Question 51
Who said it question: "A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin [of Species] was the addition of biologists to unverifiable speculation...This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science." Comfort answers "Evolutionist W. R. Thompson."(Source: Introduction to The Origin of Species [New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1956])
Outdated
Source
Quote
Mine/Distorted message of author
A careful observation of the full text
from Thompson will reveal that Thompson's comments were not directed
at Darwin's theory as a whole, but at a specific example (not even
one of Darwin's examples) presented in the evolution argument.
Distortion
of Science
Unfortunately for Thompson, speciation
is an observed fact.
In-Depth Comments
“This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."(Source: W. R. Thompson, “Introduction,” to Everyman's Library issue of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species (1956 edition).)
Outdated
Source
Quote Mine/Distorted message of author
Click here to read why, and realize that Thompson's comments were not directed to Darwin's theory as a whole, only one example (which turns out wasn't really one of Darwin's examples.)
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."(Source: H. S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, May 1980, p. 138).
Outdated
Source
Appeal
to authority
Not a
qualified biologist
Comfort
said in the Introduction of this book he would be quoting
"evolutionary experts" and right here, Comfort provides a
quote from a non-biologist. As this quote explains, this is
all based on Lipson's personal opinion on the theory of evolution.
Lipson is not an "evolutionary expert" at all, he is a
physicist.
"Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. ...If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants."(Source: Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), pp. 765-766).
Quote
Mine/Distorted message of author
This is from an article that summarizes
the finding of a peer-reviewed paper elsewhere in the issue, which
reports on the discovery of complete specimens of halkieriids, a now
extinct taxon from the Early Cambrian period (tests that were omitted
are in bold):
“Palaeontologists are traditionally
famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris
of death. Mostly they cheat. Even extinct beasts such as dinosaur
have scores of living relatives (birds, mammals, reptiles) that make
reconstructions 'simply' a matter of competent comparative anatomy.
But how do you go about the job when there seem to be no close living
relatives on which to base the model? This is a problem particularly
when dealing with organisms that derive from the 'Cambrian
explosion.'
If any event in life's history
resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of
marine life when multi-cellular organisms took over as the dominant
actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to
Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological
revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the
origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the
Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern
descendants. But nature is wasteful. Most species never give rise
to anything, and present-day phyla derive from a lucky minority. Many
of the not-so-lucky fossil species may also be comfortably classified
in these same living phyla, but it is a feature of many Cambrian
assemblages that they contain a large proportion of forms that cannot
be so treated.”
We can see from the context that
"cheating" is just a case of making use of comparative
anatomy. Since in most cases soft tissue isn't preserved, it's not
unreasonable to make informed assumptions about the placement and
size muscles and such. But how does one reconstruct a creature that
has no living relatives?
It should also be emphasized that the
writer states that “If any event in life's history resembles
man's creation myths” (emphasis added). And obviously it's not that
much of a resemblance. These new “organisms took over as the
dominant actors in ecology and evolution” (emphasis added). This
wasn't creation from nothing, otherwise there would be no organisms
to take over from.
Question 52
Which well known magazine published an article about carbon dating (the method used to test the age of material) subtitled, “Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off”? Comfort answers “Time.”(Source: “Mistaken by Millenniums,” June 11, 1990)
Non-Academic
Source
Not
relevant to evolutionary theory or biology
This
reference only attacks carbon dating, not the theory of evolution. If
it was correct that carbon dating is completely unreliable, it
ignores the dozens of other dating methods available to scientists –
especially dating methods that, unlike carbon dating, accurately
calculate the age of objects beyond 100,000 years.
In-Depth Comment
“Carbon dating in many cases seriously embarrasses evolutionists by giving ages that are much younger than those expected from their model of early history. A specimen older than 50,000 years should have too little 14C to measure.Laboratories that measure 14C would like a source of organic material with zero 14C to use as a blank to check that their lab procedures do not add 14C. Coal is an obvious candidate because the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Such old coal should be devoid of 14C. It isn't. No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 14C.Fossil wood found in 'Upper Permian' rock that is supposedly 250 Ma old still contained 14C (A. A. Snelling, 'Stumpting Old-age Dogma,' Creation, 1998, 20(4):48-50). Recently, a sample of wood found in rock classified as 'middle Triassic,' supposedly some 230 million years old, gave a 14 C date of 33,720 years, plus or minus 430 years (A. A. Snelling, 'Dating Dilemma,' Creation, 1999, 21(3):39-41). The accompanying checks showed that the 14C date was not due to contamination and that the 'date' was valid, within the standard (long ages) understanding of this dating system.It is an unsolved mystery to evolutionists as to why coal has 14C in it (D. C. Lowe, 'Problems Associated with the Use of Coal as a Source of 14C Free Background Material,' Radiocarbon, 1989, 31:117-120), or wood supposedly millions of years old still has 14C present, but it makes perfect sense in a creationist world view.”(Source: “How accurate are Carbon 14 and other radioactive dating methods?” www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html)
Non-Academic
Source
Christiananswers.net
is not an academic source, and this particular web article was
authored by Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland -- none of
which are scientists.
