…and this is a 
Ray Comfort: not even wrong
Category: Creationism
Posted on: January 22, 2008 9:52 AM, by PZ Myers
Ray Comfort has a blog, and one of his entries claims that the Bible is a science text, and that it is better than science. His style of argument is to first list a "fact" from the Bible (usually something that is completely open to interpretation, and he chooses to interpret it as being in conformity with modern science); then he mentions a corresponding fact derived from modern science, that always agrees with the Bible; then he lists something from "science then," which is dead wrong.
It's so clueless it hurts to read it.
First fundamental error: science isn't a loose collection of facts, but a process for finding errors and testing new ideas. If you find places where science has changed our ideas about the world, that is a case of science working as it should — it is not a reason to reject it.
Second fundamental error: what the heck is "science then"? When? Where are the references to "science"? What we now think of as the formal process of science didn't really get rolling until the 17th century, you couldn't really call anyone a professional practitioner of science until probably the 18th, the term "scientist" wasn't even coined until the 19th, and there never has been nor will there ever be a central authority of science that one can cite as the formal source of specific pronouncements.
Third fundamental error: he's cherry-picking like a madman. He cites a mere dozen entries where he thinks the Bible can be confirmed as correct (pathetic as that is), and he ignores bits like biblical genetics. He cites the Bible as being the source of information on medical hygiene; if that's the case, why were the good Christian doctors prior to the 19th century so surprised at the idea of sterile technique and using soap and carbolic acid?
Here's a brief sample of the lunacy of Comfort — I'm not going to go through the whole silly thing.1. THE BIBLE: The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). SCIENCE NOW: The earth is a sphere. SCIENCE THEN: The earth was a flat disk.
Really? I would first ask where the Bible plainly says the earth is a sphere. The verse cited looks like this (don't be dismayed by the intense level of technical detail):
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
A circle is not a sphere, although translation issues do raise their ugly heads here. There are also references in Numbers, Ezekiel, and Isaiah to the "corners" of the earth — which would mean Comfort would be crowing if satellites had gone up and shown the earth to be a big cube.
Now show me a scientific reference claiming that the earth is a flat disk. The ancient Greeks figured out that the earth was a sphere, long before the Bible was compiled; a bunch of smart, disciplined philosophers is as close as you're going to get to a "science then", and they weren't saying what Comfort claims at all.
2. THE BIBLE: Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). SCIENCE NOW: Incalculable number of stars. SCIENCE THEN: Only 1,100 stars.
Wait: a passage in the Bible that says "I can't count that high" is now considered a scientific datum? Here's Jeremiah:
As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.
Uh, "host of heaven" refers to the angels, not the stars. This is metaphor and poetry; this is god saying that David will have lots of kids, as many as there are angels in heaven. If Comfort wants to pretend this is an assessment of the number of stars in the sky, then fine: David had fewer than 1100 children, so the Bible is wrong. Even if you count all of David's descendants, that has an upper bound of a few billion, and so is still wrong.
The number 1100 comes from Ptolemy, who cataloged the visible stars, at a time before telescopes. I think I prefer the estimate of a guy who sat down and actually tried to count what he could see over that of some priestly writer trying to flatter the fecundity of his king with an excessive metaphor.
Besides, Comfort's claim for "science now" is also wrong. We have calculated the number of stars: 1022-1024 stars. Now if God had said, "David, you're going to have as many kids as there are stars in the universe, which I happen to know is 110338764987014250551004," then maybe he'd have a case. Although then we could probably charge god with lying to David.
I leave the rest as an exercise for the reader. I'm sorry, but they don't get any smarter than those first two.
Comments
It's also VERY scientific to claim that the stars (also known as distant suns) can fall on the Earth ...
Posted by: James | January 22, 2008 10:05 AM
I don't even think this guy is worth debating...prompted by this blog, I went over there.
I don't think I've read much else that is this misguided and so illogically slanted towards woo.
