Talk:Origin of Species (2009)

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Comfort's logic[edit]

Comfort's logic is a mess. One of the arguments in the introduction to this book is: You can have one of the following, a famous painting, keys to an expensive car, lots of cash or a parachute; which do you choose? He then gives the reader one more factor into the choice: the pick must be done prior to jumping 10,000 feet from an airplane. If the person chooses a different item, that person realizes the fear involved with the choice. Therefore, given four religions, which does a person choose? And he includes one more factor to the choice: Everyone dies, therefore only one of the religions will let a person live a happy afterlife, and that religion is the one where the originator of the religion stated that only his religion will let the person live a happy afterlife. There are so many of these horrendous arguments throughout the introduction, which often has nothing to do with Darwin, Darwin's book, biology or evolution. --Irrational Atheist 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you new to Ray Comfort? That's all the man does, troll atheists to provoke heated comments to prove how terrible atheists are. And no, he has no grasp of logic (nor understanding of parody). Refuting his "writings" would be the work of several lifetimes. Z3rotalk 15:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not new to Comfort, but this one is far worse than his previous arguments. It ranks a few steps below the argument that evolution is impossible because male and female animals evolved separately. The level of absurdities in his new introduction is made worse by the fact that he has usurped one of the most important scientific books just to push his ignorance. --Irrational Atheist 16:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, he gets 10 out of 10 for strategic planning, but minus several million for good sense. Z3rotalk 16:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Would it be good fodder for inclusion in RW? One of the funnier lines in the intro is this: "So the atheist has a problem. If he doesn’t believe (as Darwin did) that there is a Creator, he is saying that nothing created everything, and that’s a scientific impossibility." --Irrational Atheist 16:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Ray Comfort is just an idiot. It's really that simple. In regards to that example above, the difference is that we know that the paracute is most likely to save us from a fall, many people have been seen to be saved with a paracute. Whereas the religion thing is like repeating the jumping question but just having the painting, keys and cash with no paracute offered. Scarlet A.pngmoral 16:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's the passage about the four religions:
Now think of the four major religions:
  • Hinduism
  • Buddhism
  • Islam
  • Christianity

Which one should you choose? Before you decide, here's some information that will help you determine which one is the wisest choice: All of humanity stands on the edge of eternity. We are all going to die. We will all have to pass through the door of death. It could happen to us in twenty years, or in six months … or today. For most of humanity, death is a huge and terrifying plummet into the unknown. So what should we do?

Do you remember how it was your knowledge of the jump that produced that healthy fear, and that fear helped you to make the right choice? You know what the law of gravity can do to you. In the same way, we are going to look at another law, and hopefully your knowledge of what it can do to you will help you make the right choice, about life’s greatest issue.

So, stay with me—and remember to let fear work for you.

After we die we have to face what is called "the law of sin and death." We know that Law as "The Ten Commandments."

So let's look at that Law and see how you will do when you face it on Judgment Day. Have you loved God above all else? Is He first in your life? He should be. He's given you your life and everything that is dear to you. Do you love Him with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength? That's the requirement of the First Commandment. Or have you broken the Second Commandment by making a god in your mind that you're comfortable with—where you say, "My god is a loving and merciful god who would never send anyone to Hell"? That god does not exist; he's a figment of the imagination. To create a god in your mind (your own image of God) is something the Bible calls "idolatry." Idolaters will not enter Heaven.

Have you ever used God's name in vain, as a cuss word to express disgust? That's called "blasphemy,' and it’s very serious in God's sight. This is breaking the Third Commandment, and the Bible says God will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

Have you always honored your parents implicitly, and kept the Sabbath holy? If not, you have broken the Fourth and Fifth Commandments. Have you ever hated someone? The Bible says, "Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer."

The Seventh is "You shall not commit adultery," but Jesus said, "Whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart" (the Seventh Commandment includes sex before marriage). Have you ever looked with lust or had sex outside of marriage? If you have, you've violated that Commandment.

How many lies do you think that you have told in your whole life? Have you ever stolen anything, regardless of its value? If you have, then you're a lying thief. The Bible tells us, "Lying lips are abomination to the Lord," because He is a God of truth and holiness. Have you coveted (jealously desired) other people's things? This is a violation of the Tenth Commandment.

So that is God's moral Law that we each will face. We will be without excuse when we stand before God because He gave us our conscience to know right from wrong. Each time we lie, steal, commit adultery, murder, and so on, we know that it's wrong. So here is the crucial question. On Judgment Day, when God judges you, will you be found innocent or guilty of breaking this Law? Think before you answer. Will you go to Heaven or Hell? The Bible warns that all murderers, idolaters, liars, thieves, fornicators, and adulterers will end up in Hell. So where does that leave you?