Any
tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some
known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations
will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to
find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date
older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with
younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of
excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial
Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing
during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated
with radiocarbon. (Source: Faure, Gunter, 1998. Principles and
Applications of Geochemistry, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.)
Not
relevant to evolutionary theory or biology
This
reference only attacks carbon dating, not the theory of evolution. If
it was correct that carbon dating is completely unreliable, it
ignores the dozens of other dating methods available to scientists –
especially dating methods that, unlike carbon dating, accurately
calculate the age of objects beyond 100,000 years.
Distortion
of Science
The
wood mentioned found in 'Upper Permian' rock was found fossilized in
the Hawkesbury Sandstone, Australia. It is doubtful that the sample
was even wood. Snelling was not even sure what the sample was. Nor
could the staff at Geochron tell what the sample was. (Source: Walker,
Tas, 2000. Dating dilemma deepens: Moore on ancient radiocarbon.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative6-26-2000.asp)
It may not even have retained any of its original carbon. Using
carbon dating was pointless from the start since it would inevitably
give meaningless results.
The
sample was porous, making it likely that it would have absorbed
organic carbon from the groundwater. It was probably this
contaminating carbon that produced the date. Another possibility is
that some 14C was created in situ by natural radioactivity in the
surrounding rocks. (Hunt, Kathleen, 2002. Carbon-14 in coal
deposits. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html)
“It
is an unsolved mystery to evolutionists as to why coal has 14C in
it.”This is not
true. New 14C is formed from background radiation, such as
radioactivity in the surrounding rocks. In some cases, 14C from the
atmosphere can contaminate a sample. A few processes that can add
"modern" 14C to coal are:
- Sulfur bacteria, which commonly grow in coal.
- Secondary carbonates from groundwater that form on fracture surfaces.
- Whewellite, a carbon-containing mineral, that often forms as coal weathers.
Minute
amounts of contamination from these sources can cause apparent ages
around 50,000 years, which is near the limit of the maximum age that
carbon dating can measure.
Question 53
True or False question: the human “tailbone” is an evolutionary leftover and proof that man once had a tail. Comfort answers “False” and adds, “the 'tailbone' has nothing to do with a tail. It is the base of the spine, and is called the coccyx vertebrae. Among other things, it serves as a shock absorber when the person sits down.”No Sources Provided
Does
not damage evolutionary theory
Our current tailbone may have nothing to do with a tail, the whole
point it that it once did.Our tailbone may function as a shock absorber, but we can and have proven that we once had actual tails which we lost. Atavisms are great examples, were many babies are born with long tails (most have them surgically removed shortly after birth).
“The 'human tail' is just one example of what evolutionists call 'vestigial organ.' As the name suggests, these organs are supposed to represent useless remnants of what were once functional and useful organs in our primitive ancestors. As recently as 1971, the Encyclopedia Britannica claimed that there were more than 100 vestigial organs in man. Even critically important organs such as they thymus and parathyroid glands were once considered to be vestigial simply because their functions were not understood. As biomedical science has progressed, there are fewer and fewer claims of functionless organs. Despite their diminishing numbers, vestigial organs are still mentioned in textbooks as one of the strongest evidences for evolution and against intelligent design by a Creator. The most frequently cited examples of vestigial organs in man are the coccyx and the appendix.The human coccyx, or 'tail bone,' is a group of four or five small vertebrae fused into one bone at the lower end of our vertebral column. Most of is never really think about our 'tail bone' until we fall on it. Evolutionists are dead certain that the coccyx is a vestige of a tail left over from our monkey-like ancestors. The coccyx does occupy the same relative position at the end of our vertebral column as does the tail in tailed primates, but then, where else would it be? The vertebral column is a linear row of bones the supports the head at its beginning and it must end somewhere. Wherever it ends, evolutionists will be sure to call it a vestigial tail.Most modern biology textbooks give the erroneous impression that the modern coccyx has no real function other than to remind us of the 'inescapable fact' of evolution. In fact, the coccyx has some very important functions. Several muscles converge from the ring-like arrangement of the pelvic (hip) bones to anchor on the coccyx, forming a bowl-shaped muscular floor of the pelvis called the pelvic diaphragm. The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs. Some of the pelvic diaphragm muscles are also important in controlling the elimination of waste from our body through the rectum.” (Source: David N. Menton, Ph. D., “The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution” www.gennet.org/facts/metro07.html)
Does
not damage evolutionary theory
The coccyx was already addressed, and yet creationist still think that scientists claim that vestigial means "useless" -- this is incorrect. "Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or
visible sign left by something lost or vanished."Even if creationists can still rule out the human coccyx (which they haven't) they still turn a blind eye to other vestigial organs in other animals, such as leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish, extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats.