Naturally I put in in my bookmarks for a bit of light relief on mondays... ;)
Posted by: Monkey's Uncle | January 22, 2008 10:07 AM
There isn't a single mention of bananas in the Bible. Comfort has in the past cited them as evidence for the existence of God. However, since they're not mentioned anywhere in his "science text," they either a) don't exist or b) are the work of Satan.
In either case, he is at least guilty of heresy and likely of blasphemy for his "Atheist's Worst Nightmare" video and the like.
Science, on the other hand, has no problem accounting for bananas. I'll bet we could even explain why Alex Comfort is bananas if it were important enough to do so.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | January 22, 2008 10:09 AM
I like what Bing McGhandi had to say about this:
And, later:
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 22, 2008 10:09 AM
And having gotten tired of scientists, the evangelicals go after the historians...
http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0115-05.htm
H. Res. 888, "Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history...." specifically proposes an "American Religious History Week" to be taught in public schools each May"
Hmm...wonder if they'll teach the Jefferson Bible, or the Treaty of Tripoli. Arguably, the way it is phrased, it requires the teaching of "American Religion" which to me would be the many beliefs of Native Americans, Mormonism, and Scientology. The others are mid-eastern and European-clearly not uniquely 'American'.
Posted by: RobertC | January 22, 2008 10:14 AM
Can science account for my Bananas? 'cos I can't...
They seem to have an irritating habit of disapppearing after I put them on the log near the tyre swing for safe keeping...I think it's that damned bunch of Chimp yahoos...
splitters!
Posted by: Monkey's Uncle | January 22, 2008 10:14 AM
It's Tuesday morning, papers to write, insects to identify, but the earth is an oblate spheroid, the bible is still wrong and his argument is circular). :)
Posted by: mothra | January 22, 2008 10:16 AM
I wish I could say something pithy about this, but all I can do is cry.
I need to make a YouTube video in which I plead with Ray to LEAVE SCIENCE ALONE!
Posted by: Jason | January 22, 2008 10:17 AM
You're letting yourself get upset by a grown man who thinks that bananas, allegedly, are an atheist's worst nightmare?
Posted by: Stanton | January 22, 2008 10:17 AM
Jason, it's not worth smearing your mascara over. If he can't leave bananas alone, what makes you think he can be reasoned into leaving Science alone?
Posted by: Stanton | January 22, 2008 10:20 AM
I'd also like to point out what one commenter said:
"I had an atheist recently tell me that those verses could mean anything."
You think?
Posted by: Jason | January 22, 2008 10:20 AM
Just once I'd like to see these fuzzy-thinking fundies actually make a specific scientific prediction before science discovers it, as opposed to retrodicting certain vague verses from the bible to fit scientific discoveries. When trying to be holy and righteous, there is apparently nothing like stealing someone else's work and claiming it as your own.
Posted by: Ric | January 22, 2008 10:21 AM
A quick perusal of the second half of the comments on that page show Ray getting taken to task for his extremely loose interpretations of the bible's verses. I'd so love to sign up and just say, "RAY YOU'RE A FUCKING IDIOT AND YOU'RE MAKING MY HOMEBOY KIRK LOOK BAD" but I don't even wanna get started on him.
Posted by: Kyle | January 22, 2008 10:30 AM
David W. Irish does a nice job of debunking the whole list in the comments.
Ray Comfort has a couple of replies... in which he completely deflects and ignores the substance of the criticisms, of course.
Posted by: tacitus | January 22, 2008 10:32 AM
I considered God's Promise to Abraham in some detail, particularly the founding Promise of the Abrahamic religions that Abraham would have as many descendents as there are stars in the sky and grains of sand on the sea shore. These are not small numbers.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=31529065&blogID=94136885
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=31529065&blogID=94228406
As I point out in these blogs, anyone who thinks the Apocalypse will happen before God has fulfilled His Promise to Abraham is calling God a liar.
The miracle of the loaves and fishes will pale in comparison to the miracle of 10^18 flushes (the required miraculous daily intervention in sewage disposal necessary to fulfill God's Promise to Abraham in 1,000 years or less).
