On the header to Ray Comfort's blog he claimed that his old video comparing a coke can to a banana was intended as a parody. No, this video is an intentional parody:
Can you see the difference? (Actually I have a hard time with some satire because there are so many religious believers whose beliefs sound like satire).
Ray also says:
Atheists edited the coke can from a video clip and sent it around the world, saying that I believed that the banana was proof of the existence of God.
But that's exactly what Ray did say, that God created the banana. And he still says it having never grasped what critics meant. Ray is an amazingly bald-faced liar (and I'm not sure if he knows he is lying he is so deeply immersed in the world of his delusions). Does he really think the coke can part added anything to his point? He was comparing one man made product to another. The old video is on YouTube and Ray comes right out and says it:
Note those words: "You'll find that the maker of the banana, the almighty God... Just like soda can makers, God has placed a tab at the top..." etc.. As many of my readers probably know already, that's not how things really happened, but stick with me, I'll take you deeper into Ray's mistakes. Ray clearly didn't know that bananas, like many of the other plants we eat (and animals for that matter), are a product of thousands of years of human selection. Man designed the banana. As far as being natural and wild goes, Ray could hardly have picked a worse example.
His fundamental point was that God designed modern bananas, and evolution isn't true, and on that point he is dead wrong. Wild bananas have seeds, ancient bananas were barely edible, but the common banana Ray used in the video was cultivated and made seedless. His banana example cannot sexually reproduce. It's a clone. Those bananas are grown from offshoots of the parent plant rather than through the process of sex and fertilization that might otherwise take place.
One result of that is that the banana's genetic information hasn't changed as much as it could have if it were mixing its genes up sexually and evolving that way. The problem is that the world of plant diseases has evolved and changed and our commercial bananas were in danger because they haven't kept up. However, genetic engineering may come to the rescue.
That ties into another question Ray doesn't understand -- why sex evolved. Recall Ray's comically inept understanding of sexual evolution:
"Darwin theorized that mankind (both male and female) evolved alongside each other over millions of years, both reproducing after their own kind before the ability to physically have sex evolved. They did this through "asexuality" ("without sexual desire or activity or lacking any apparent sex or sex organs"). Each of them split in half ("Asexual organisms reproduce by fission (splitting in half)." Ask A Scientist, Biology Archive, http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99927.htm.)" -- Ray Comfort
Darwin theorized no such thing. Ray just bald-face lied to everybody again. Ray reads a few sentences from a science article and then thinks scientists are postulating that men and women were two separate species before sex evolved? How ignorant can someone get? There was no 'mankind', or anything remotely close to it when sexual genders evolved.
All sexually reproducing organisms derive from some very ancient common ancestor which may have been a single celled eukaryotic species. Many protists reproduce sexually, as do the multicellular plants, animals, and fungi. At the latest, sex may have developed in primitive ancestors that more resembled sponges and worms because there are some species of worm and sponge that are not quite sexually differentiated. Some worms are asexual. Plants haven't even differentiated much from each other as many plants can reproduce asexually. There are only a few animal species which have lost gender differentiation.
However, Ray isn't entirely wrong to point to sex if he wants to baffle "evolutionists" for there are indeed some profound mysteries to why sex evolved. Wouldn't parthenogenesis have a reproductive advantage over sexual reproduction? After all, with sex, half the species can't have babies. Well, Wikipedia's "Evolution of Sexual Reproduction" has some information about what scientists are actually proposing, but it's mostly rather abstract. And I could show you a good bit of probable answers to when and how sex evolved, but one of the big mysteries for me was why it evolved -- that is until I did a bit more research on Ray's bananas. With the banana we get a pragmatic example of why sex is necessary and why it dominates the animal kingdom.
As noted above, Ray, if geneticists (almost always "evolutionists") can't save the banana, may no longer have bananas to use in his videos. Ray's modern world would fall apart if there were no evolutionists.
Ray makes comically asinine remarks on his blog and his television series, regarding subjects about which he knows nothing. When Ray is called on his ignorance, instead of admitting he was ignorant of all this science, he simply lies, just like when he said the banana bit was him doing comedy on purpose. He obviously wasn't because the real story of the banana is a powerful argument for evolution which he doesn't believe happened.
By not admitting to his mistake he has clued us all into the fact that he will lie to cover his errors. Why? His ego perhaps, or perhaps he wants to keep his reputation among his followers who appear to be dumber than he is. When Ray is factually wrong, as he often is, he refuses to admit it (take his banana video, please). If he really wanted to convince us that he had some important truth to impart he wouldn't try to lie his way out of these jams he gets himself into. It's rare to find a Christian one can argue in good faith with. You'll note that none have shown up in the comments section on my blog to argue my points in a long time. Too many sacrifice my potential faith and trust in at least their honesty to protect their egos and cover over their ignorance, a task they generally fail to accomplish. They rarely enter into the arguments in good faith or with a sense of mutual exploration of reality. They always come apreachin':