Ray Comfort thinks slavery is nifty

In todays offering of half-baked 'wisdom', Ray Comfort redefines Roman slavery to be gentle, kind, and loving. This is true in some cases, but certainly not the vast majority.

Romans considered slavery as a type of death and slaves were never considered as human. A roman slave was not allowed to have a family. His children were the property of his dominus. It was common for a slave's head to be forcibly shaved so their hair could be made into wigs for the upper class. They had no honor nor pride. They were not protected under law and had no right to sled defense. They were not entitled to trial if charged with a crime.

Rome always have a fresh supply of slaves from nations it conquered. The vanquished were frequently condemned to slavery. A popular form of birth control in Rome was for new parents to abandon their child on the street who would be taken in as a slave by another family. Pirates would attack ships and take passengers as slaves and sell them in Rome.

The life of most Roman slaves was a nightmare. Slaves were often whipped, branded and cruelly mistreated. Their owners would also kill them for any reason, and wouldn't face any charges. Misbehaving slaves could face crucifixion.

Slaves were minimally clothed if the situation allowed. House slaves had more clothing, farm slaves just a cloth and maybe wooden shoes.

Comfort nonsensical claims the movie Ben Hur, a completely fictional work of the late 1950's, is an accurate portrayal of how well Roman slaves were treated: with great love and respect. He simply couldn't be further from reality. If he was to have the courage to watch Star's Spartacus, he would have a much better idea of how loathsome the life of a slave was.

These fatuous claims of Comfort's just further undermines any pretext of credibility when he speaks to morality.  Ray Comfort is a despicable excuse for a human being.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Petition to remove Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, Institute for Creation Research from Google Scholar

Google Scholar provides a simple way to broadly search for scholarly literature. From one place, you can search across many disciplines and sources: articles, theses, books, abstracts and court opinions, from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories, universities and other web sites. Google Scholar helps you find relevant work across the world of scholarly research.


Unfortunately, they are also listing the works of AIG, CMI, and ICR as valid sources for students to find information. These groups don't qualify as scholarly sources as they are not interested in facts or truth, but pushing their own biased view that anything that contradicts the bible must be wrong. 


Each group has the following statement in their 'About Us - Statement of Faith': "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." or something very similar. Clearly this is a license to lie and / or deny evidence that doesn't support their view. 


The National Center for Science Education collected over 800 signatures from scientists in the three states closest to the museum (Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio) on the following statement:

"We, the undersigned scientists at universities and colleges in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, are concerned about scientifically inaccurate materials at the Answers in Genesis museum. Students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level. These students will need remedial instruction in the nature of science, as well as in the specific areas of science misrepresented by Answers in Genesis."

Fortunately, there is a petition to ask Google to remove these sites from Google Scholar. I encourage you to sign this petition if you agree that these sites should be removed. Go here to sign the petition: http://www.gopetition.com/petition/42229.html

Ken Ham loves lying to children

Would you be proud to tell your children that the moon was really made from cheese? Or that the Sun orbited the Earth? Well, Ken Ham is proud that he tells children lies like the Earth is only 6000 years old, all the dinosaurs were vegetarian. He is proud that he is retarding the education of innocent vulnerable minds whom will later require years of remedial education should they choose to take a career in the sciences.

This is child abuse. It needs to end.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Australian floods are because we sin?

The dimwits over at Answers in Genesis offered this brain fart today:

The floods in Australia and the devastation they caused are ultimately our fault—all of us—every human being. It is not God’s fault.… But instead we should be angry at sin—our sin.

Yeah, its not the weather or nature. No. The floods are caused by god because he is angry at our sins. FFS! How can they be serious?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Ray Comfort's self-loathing

I don't believe, as you do, that humans are primates. How insulting...to primates.  -POSTED BY RAY COMFORT ON 1/13/2011 08:16:00 AM 

Some questions for christians

I have a few questions for theists. I think they are reasonable questions that most christians will have a very hard time answering. Please refrain from quoting scripture. I know the bible rather well and I am interested in your view, not the bible's.

1) Assuming god is omniscient, meaning he has all knowledge. Knowledge must be acquired and verified as accurate. How did god acquire his knowledge? How did he verify it as accurate?

2) Assuming god is all powerful, what are the limits of that power? Can god make a cat give birth to an elephant? Can god turn an bean into a preacher? I won't get into the problems with contradictions related to omnipotence.... yet.

3) What is god's purpose? What was he doing before he created the universe? Why would be need to create the universe?

4) How can god be three persons in one? How do you justify calling yourself a monotheist when 1+1+1 must always be three?

5) If the bible was true, accurate, and complete, it would be the final authority on every topic. Yet clearly, it fails on matters of science, history, and even mathematics. How do you come to terms with that?

6) I maintain that if the christian god exists, he is evil by human standards. Many christians try to defend the evils of the OT by saying that god can do whatever he wants; that he is above his own laws and making things good or evil at his whim. This is by definition an amoral being (without morals). How can an amoral being give moral laws when morality has no meaning to that being?

I will ask more questions later... but this is a good start.

Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name.