Posted by: daedalus2u | January 22, 2008 10:33 AM
If bananas were in the bible, they would only be mentioned to scold women for thinking that, and for listing the clean and unclean uses to which bananas may be put.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 22, 2008 10:33 AM
Jer 33:22, emphasis added:
Compare this text that is just a few hundred years younger:
-- Archimedes: The Sand Reckoner, sometime between 287 and 212 BC
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sand_Reckoner and references therein.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | January 22, 2008 10:34 AM
Issac Asimov wrote an article many years ago analyzing what the Bible said about the shape of the Earth. He cited a number of verses saying or supporting the idea that the Earth is disk-shaped. Asimov was rather uniquely qualified to comment on the Bible and science.
The Greek stand-up philosopher Anaximander gave it a lot of thought and decided that the Earth is a cylinder, in about 500 BC. Fifty years later Philolaus gave it some more thought and decided that it's a sphere. Currently, NASA scientists are under pressure from the Bush administration to present both the sphere and disk theories equally.
Posted by: Bob Munck | January 22, 2008 10:36 AM
Gadzooks, man! Ray seems too stupid to fully appreciate his own stupidity. It's like someone dumped a bucket of ball bearings on the floor.
My personal favorite bit comes in one of Ray's comments:
Egads! The stupid burns like a misplaced simile.
Posted by: Dan | January 22, 2008 10:38 AM
Gee, and why is there no mention of the Americas, or Australia, or the North and South Pole, the tallest mountain (Mt Everest), the largest ocean (Pacific), the longest river (Nile), ...
And it's nice to quote the circle in Isaih 40:22 when in Isaiah 40:28 (only a few verses later), God says he created the extrimities of the earth, which clearly indicates a Disk, and not a Sphere (extrimities of a Sphere ?).
Well anyway, I think we're overestimating Ray Comfort;
"a Circle, a Disk, a Sphere, errr, it's all kind of the same, errr, its all kind of ROUND".
Anyway, it's not even a Sphere, but let's not get into that level of precision, because he probably doesn't even understand what the word precision means.
Posted by: negentropyeater | January 22, 2008 10:41 AM
I can vouch for the Biblical disk theory being a common interpretation. When I was a kid, I took religious education with a Hasidic rabbi and was told that, according to Genesis, the earth is indeed a disk. "The firmament," according to the rabbi, was essentially a dome that met the disk along its edged. He even drew a diagram for me.
Being a rather militantly orthodox rabbi, it was his contention that anyone who produced evidence to the contrary was falsifying whatever it was they said they had. It was all an attempt to destroy Judaism in his eyes.
It probably goes without saying that this was one of many reasons I didn't stick with the whole religion thing after my parentally-mandated religious lessons ended when I turned 13.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | January 22, 2008 10:51 AM
Here's what Ray Comfort thinks of atheists:
From: http://www.livingwaters.com/downloads/goodtest.pdf (the last slide, point 8).
Posted by: tacitus | January 22, 2008 10:51 AM
This is of the same mold as that MATERIALISM PREDICTS/THEISM PREDICTS list. I suspect that this list is going to be copy-pasted around creationist message boards and MySpace pages. In a few months, it is going to show up again somewhere. Some plagerism troll is going to paste this gem, without attribution to Comfort the Whackjob, thinking that he had confounded those materialists yet again. We will be seeing this list many times in the years ahead...its stupid enough that I doubt it will disappear.
Posted by: JakeS | January 22, 2008 10:54 AM
I thought it was a Coke can that determined the fundamental parameters of the multiverse?! His blog is going to fact-checked by the esteemed editor Denyse O'Leary. That's Den-y-se for you out there...
Posted by: danley | January 22, 2008 10:59 AM
But wait some of the comments are even more hilarious :
Esly Carrero (seriously brain damaged) noted :
"Thanks for this awesome, very well thought out information of bible study. This got me hooked cause I ABSOLUTELY LOVE SCIENCE!"
"I had an atheist recently tell me that those verses could mean anything.
It's incredible how decieved a person can be when the truth & the proof lies right in front of their faces!
In my flesh.. If it could be up to me.. I'd take my hand, grab their soul and shake it until it woke up! lol."