Question 54
A true or false question. Comfort asks “Evolutionists try to claim that the fossils Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui are "the immediate ancestors of the first birds.” (no source given). Ray Comfort answers “True.”Comfort then adds a comment from Science magazine: "however, these two fossils of flightless birds (similar to ostriches) have bird-like teeth and lack the long tail seen in the theropod dinosaurs they are supposedly descended from. Additionally, avain evolution researcher A. Feduccia said, "It is biochemically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balanced tails," exactly the wrong anatomy for flight.”(Source: Science, Vol. 274, 1996, pp. 720-721)
Does
not damage evolutionary theory
Protoarchaeopteryx robusta and
Caudipteryx zoui are two examples of dinosaurs developing
feathers. They show regiges, rectrices and plumulaceous feather
inpressions, but they are not birds.
Cannot verify the contents of the
Science article, which can be located
[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/274/5288/720.summary here], but
requires a membership to view.
As for Feduccia, notice Comfort is
citing Feduccia's conclusion, and not his evidence. There is no
mention that that his opinion is a minority opinion. Feduccia's peers
in the field of bird evolution are "authorities" too. In
short this creationist is saying that Feduccia is an authority and
that he says that birds are not descended from dinosaurs, therefore
birds are not descended from dinosaurs. It is a classic "argument
from authority." It is also very inconsistent. Feduccia also
says that evolution occurs, so if this argument is to be followed to
its logical conclusion, this creationist must accept the evolution of
birds from non-birds! One could also cite many more authorities that
say birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs. This is why one
should not pick and choose authorities. If Feduccia does turn out to
be correct and his views become established within the scientific
community, then the evolution deniers will probably become fond of
quoting what Kevin Padian and other proponents of birds being
descended from dinosaurs had to say about Feduccia's views.
In-Depth Comment
“Evolutionary ornithologists Larry Martin and Allan Feduccia, strong critics of the dino-to-bird dogma, believe that the fossils are more likely to be flightless birds similar to ostriches. Caudipteryx even used gizzard stones like modern plant-eating birds, but unlike theropods.”(Source: Ji Qiang, P. J. Currie, et al., “Two feathered dinosaurs from north-eastern China,” Nature, Vol. 393, 25 June 1998, pp. 753-761)
Question 55
Bible question: Which book in the Bible spoke of the earth's free float in space, thousands of years before modern science discovered the fact? Comfort answers “Job 26:7”... “He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.”Comfort states this was written around the time science thought that the earth rested on "the back of a gigantic animal." Comfort then states that he earth does indeed hang on nothing, and says the skeptic may just right this off as luck.
Not
relevant to evolutionary theory or biology
Distortion
of Science
Ray provides no source or reference
that the common belief (among the common folk or amongst scientists)
that the earth sat on the back of an animal or giant. Not one source, no references provided.
That aside, does the Earth "free float in space"? Does the Earth "hang
upon nothing?" Answer: no and no.
The gravity of the Sun pulls on the Earth, keeping it in orbit. If it "free float in space" as Ray and the Bible assert, the Earth would be a "rogue" or "orphan" planet with no sunlight.
Ray Comfort is aware of this fact, and he is aware that he is wrong whenever he asserts that the Earth does not "free float in space"... but he never admits when he is wrong.
Finally, does the Earth hang upon "nothing"? To define nothing is to say not real or non-existent but beneath the earth (and all around it) we find stars, meteorites, gamma rays, magnetic fields, cosmic dust, electromagnetic waves,and much more. That is not nothing.