Perhaps the thought of going to Hell doesn't scare you, because you don't believe in it. That's like standing in the open door of a plane 10,000 feet off the ground and saying, "I don't believe there will be any consequences if I jump without a parachute."
Can't beat such reasoning, can you? --Irrational Atheist 16:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I like all the parallels he draws between non-living matter and living organisms. Also, a very laugh-packed quote about bananas: Even though we share 96 percent of our genetic makeup with chimps, that does not mean we are 96 percent chimp. Be careful you don’t fall for the illogic of this “evolutionary proof,” or scientists will not only make a monkey out of you, they’ll make a banana out of you. According to evolutionist Steven Jones, a renowned British geneticist, “We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn’t make us half bananas...
Actually, you can beat the reasoning about the Fourth Commandment: Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17) Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 16:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I like how he cites those biased lib-burr-rul sources, CBS News and the Wall Street Journal, to contradict what actual scientists said. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Einstein (a theist who didn’t believe in a personal God) rightly said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” We should all chip in to buy Mr. Comfort a white cane and a guide-dog. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I like how he equates swearing with that pedophilic rape/murder, and yaks on about "moral responsibility" but then waxes lyrical about how one can escape said responsibility by kissing YHVH's hind quarters. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
"THE four major religions" = LOL! First of all, Ray Discomfort preaches Protestant Christianity specifically, so in his mind, Catholicism (a huge denomination!) would make five. Eastern, etc. Orthodoxy has significant doctrinal differences with Roman Catholicism, so six. And what about less major religions, and ones that have been down on their luck for a while: Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism, and of course, Judaism. Orthodox Jews have very strong beliefs that Jesus was not the Messiah, and will go to great lengths to defend their positions. That makes 10! Finally, there is the naturalistic+mystical paganism/heathenism, which, in some form or another, was (and sometimes still is, and is now ascendant in Europe and the USA) every ethnic group's first (and/or) only religion to be practiced en masse by that group since its time of ethnogenesis. That makes 11. Also, the jury, in absolute terms, is still out on whether there is such thing as the supernatural. There are some great arguments for and against the existence or non-existence of gods, etc., but also some crappy ones. The preponderance of strictly physical/scientific evidence points to there not being any immanent entities or forces that could be described as supernatural with a straight face. However, that does not mean that all religion is useless, as belief/action motivated by religion can be useful and enjoyable in this known lifetime = kind of a reverse Pascal's Wager: one might believe in [what looks to outsiders like] utter nonsense and be in a better mental and/or physical state having done so, or one might not believe in any of it (atheism) and not really gain or lose too much = belief [and practice] -> more drama (good or bad) vs. non-belief [and non-practice] -> less drama (good or bad). So atheism, as "an ideology about religion," makes for 12 choices here (at a minimum!) ... and I could invent a new ["serious"] one tomorrow! (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


Interesting, he is trying to flood academe with this gem at USD 0.99 per copy. I guess it helps when most of your book was written by someone else and is out of copyright... ħumanUser talk:Human 23:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If it had included the full book it would have been worth getting at 99c, although a scalpel would be required to remove the diseased section. Strange how he removed the strongest material in the book. - π
The whole thing is just a publicity stunt, as noted in the article, and on their website: "will they BAN the Origin of Species?" No, they'll just ignore it... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The Christians [or at least their prominent leaders] ALWAYS remove or conveniently leave out the strongest parts of the books that attempt to refute their bullshit: Celsus, Porphyry, Emperor Julian, and now Darwin. Ray Comfort is a fucking prick! I always have feelings of revulsion (bodily sickness and anger) whenever I read any material that crawls out of his messed-up mind (or resembles his material). Do you ever read Enemy material and get sick or angry (or depressed, or any other strong emotions) from it? If so, how do you cope with these really annoying (or useful, the first few times, since they show you where you stand) feelings? (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ray Comfort and the abridge too far...[edit] of this post I'm rubbing my sore eyes and trying to wrap my sleep deprived and work muddled brain around this latest stunt by Ray "the banana goes where?" Comfort. In my time I’ve see creationists quote mine, I’ve seen them use ad holmium attacks, I’ve see them try to discredit the theory of evolution with naught much more than “I don’t believe it’s possible so therefore it can’t be” arguments. I’ve seen them try to use the court of law and public opinion to validate their crack pot “alternative theories.” I’ve seen them twist data, misrepresent facts, and use every tool of mass media a modern, mechanized society offers to screech at the top of their lungs that the theory of Evolution is the core foundation of all evil because it does not jibe with what a book penned about 1,500 years ago and has received more revisions than Michael Jackson’s face says about how we got here. But this…this…is almost beyond words. Just so I know dementia has not set it let me make sure I’ve got this straight.