Well Esly, it's great to hear that you absolutely love Science, but it is not reciprocal.
Posted by: negentropyeater | January 22, 2008 11:00 AM
i haven't read through all the comments -- but i just had to say that i was so pissed off at this post of his that i, too, started to go through the crap, point by point -- what he said the bible said, what it actually said, what we knew about it now and what pre-christian societies knew (like, um, the greeks, fr'instance?).
i even found strategic carl sagan video clips. i've still got it in my drafts -- i think i got to point 9 or 10 or something... and then i saw this 'king me!' cectic again:
http://cectic.com/069.html and i lost all motivation.
WTF are we doing reading ray comfort anyway? he's just a master at his own self-comfort.
Posted by: toomanytribbles | January 22, 2008 11:03 AM
Here's one of the comments made on that disgrace of a blog:
"As Ken Hamm says, God's Word never changes, but you have to get updated science textbooks every couple of years."
So these people actually think that that's a good point for them? So if your 12 year old son showed the same knowledge of his surroundings as he did when he was 3 you wouldn't think something was terribly wrong?
Feckin' idiots.
Posted by: Dahan | January 22, 2008 11:04 AM
Wait: a passage in the Bible that says "I can't count that high" is now considered a scientific datum?
Why not? That's Ray's approach to complexity through evolution, after all.
HJ
Posted by: Bing McGhandi | January 22, 2008 11:10 AM
Sigh. I've been joining the conversations over on that blog for almost two weeks now. Some of the comments are almost painful to read, and I rarely even get a response on any of the points that I make.
It's like a crack addiction. It can't be good for me, but even after a couple of the religious arguments hitting the rock bottom of insane, I keep going back there, trying to combat the rhetoric.
Posted by: sinned34 | January 22, 2008 11:12 AM
"Circle of the earth" most likely refers to what can be seen by looking from horizon to horizon, from a central point. From the perspective of the viewer, looking 360 degrees around would give the impression that the viewer were standing in the middle of a giant, flat, circular plain.
Posted by: Steve Sutton | January 22, 2008 11:14 AM
One day, for his insanity, Ray Comfort will be sent to Religion Hell.
While the rest of us laugh it up in Secular Heaven!
Posted by: Spook | January 22, 2008 11:17 AM
ric wrote: "Just once I'd like to see these fuzzy-thinking fundies actually make a specific scientific prediction before science discovers it..."
You know, it turns out that all my scientific publications from the past ten years contain coded messages predicting every major event that happened during those years up to today. Give me a world event, and I'll give you a passage from my papers that alludes to it! (Don't ask me to predict later things - I need to know the event before I can figure out the code.)
Worship me!
Posted by: gg | January 22, 2008 11:19 AM
And he won't address any of the arguments made with him... he just makes lame comments. Typical.
Posted by: Steve_C | January 22, 2008 11:22 AM
Nah, he's wrong about a lot of things, as pointed out in the blog post.
But more importantly, these are incredibly old hackneyed fundy talking points, which are equaled only by the equally tendentious post-science reinterpretations of the Koran by Islamicists.
Somehow, these "scientific teachings" of the Bible and of the Koran never actually led any pre-science believers to the truth of the spherical earth or to any of the rest of Comfort's, etc.'s, fallacious claims, but have only been rendered in hindsight. I would like to ask Ray how believing Xians and Jews, with both the Bible (as well as pre-Biblical manuscripts) and their "divine guidance" (Holy Spirit, etc.), were never once able to come to the same conclusions that Greeks and others using mere rationality and empirical data came to understand.
Are numbers and data points better at communicating truth to us than God's revelation, after all?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 22, 2008 11:22 AM
Other fine biology facts taught in the Bible: Insects have four legs (Lev. 11:20-23); Rabbits chew their cuds (Deu. 14:7); and Satyrs, Cockatrices, and Unicorns were all real (Isa 13:21, Jer 8:17, Isa 34:7).
So, why do we bother with science textbooks again?