The gravity of the Sun pulls on the Earth, keeping it in orbit. If it "free float in space" as Ray and the Bible assert, the Earth would be a "rogue" or "orphan" planet with no sunlight.
Ray Comfort is aware of this fact, and he is aware that he is wrong whenever he asserts that the Earth does not "free float in space"... but he never admits when he is wrong.
Finally, does the Earth hang upon "nothing"? To define nothing is to say not real or non-existent but beneath the earth (and all around it) we find stars, meteorites, gamma rays, magnetic fields, cosmic dust, electromagnetic waves,and much more. That is not nothing.
Creation on the Web, a creationist
website, specifically singles out the book of Job as not having scientific insight.
Instead, they say that Job is poetic, and should be read as the
author intended its readers to read it.
This passage also seems to contradict
Job 38:4-6, which refers to the earth having a foundation and
footings, in direct contradiction to the idea that it is unsupported.
Job 26:11 says heaven is supported by pillars. Many verses throughout
the Bible refer to a solid firmament. Also, the statement that
scientists once thought hat the earth rested on the back o a huge
animal is false.
In-Depth Comment
“The Bible talked about the 'circle of earth' long before Galileo did, when men thought the earth was flat. And before man understood astronomy, the Bible said that God had fixed the stars in the sky, keeping them in their place. Today we would say that it's gravity that does that, but again, God beat us to the punch. God is the one who put the forces in place, who gave order to the universe. As we, by His timing, have come to observe that order and understand the forces. It was this assumption (a God-ordered universe) that was the scientific starting point for many great scientists (Sir Isaac Newton, for example).He forces and the order are observable, but what has brought them about? Today scientists are looking for a grand unified theory—glue that brings quantum theory and astrophysics under one force/theory. Consider that God Himself is the unified field they're looking for. It is God Himself who decides that things will work differently on an astronomical level than on a microscopic level. Size is relative and irrelevant. Things should work the same on both the astronomic and the microscopic levels, but they don't. Hence there are baffled scientist trying to make sense of things, because God is not their starting point. Even if a force is discovered that explains things (like gravity), you're still left with the question how the force got there.”(Source: “Doesn’t modern science invalidate the Bible?” www.everystudent.com/forum/science.html)
Non-Academic
Source
First of all, this is not coming from a
academic or scientific source. It is basically a apologetic website
for young students with questions about the Christian God.
It seems this page no longer exists,
and we cannot verify who the author of this page is – therefore we
cannot identify their credentials and see if they are even a
scientist, historian, philosopher, etc. Keeping that in mind, lets go
through it. This page seems to be written by someone with an immature
understanding of science, scripture and especially history.
Not
relevant to evolutionary theory or biology
Distortion
of Science
The Bible states that it talked about
the 'circle of the earth,' but circles are flat and two-dimensional,
not spherical. Other passages in the Bible describe the earth as
being flat (Isaiah 11:12 and 40:28, Psalms 135:7, Mark 13:26-27, and
much more) as well as unmovable and fixed (Psalms 104:5 and 1
Chronicles 16:30 ) and resting on pillars (Psalms 75:3 ).
Stars do not remain fixed either. With
our universe expanding, everything remains in motion. Even our own sun does not remain fixed in one place in our galaxy.
To assume God as the answer who created
order in the universe is no better than claiming that universal
timeless sky pixies created an ordered universe. Using the old and
feeble argument “God dun it” gets us nowhere.
Question 56
Bible question: Which two books of the Bible said that the ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains, thousands of years before science discovered the fact? Ray answers: “2 Samuel and Jonah.”2 Samuel 22:16 says “Then the channels of the sea were seen, the foundations of the world were uncovered, at the rebuke of the Lord, at the blast of the breath of His nostrils.”Jonah 2:6 says, “I went don to the moorings of the mountains; the earth with its bars closed behind me forever; yet You have brought up my life from the pit, O Lord, my God.”
Non-Academic
Source
The Bible is not a scientific text, nor
was it written by scientists. In fact, it is full of claims and
stories that are unscientific and have been disproven by science.