He’s gone and scribbled down a few pages of rants against Darwin, evolution, secularism and all the usual stuff that gets fundy’s knickers in a twist, taken the Origin of Species (with a few chapters on geology he probably finds annoying because they detract from the idea of earth only being about 6,000 years old carefully pruned out), stitched this entire train wreck together with all the loving care of Dr. Frankenstein tripping balls on acid, and plans to pass out copies on college campuses. Dear gods and mother. Maybe dementia is setting in because this is either the most blatantly pathetic or retarded genius plan the creationists have EVER come up with. Why genius? Well Alice, follow me down the rabbit hole for a moment…

One its face it’s just another creationist attack on poor Charles Darwin. Now that’s nothing new, he’s weathered better from worse. It’s also another attempt by creationists to discredit the theory of evolution through personal attacks, quote mining (of both the Christian scripture and Origin of Species) and publicity. Again, been there, done that. Where this kicks up new dirt is by supplementing Origin of Species (already a controversial work, in the US anyway) with his creationist fantasies (relying heavily on Christian Scripture and thus leading straight to establishment clause territory) he’s created an absolute no win for science or schools. Think about it; if it gets accepted by (unscrupulous) teachers or (spoon fed) students he’s slipping his spacious arguments about evolution into schools without running headfirst into church/state debates. The title alone would keep it from raising an eyebrow on most book lists until its cracked open and by then it’s too late. Then if it does gets banned he can claim…

Wait for it…

That educators and students are rejecting the theory of evolution because they WONT ALLOW THE “ORIGIN OF SPECIES” TO BE TAUGHT IN THE CLASSROOM! Sure, the news story may say “Students shun Ray Comfort’s edited Origins of species.” But the part that will make it to youtube and the lecture circuit and all the talking heads is “Belief in evolution waning as students shun Darwin’s book, Origin of Species.” We all know the attention span and reading comprehension of the average person. No one who reads a headline line like that will dig deeper to find out the truth. He’s passing out a book that achieves his goals whether anyone looks at them or not. Its…its terrifying and foolish and wallbangingly brilliant AT THE SAME TIME!!

I seriously need a drink right now. And sleep. And another drink. Please…someone out there…tell me this there is a way to counter this. I’ve not given up hope for humanity yet but this one is really, REALLY has me wondering when the bloody meteor is going to hit and end the pain. --Tygrehart

The above delightful rant was copied by me from talk:wigo world. I think much of it deserves to end up in the article. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Had bad case of explosive verbal diarrea after reading about this and felt I had to say something. Thank you Human for moving it to the right spot. *bows* --Tygrehart
Twas not diarrhea, twas well-written, and you're welcome. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Alright. I've had a little sleep, a slightly less stressful day at work, and while no alcohol has been imbibed (yet) I’m now thinking a little more clearly. I’ve been thinking about the Forgery of Species Ray Comfort Food is going to be pimping out. Saw a brief clip of Kirk “Will act for food” Cameron making his announcement and it is as I feared. They are definitely trying to slip this one past the radar, probably knowing full well they are being lying, deceitful male appendages and waiting for just one photo op of someone dropping the book in the trash to use in their headdesk inducing sound bites.
Before I was just dismayed, confused, stunned at the audacity of this little stunt. Now I’m mad. We’re not talking upset, we’re not talking perturbed. We are talking fuming, eyes turning green, CNN all day live coverage, that’s alls I can stand I can’t stands no more, mad. While creationists lying their scripture hissing teeth is nothing new, this is taking it to an all time low. They know the “Origin of Species” they will be passing out is not the one Darwin wrote. They know how it will ultimately be received and are prepared to spin it to their advantage. So what can we do?
Bring attention to it? Gets them more press, which is what they want. Ignore it? Gives them the chance to slip it by, which is what they want. Trash it, reject it, decry it? That lets them say “people rejecting the Origin of Species” which is what they want. I say that, much like Faust, we give them exactly what they wish for and show them it ISN’T what they want. Everyone reading this right now knows Ray and Kirk are more full of $#!+ than an a butt plugged elephant after a two day chili dog binge. Maybe it’s time the rest of world knew it too. Maybe it’s time more than just Thunderf00t and PZ and the Rat Patrol here knew what scheming, underhanded, and above all, IGNORANT, pair of underpants gnomes they are.
As of today, and it pains me like cannonball to the conjugal dipstick to do so, I am going to do everything I can to make sure everyone knows exactly what this book is and what’s in it. Every forum post I find I will be going to lengths to explain this is NOT the Origin of Species Darwin wrote. Every review I see will include a comment from me stating how it was “edited” and what its real intentions of its publishers are. Every time I see Comfort and Cameron’s names mentioned I will link to the Banana vids and other posts of stupidity they have done. Every time this book comes up in conversation I will be explaining to all who will listen what load of horse hockey this "special addition" is. Is this playing into their hands? Probably. Is it going to change anything? Probably not. Will they still claim victory no matter what? Definitely. But if I have anything to say about it for every person they “win” I will be making sure there are a dozen others pointing and laughing at them. --Tygrehart