Posted by: Troylus | January 22, 2008 11:23 AM
@20:Being a rather militantly orthodox rabbi, it was his contention that anyone who produced evidence to the contrary was falsifying whatever it was they said they had. It was all an attempt to destroy Judaism in his eyes.
I am reminded of Lewis Black's commentary about Christians interpreting the Old Testament as if it was their own book. "It's not their book! And they're interpreting it wrong!" He then goes on to advise Christians to maybe ask the "owners" of that book how to interpret it, they are known as "Jews" and some may "even walk among you".
I'm making him sound more religious than he actually sounds in the routine, he goes on to say a few "colorful" things about the God of the Old Testament. LOL
Posted by: SteveM | January 22, 2008 11:23 AM
It's strange because when going through some of the threads on that blog, and some of the comments, I found things such as :
"Atheism- an adult fairy tale which allows unhindered sinful activity while hiding behind intellectual and moral self deception."
Makes me really pessimist about the future. What can you say to this ?
It's like, you say X, the other one replies X.
Makes me really, really, sad.
What's going on with human beings ?
Posted by: negentropyeater | January 22, 2008 11:23 AM
Why does he blame all the nutty ideas on 'Science Then'?
If anything, most of those should be 'Religion Then'.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | January 22, 2008 11:27 AM
Oh ouch. I just checked out a few other of his posts and it's painful. This ...um... ugh
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 22, 2008 11:29 AM
Hi Pharyngulites!
Long time reader, first time commenter.
Yes, it is pointless to debate Ray Comfort. I had to call him out twice before he even addressed my comment. I'm surprised those comments even made it through moderation.
He had two days to think up a reply, and when he does it's "How did Democritus see atoms?" Swing and a miss, Ray. He can't own up to even one simple mistake.
So, I'm done there. The amount of pure concentrated stupid burns my eyeballs.
Posted by: Rando | January 22, 2008 11:30 AM
I agree, that is what it means. What the believers seem unable to explain is that if Isaiah meant sphere, then why didn't he use the word duwr? It means ball (or sphere). Instead, he used chuwg (i.e., circle or compass). Isiah, like all his contemporaries, knew the difference between a circle and sphere.
He wrote, Isa 22:18: "He will surely violently turn and toss thee [like] a ball [written as duwr] into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory [shall be] the shame of thy lord's house."
The reason he used circle is that is what they thought: The world was a flat, circular disk not a round ball ('duwr').
That just one of hundreds of examples where the bible authors got it all wrong.
Posted by: JD | January 22, 2008 11:31 AM
RobertC (#5) said,
Interesting that you say that, I had a disagreement recently with a creationist who insisted that the study of evolution is a historical narrative, the inference being that history changes.
Are we seeing the evolution of creationist ideas, or is this an undercurrent?
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | January 22, 2008 11:31 AM
I have just had the most brilliant idea.
If, as Mr Comfort so ably demonstrates, the bible can be read as a science book, then surely it must be the best possible science book. For, since it is the inerrant word of God and all that, it is impossible that anyone will ever publish any errata.
We now know that there are things which are now known to modern science which were not known to science at the time the bible was written, but which are nonetheless predicted / explained in the bible. However, since we know that modern science is incomplete, it is not unreasonable to assume that some of the remaining truths of science are similarly encoded within the bible. In fact, since the bible is a finite size, presumably there are a finite number of scientific truths awaiting discovery, because if the number of remaining truths is infinite and any finite fraction are represented in the bible, the bible would be infinitely long.
So, perhaps some of the fundamentalist community might want to have a quick look through the bible and pick out the science bits that correspond to the stuff we don't already know. I'm sure the physics community would love it if the bible could give them some pointers as to which of their string theories was correct, for example. And a cure for cancer would be really nice. And then all of the remaining scientific discoveries will get made really quickly and then everyone can go down the pub. Everyone's a winner!
So come on, fundies - do something useful for a change!
Oh... you need the scientists to make the discoveries first so that you can then retrospectively 'interpret' the bible to find references to them? Never mind, it seemed like a good idea at the time...
Twerps.