Not
relevant to evolutionary theory or biology
The contents of religious texts having
nothing to do with scientific theories and facts. One could find any
sacred text and find a single or several passages that speak vaguely
and poetically of a naturally occurring phenomenon without fully
understanding its mechanisms or purpose. Whether the Bible, Qu'ran,
Vedas, Bhagitavita, or any other “sacred” text was correct about
the weather, none of it would matter in the slightest against the
theory of evolution. All Ray Comfort is doing is trying to pass his
favorite fables (the bible) as a credible source, thinking that
somehow proving his position right somehow disproves the theory of
evolution. It does not in the slightest anymore than it would
disprove the theory of germs or theory of relativity.
Distortion
of Science
How difficult is it to discover first
hand that the land beneath the waters is not flat. A simple
observation of an area of islands or shallow/clear waters can reveal
that the land goes into and out of the waters. If a ship's hull hits
a reef, one can instantly tell that the ocean floor is 1) not flat
and 2) you need to turn the boat.
Nowhere in the passage of Jonah does it
say that the mountains themselves are underwater. It merely implies
that their base is beneath the water. There's also very little
scientific evidence for the whole Jonah event even occurring in the
first place.
In-Depth Comment
Comfort provides an in depth comment from “Science & technology Focus, Office of Naval Research” explaining that if all of the water of the oceans disappeared, the ocean floor is not flat but contains mountains and valleys, volcanoes, ridge and other land features.
Not
relevant to evolutionary theory or biology
A flat smooth or rough sea bottom does
absolutely nothing to counter the theory of evolution or the process
of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations;
leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphological or
physiological composition. Basically this reference explains
the features of the ocean floor, but the Bible passages provided by
Ray Comfort do not include anything even remotely similar at all.
Question 57
Who said it question: who said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Comfort answers “Charles Darwin.”Comfort then notes the very next line is "But I can find out no such case." Comfort provides a comment by Geoff Chapman: “Darwin probably would have if he had seen the simple sea slug eating a sea anemone, which "reveals that millions of years would make no difference. If the slugs protective mechanisms were not complete and perfectly operating in its first attack, it would have died.”(Source: Geoff Chapman, "Sea slugs leave Darwin's theory slipping," Creation, Vol. 15 Issue 1, December 1992, pp. 24-25)
Does
not damage evolutionary theory
Thus far, Darwin is right that not a
single organism has been found that is too complex to have evolved
via natural selection.
Non-Academic
Source
Creation magazine is not an
academic or scholarly source.
Not a
qualified biologist
Comfort, in the Introduction, said he
would provide quotes from "evolutionary experts," but Geoff
Chapman is not a scientist at all. Rather, he is assistant pastor at
Turners Hill Free Church in West Sussex.
Chapman's example is rather poor,
because it leaves out the entire theory of natural selection,
mutations, geographic isolation, and much more. Evolutionary theory
explains that organisms adapt to their surroundings, therefore sea
slugs adapted to a particular place may not have any predators and no
need of a strong defense mechanism. However, the introduction of
predators contributing to loss of genetic diversity is what fuels
natural selection to develop stronger defenses mechanisms. Therefore,
there is nothing about the sea slugs that refutes Darwin's
prediction.
In-Depth Comments
“One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let’s call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that that one cane be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory...For the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true? I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.”(Source: Dr. Colin Patterson, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981)
Outdated
Source
"It is now approximately half a century since the neo-Darwinian synthesis was formulated. A great deal of research has been carried on within the paradigm it defines. Yet the successes of the theory are limited to the interpretation of the minutiae of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths; while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place."(Source: Ho, Mae-Wan & Saunders, P.T., “Beyond neo-Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 78, 1979, p. 589)
Outdated
Source
Question 58
Bible question: Which two books of the Bible spoke of the hydrologic cycle, thousands of years before science discovered the fact? Comfort answers “Ecclesiastes and Amos.” Ecclesiastes 1:7 says "All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again" and "If the clouds are full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth" (11:3). Amos 9:6 says "It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name."
Non-Academic
Source
The Bible is not a scientific text, nor
was it written by scientists. In fact, it is full of claims and
stories that are unscientific and have been disproven by science.
Not
relevant to evolutionary theory or biology
The contents of religious texts having
nothing to do with scientific theories and facts. One could find any
sacred text and find a single or several passages that speak vaguely
and poetically of a naturally occurring phenomenon without fully
understanding its mechanisms or purpose. Whether the Bible, Qu'ran,
Vedas, Bhagitavita, or any other “sacred” text was correct about
the weather, none of it would matter in the slightest against the
theory of evolution. All Ray Comfort is doing is trying to pass his
favorite fables (the bible) as a credible source, thinking that
somehow proving his position right somehow disproves the theory of
evolution. It does not in the slightest anymore than it would
disprove the theory of germs or theory of relativity.