Woo I found a mistake[edit]

On page 9 of the PDF he draws an analogy about how the book couldn't have magically been made by chance. Part way through it says "...The paper trimmed itself and bound itself into a Bible..." He's obviously taken the analogy from the intro to a Bible and forgotten to change it.--Little Bobby Tables 15:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


The article says that Comfort has cut some of the chapters, but this online version has all of the chapters. Has he cut the chapters just for the give away copy or has he changed his plans and is actually giving the whole book away? - π 10:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The article you linked to on the Clogo page has the answer: "She will be pleased to know that the second printing of 170,000 copies (the one that we will give to students) is the entire book. Not one word will be omitted." In other words, the first printing was expurgated, the second won't be. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 10:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I read that afterwards. I'll update the article to reflect that. - π 11:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Living Waters renamed the name of the PDF file slightly, which broke your link. I've taken the liberty of fixing your link for you. (For the record, they just added two underscores to the front of the filename.)Ascorbate (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. - π 02:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I will start a plagiarism side-by-side here[edit]

Moved to article.

It really needs a lot of work, right now it looks like Comfort plagiarized the words "and", "the" and "Darwin". ħumanUser talk:Human 04:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about, is it actually important or are you just being stupid? - π 04:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't call me names. Right now all the coloring is on the left, with very little matching coloring on the right. I am trying to edit it right now and it's really hard. Should we break it up into sections to make life slightly easier? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The coloring on the right is, basically, missing. That's my complaint. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
So you like corresponding colours would you? Okay I can do that. - π 04:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I thought that was the whole fucking point. Glad you can do it, why is it so hard for me to? And I'm really trying. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't do it because I was taking the style from the Conservapedia articles and they are only ever coloured one sided. - π 04:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok, I guess. YOu know CP is incompetent, right? Anyway, it looks a lot better now, thanks. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry I got annoyed at you, this just took a long time to do I couldn't see what you were getting at. I thought you were trying to make a rather unfunny joke about him plagiarising ands and thes. - π 04:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
No blood, no foul. I really like it now, sorry if my first comment wasn't very clear. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it's not CP that was incompetent here, it was (maybe) me -- Pi meant the side-by-side plagiarism articles I wrote here, about CP, which (mostly, I think? it's been a long time) only colored one side. jtltalk 08:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(UI)PS, this is a really big deal, and we need to get the "news" of Comfort's blatant plagiarism out there. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Side by side plagiarism[edit]

How about making that a sub page of the article? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know it is not that long. However if we have to do more of these for the next 47 pages we might have to. - π 03:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Bravo for putting all that together, by the way. Tetronian you're clueless 04:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. - π 04:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


We are #4 for "origin of species (2009)" - but that's our title for it. We are buried at "origin of species comfort" and "origin of species". Sad. I hate to get all  K e n  D o l l  on this, but with the plagiarism aspect reported here first (!?) we should be number one, somehow. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was on the blog AiG Busted first, we are a very close second. We need to get links out there though. - π 05:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The comments on AiG Busted seemed to indicate that it had been shown elsewhere and reported much earlier with Comfort ignoring it. Scarlet A.pngmoral 09:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I first saw it discussed on Pharyngula when Kirk's video first started making waves, Here is the thread - I and maybe others immediately asked Ray about it on the blog, and despite rewriting the intro he ignored this issue. - BathTub

Comic Book coming.[edit]

Now Ray is making his introduction into a Comic Book. Illustrated by Esly Carrero

Video where Ray talks a little about it.


The artist's blog

No word on if any fact checking was done or the plagiarised material removed. BathTub (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The comic is now online, readable here:

BathTub (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's appalling... thanks for the link! ħumanUser talk:Human 23:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism, what Plagiarism, Version 3 now available[edit]

Here is the quietly edited new version of Ray's Origins.

Thanks, I'll add it to the article. - π 05:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


Silver, anyone? - David Gerard (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)