Posted by: Daniel Rendall | January 22, 2008 11:31 AM
And, wow.
Sure is nice not having to wait for your comment to undergo "Is this too blasphemous to show the sheep?" moderation.
Posted by: Rando | January 22, 2008 11:32 AM
It's so bizarre when you enter that world and down is up and up is down.
It's completely pointless, for the most part, trying to reason with them, they truly have no idea how wrong they are, usually. Logic is beyond them.
Posted by: Steve_C | January 22, 2008 11:36 AM
THE BIBLE: You can get pregnant without sex. SCIENCE NOW: Mary was an adultress. SCIENCE THEN: Mary was an adultress. JOSEPH: Mary was an adultress.
ME: God was a rapist.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 22, 2008 11:40 AM
If you really want to beat your head against a wall, try reading some of the smug comments from Sye TenB who keeps repeatedly claiming it is impossible to know anything if the God of the Bible doesn't exist.
Posted by: Rando | January 22, 2008 11:43 AM
Re post #34.
My favorite is the bible's version of genetics:
So to get striped or speckled animals just put striped stakes near white animals and their offspring will be striped.
Posted by: JD | January 22, 2008 11:46 AM
This one really made my eyes prolapse:
"9. THE BIBLE: Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11). SCIENCE NOW: Blood is the source of life and health. SCIENCE THEN: Sick people must be bled."
I guess Mr. Comfort has never heard of leukemia, septicemia, or a few dozen other blood disorders. SCIENCE, however, has.
Posted by: Donnie B. | January 22, 2008 11:51 AM
We're not being elitist again, are we?
Posted by: Rey Fox | January 22, 2008 11:55 AM
I've had PET and MARI scans done on my brain, so I have much better evidence for its existence than most people...
Anyone had an EEG?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | January 22, 2008 11:58 AM
The Bible: You can see all of earth, if you get on top of a high mountain. Science Then: What? Science Now: No, you can't.
Luke 4:5-8. "And the devil, taking him up into a high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."
Matthew 4:8-11. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."
Neat trick, that. Showing him all the "kingdoms of the world," from a high mountain, when the earth is a sphere. And, what's the name of the mountain, again?
Posted by: Ryogam | January 22, 2008 11:58 AM
I've seen this argument before. A creationist named Greg Brown, whom I was debating online a few years ago, came up with a list of things science had denied for centuries, but which were presented correctly in the Bible. On his list:
Hydrologic cycle- Ecclesiastes 1:7, Isaiah 55:10
Evaporation- Psalm 135:7, Jeremiah 10:13
Principle of Isostasy- Isaiah 40:12, Psalm 104:5-9
Shape of the Earth- Isaiah 40:22, Psalm 103:12
Rotation of the Earth- Job 38:12,14
Gravitation- Job 26:7,38:6
Number of stars- Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:22
Uniqueness of each star- 1 Corinthians 15:41
Circulation of atmosphere- Ecclesiastes 1:6
Fluid dynamics- Job 28:25
Blood circulation- Leviticus 17:11
Biogenesis and stability- Genesis 1:11,21,25
Chemical nature of flesh- Genesis 1:11,24-2:7; 3:19
Mass-Energy equivalence- Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3
Atomic disintegration- 2 Peter 3:10
Yes, evaporation! All those scientists running around denying evaporation really got egg on their faces when it was discovered in the 19th century to be just like the Bible had predicted all along! Mind you, there are still a few scientists who deny evaporation (scientists are known to be hidebound and refuse to update their dogma just because the facts are against them). Why, just the other day, I passed a street-scientists on the corner wearing a poster declaring, "Evaporation is a lie, but evolution is true!" Fool. If only he'd read the Bible!
My take on all of these can be found at the bottom of the page here:
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/strange_creationism_ms.htm
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | January 22, 2008 11:59 AM
If elitist in this context means refusal to believe in stupid shit, then.....yeah.
Posted by: JD | January 22, 2008 12:01 PM
So what are you gonna believe, Troylus. Teh bible or your lyin' eyes?