Distortion
of Science
For how "clear" these
passages are, no one ever made predictions of evaporation based off
the Bible. Also, two of the steps, atmospheric transportation and
distillation, are not even close to being "mentioned" in
these passages. The evaporation of puddles is easily observable, so
it's not too unlikely that the writers of the bible could have
extrapolated from puddles to oceans.
In-Depth Comment
In-depth comment is from NASA's Observatorium, "Hydrologic Cycle" (http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/earth/hydrocycle/hydro1.html) explaining the cycle process.
Unlike
the Bible, this piece offers a far more astonishing explanation to
how the hydrologic system works. It includes the following:
condensation,precipitation, infiltration, runoff, and evaporation.
One of these five methods are explained in the book of Ecclesiastes
or Amos. All they provide are single poetic lines of water travel. It
really is such a shame that Comfort's omnipotent god couldn’t be
just a little better at grammar because it leaves his burblings open
to interpretation by any passing geezer with an agenda. Science, on e
other hand Ray Comfort, uses very precise language in order to avoid
such confusion, something which your best friend apparently thought
unnecessary when passing on his pearls of wisdom.
The
study of the Hydrolic Cycle is under the branch of Ecohydrology, not
biology.
Does
not damage evolutionary theory
The
Hydrologic Cycle is a proven fact, but its validity has nothing to do
with the theory of evolution, speciation, changing of alleles per
generation, and such.
Question 59
Who said it question: "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." Comfort answers Dr. T. N. Tahmisian of the Atomic Energy Commission(Source; The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B)
Outdated
Source
Non-Academic
Source
Comfort said in the Introduction of
this book he would be quoting "evolutionary experts" and
right here, Comfort provides a quote from a non-biologist. Plus, this
quote cannot be found anywhere in The Fresno Bee, rather it
can only be found on creationist websites, but no primary source is
available.
In-Depth Comment
“Considering its historic significance and the social and moral transformation it cause in western thought, one might have hoped that Darwinian theory...a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth.”(Source: Molecular biologist Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986), p. 358)
Not
relevant to evolutionary theory or biology
Distortion
of Science
Question 60
True or False question: The Journal of Science reported that scientists may have been a million years off in their belief as to when life appeared on earth. Comfort answers “False. They actually reported that they may have been a billion years off.”(Source: NBC News, August 1999)
Not
relevant to evolutionary theory or biology
This reference is only concerning
cosmology, not biology. This difference of a billion of years does
not change the fact of evolution and common descent amongst
organisms.
In-Depth Comments
“It is unknown when life first appeared on Earth, which is approximately 4.5 billion years old.The residue of ancient life that the scientists believe they have found existed prior to the end of the "late heavy bombardment" of the Moon by large objects, a period which ended approximately 3.8 billion years ago, Harrison noted. "Life is tenacious, and it completely permeates the surface layer of the planet," Mojzsis said. "We find life beneath the deepest ocean, on the highest mountain, in the driest desert and the coldest glacier, and deep down in the crustal rocks and sediments." An unanswered question is how life originally could have arisen from lifeless molecules and evolved into the already sophisticated isotope fractioning life forms recorded in the Akilia rocks.”(Source: “Scientists Strengthen Case for Life on Earth More Than 3.8 Billion Years Ago,” Science Daily, July 21, 2006 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060721090947.htm)
Not
relevant to evolutionary theory or biology
This reference does not damage or
criticize the theory of evolution as Ray Comfort wishes it does.
“We are faced more with a great leap of faith—that gradual progressive adaptive change underlies the general pattern of evolutionary change we see in the rocks—than any hard evidence.”(Source: N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution(New York, Columbia University Press, 1982), p. 57)
Not
relevant to evolutionary theory or biology
TOTALS FOR THIS SEGMENT (Q 51 - 60) 24 Total Quotes
| Fallacy | Number of Fallacies |
| Quote Mining | 3 |
| Appeal to Authority | 1 |
| Outdated Source | 6 |
| Non-Academic Source | 7 |
| Not a qualified biologist or scientist | 2 |
| Not Relevant to Evolutionary theory or Biology | 12 |
| Not Damaging to Evolutionary theory | 5 |
| Distortion of Science | 7 |
| Total | 43 |
No comments:
Post a Comment