the word ‘science’ in the same sentence is the ultimate oxymoron,” said Comfort. “There’s nothing scientific about a theory that is based on blind faith.”

Ray Comfort never disappoints. We continue with more of his quotes:

“Atheistic evolutionists believe that nothing created everything – a scientific impossibility,” he said. “It couldn’t happen. So they redefine the word ‘nothing’ to mean ‘something,’ so that in their unthinking minds, they can justify their foolishness.”

He goes on to point out the many holes in the evolutionary account on the origins of life. “They also believe that life came from non-life,” Comfort added. “A big bang blew up rocks that produced 1.4 million different kinds of complex life forms – fish, animals, insects, birds and human beings; all with male and female (except for a few grubs) and all reproducing after their own kind, as well as trees, amazing fruits, myriads of beautiful flowers, oxygen, the oceans, the four seasons and a million and one other wonderful things.”

We’re skipping a lot, but here’s a bit more:

“Ask him [Nye] what is the purpose of human existence, and he will say, ‘We don’t know.’ Ask him what happens after death, and he will say, ‘We don’t know.’ I have spoken to hundreds of evolution believers and atheists, and they are all the same. They don’t know. They just believe, without question.”

Ah, but Comfort knows the answers to those questions. That’s what makes him so brilliant. Here’s one last quote, and then we’ll leave you to click over to WND so you can savor the entire article:

Evolution is unobservable. It’s based on blind faith in a few dry bones and on unreliable dating systems in which the gullible trust. Kids should be allowed to make up their own minds about this issue, and not be censored to ‘one side is all we will let you hear.’

Okay, dear reader. The Retard-o-tron™ has done it’s job, and so have we. Now it’s up to you to make sense of it all.

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

11 responses to “WND: Ray Comfort Disputes Bill Nye

  1. The WND cautions:

    Evolution is unobservable. It’s based on blind faith in a few dry bones and on unreliable dating systems in which the gullible trust.

    O, what I fool I have been to trust dem dry bones! And how gullible to have listened to them instead of the veracious WND!


  2. megalonyx wails: “O, what I fool I have been to trust dem dry bones!”

    I was wondering when you’d come around to the truth.

  3. Ray Comfort isn’t a creationist, I’m not even sure he’s a Christian. It seems unlikely he can be that repeatedly stupid and willingly uneducated. He’s the only creationist or preacher type I have seen that has a genuine smile on his face. You know that dishonest smile of Rev. Davies, Ted Haggard (before being exposed as a man-whore meth feind) and the like. Ray is a business man, he’s released the same book 7 times, reads from the same script and people give him money and he’s making a good living out of it. Ken Ham is the same way, but he’s fed up with smiling, every time I see him it’s like he’s going through a mental breakdown, he’s dead behind those eyes.

  4. Einstein may not technically have been an atheist, but his “god” was simply Nature as science revealed it – not a personal God and not therefore an Intelligent Designer. An impersonal intelligence is a contradiction in terms. Can’t have intent without personality; no intent means no design.

    As for Mark Twain, I don’t know what he means. Twain mocked religion constantly and didn’t appear to believe in a personal God either. He might have believed in a Deist God early in life; later in life he doesn’t appear to have believed even in that, but he didn’t publish anything too obviously atheistic while he was alive.

    Basically if someone famous, at any point in his life, made any kind of statement about a belief in a God, no matter how vague and poetical, no matter if later in life he abandoned this “belief”, someone like Ray Comfort will claim that he was not an atheist (and by implication this supports Ray Comfort’s religious beliefs, somehow). It’s sleight of hand trying to pass off “not an atheist” as “someone who agrees with me”.

  5. Twiggy120: “Ken Ham is the same way, but he’s fed up with smiling, every time I see him it’s like he’s going through a mental breakdown, he’s dead behind those eyes.”

    After all that he has said, after all of the money he has taken, how can he look everyone in the eye and tell them that he was wrong and his life was a complete waste?

  6. @crock: While the evolution-deniers freely claim famous people of the past as creationists on the slimmest of evidence, they are also eager to accuse moderns who accept evolution of being atheists.

  7. Charles Deetz ;)

    So much I could riff on here, but I’ll take on the overall point Comfort is trying to get across. Scientists are bold enough (stupid Comfort would say) to admit they don’t know HOW or WHY all the time. He drills at asking what evolutionists know or admit, like a smug know-it-all. All the questions he raises, creationists have the same problem providing answers for, except for goddidit.

  8. “Atheistic evolutionists believe that nothing created everything – a scientific impossibility,” he said.

    This is why I believe that Comfort is a con man. He has been repeating this claim for at least a decade and has been corrected roughly a million times. But he still repeats it like a mantra because he knows that people will keep throwing money at him.

  9. I think Bill could provide a reasonable answer to both of the questions that are posed. The Meaning of Life: Within a biological context, nature doesn’t appear to expect much of any species beyond living as long as possible in order to reproduce once or as many times as possible, evolution appears to be the potential reward for successfully pursuing such and agenda for long enough. What comes after Life?: Death is rather intimidating and we’ve wisely developed an aversion to it. The pathology of post mortem decay however is well documented. Neither answer makes for very exciting or motivational reading unfortunately. In the preface to a book about the North African campaign of WWII, A retired British General asks the question “Why are there so many books about war?” he answers himself by stating “War makes for much more interesting reading than peace”.

  10. If ignorance is bliss, then willful ignorance is Comfort. Your 15 minutes are long up, Banana Boy. Time to get off the stage..

  11. Dean, I’ve seen what you call “the pathology of postmortem decay” up close in space but removed in time. I worked on a crew moving graves out of a lake basin to a new cemetery on high ground. Postmortem decay doesn’t seem like pathology to me; it’s reincarnation in action. Purely biochemical reincarnation, but reincarnation, without question. What we found in the bottom of a grave was a layer of compost with bones, buttons, nails, and coffin hardware, and sometimes sentimental grave goods such as a clay pipe or a china doll’s head embedded in it.

    There are meanings here. The compost meant that the person’s nutrients had been reborn microbially. Sometimes tree roots extended to that layer. The roots meant the microbes were being reborn botanically. Tree leaves were being eaten by caterpillars, and seeds were being eaten by birds and squirrels, meaning that the tree was being reborn into the animal world even while it still had life of its own.

    So I know by observation what comes after life: different life. It makes me feel part of something huge. Biochemically speaking, I mean.