Posted by: Larry | January 22, 2008 12:03 PM
By the way, if any of you want to get your grubby godless paws on some more serious science and True Biblical Knowledge(tm), just contact Ray Comfort (or someone at Way of the Master radio or whoever affiliated) and ask him to send you one of his bibles. All you have to do is mention that you are an atheist!
Just yesterday I received my copy. I was pleasantly surprised to receive a spiffy Evidence Bible (35USD value!). I also got some free tracts! Million dollar bill, wow!
I live in Finland and they shipped (28USD value!) it to me absolutely free! Act now!
___________
Okay so there isn't too much science in the Evidence Bible, but more of the same type of hilarity/inanity you can see at his blog.
- Henwli
Posted by: Henwli | January 22, 2008 12:12 PM
Amusingly enough, the falling star thing came up last week on a Christian radio broadcast. Can stars actually fall on the earth? Why, of course! The Christian apologist said (and this is a word-for-word quote!): "We have to beware of basing what we believe on what is possible."
[Link]
Posted by: Zeno | January 22, 2008 12:15 PM
It's easier to train a dog to ignore a steak dropped on the floor than it is to productively argue with someone who believes Ray Comfort type things. I don't know if that makes me feel more warm & fuzzy about dogs, or more cold and creeped-out about humans.
Posted by: Leon Spinks' Missing Teeth | January 22, 2008 12:22 PM
Dropped by over there and, in a spirit of charity, posted Augustine famous stricture on christians making damn fools of themselves by commenting on matters scientific. Awaiting moderation.
Posted by: Don | January 22, 2008 12:27 PM
I hope he does a math entry next.
Here, King Soloman is building stuff. He builds a pool:
"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." (1 Kings 7:24)
So its diameter is 10 cubits, and its circumference is 30 cubits. Ergo, pi is 3. Forget about the "and a bit". This is the inerrant Bible, so no fudging the numbers and saying "Well, they were just rounding..."
Posted by: jan andrea | January 22, 2008 12:29 PM
Sorry Ray. A philosopher and mathematician named Eratosthenes, born in 276 Bc, measured the earths circumference. Back then it was accepted knowledge in Greece that the earth was a sphere. More than 200 years before the birth of your saviour.
I guess that should pass for "Science then".
Posted by: Christian | January 22, 2008 12:32 PM
Posted by: ben | January 22, 2008 12:39 PM
Mike at #20 is right, biblical cosmology presents the Earth as a snowglobe, except with the air inside and the water outside (Genesis 1:6-8, Genesis 8:2). Above the disc of the earth, there are gates on the dome that generally keep the upper waters out, but open from time to time for rain, snow, sleet, and watery genocide.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl2.htm
It's SCIENTIFICATED!
Posted by: Spaulding | January 22, 2008 12:44 PM
Oops, my mistake, Ben (#61). I guess that'd qualify as a Freudian slip, eh?
Also Spaulding (#62), have you ever read the "apocryphal" Book of Enoch? It goes into mind-numbing details about those gates, although I think it has more to do with astrological influences than hydrology.
I wonder if Comfort (either Ray or Alex :) has ever read that book. As religious literature goes, parts of it are actually pretty good. It wouldn't make a bad movie; some of it reminds me a bit of Dante's Inferno.
Nah, he probably hasn't read it. It was kicked out of the Bible, after all.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | January 22, 2008 12:50 PM
Next thing, you'll be telling us the world ISN'T a tent!
Posted by: DaveX | January 22, 2008 12:51 PM
"We have to beware of basing what we believe on what is possible."
What? Huh? *turns and walks away shaking slowly head*
Posted by: MAJeff | January 22, 2008 12:56 PM
shaking slowly
Aigh...slowly shaking.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 22, 2008 12:57 PM
OUCH! OUCH! OUCH!
PZ you bastard.
Posted by: peter garayt | January 22, 2008 1:00 PM
Glen D #33: Somehow, these "scientific teachings" of the Bible and of the Koran never actually led any pre-science believers to the truth of the spherical earth
Medieval astronomers (both Christian and Muslim) were well aware that the earth was spherical. The idea that educted folks used to believe in a flat earth was invented by Washington Irving in his biography of Columbus. Irving needed an explanation for why Columbus had so much trouble getting his voyage to the Indies funded. The actual reason didn't make Columbus look too good, since it was that he had estimated the circumference of the earth to be 16,000 miles while the conventional wisdom of the late 15th century suggested that it was 24,000 miles. And Irving needed a heroic, always right Columbus, to fit in with his picture of the innovator discovering/creating a new thing (the U.S.) where nothing had been (known) before. So, clearly, he couldn't use the truth. So how to explain the fact that Columbus spent years having his project turned down? Invent the idea that the conventional wisdom of the late 15th century held that the earth was flat and that you could sail right off the side. Presto! Columbus is a visionary! Irving was a wildly popular writer, readers trusted him to give them facts, and his lie became the accepted truth.
Now, I can't say that it was the Bible that convinced the people of the middle ages that the earth was a sphere; I rather suspect that it was astronomical observation that did it. But let's not buy into the lie that "science then" used to teach that the earth was flat, because it never did.
Posted by: nm | January 22, 2008 1:04 PM
Even though it isn't a "scientific book," the Bible does contain scientific facts.
All twelve of them. Whoop-de-doo.
Posted by: CalGeorge | January 22, 2008 1:07 PM
I wonder if he really believes what he writes/says? Or is he just another "shepherd" fleecing his flock with his books, DVDs, courses and lectures? As recent new stories have shown, there is a lot of tax-exempt money to make in that arena.
Posted by: Eric | January 22, 2008 1:12 PM
"We have calculated the number of stars: 10^22-10^24 stars"
Ah, but only in the observable universe. God can probably observe even things outside his light-cone! That's just how cool he is.
Posted by: Olaf Davis | January 22, 2008 1:15 PM
This article makes a compelling case that the Bible is definitely talking about a flat Earth:
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/febible.htm
Posted by: Bay of Fundie | January 22, 2008 1:15 PM
Or another thought for the moron nm: Why don't you cease and desist from trying to suggest that I wrote something that I most certainly did not? Fucktard.
I've known your elementary school "revelations" since I was in elementary school, drooling idiot.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 22, 2008 1:26 PM
LMAO
Ray Comfort just posted this:
Rando said... So Ray, Are you going to correct your error that "science was ignorant of the subject of atoms prior to the New Testament" or are you going to continue to pass out those tracts with such a blatant error? I neglected to add in my previous post that, we got the word "atom" from Democritus."
Rando, I have done some research and you are right. Good one. I have made the correction on the site, and have contacted our printer to have the tract changed to include the sentence: "SCIENCE THEN: Science was mostly ignorant on the subject" (I added the word "mostly." Thanks for your input.
Well, I guess that's more than I was expecting him to do.
Posted by: Rando | January 22, 2008 1:46 PM
The Flat-Earth Bible explains Biblical cosmology: the Earth is flat and the sky is an inverted bowl.
Predicting Modern Science: Epicurus vs. Mohammed by Richard Carrier: Lucretius's On the Nature of Things is remarkably successful.
Posted by: Loren Petrich | January 22, 2008 1:59 PM
PZ, Would you invite Ray DisComfort to your university for an open-air debate?
Ray Comfort at University of Nevada Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp-GNYinkwM
Ray Comfort at University of Nevada Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGNXyahbV9I
Posted by: Eric | January 22, 2008 2:01 PM
Holy crap. That blog is a mess! And nothing screams "failed vitamin salesman" like a photo of Ray Comfort.
Posted by: Kristine | January 22, 2008 2:10 PM
I think that post just about summed it up for me... I sometimes wonder what it would be like to live in a ready made fantasy land...
Posted by: Automath | January 22, 2008 2:15 PM
"But, yes.. I know I'm...a tool "
There, even more concise.
Posted by: Rey Fox | January 22, 2008 2:17 PM
Hey Ray, "Science then" was actually religion after the Christian mobs killed Hypatia and the library of Alexandria was burned.
Posted by: Mena | January 22, 2008 2:19 PM