Behemoth Inferences

With his two latest posts (here and here) we get another science lesson from the science expert who brings you such gems as evolution created gravity and light is invisible. In this post I will touch on a few points: YECs' (Young Earth Creationists) views on dinosaurs, largest animals, the sources Ray uses, interpreting the Bible for science statements, and prophecies. Will any of this dissuade people like Ray using such ludicrous arguments? Of course not. Whenever things like facts and evidence get in the way, they play their trump card (God) and dismiss it. It reminds me of the homepage of my favorite creationist geocentrist site:

This site is devoted to the historical relationship between the Bible and astronomy. It assumes that whenever the two are at variance, it is always astronomy—that is, our "reading" of the "Book of Nature," not our reading of the Holy Bible—that is wrong. History bears consistent witness to the truth of that stance.

Young Earth Creationist views on dinosaurs.

YECs, like Ray Comfort, have a few competing conjectures (they aren't theories) on dinosaurs. For those individuals who think the Earth is somewhere around 6,000-10,000 years old, have you ever wondered what they have to say about dinosaurs? I remember being a kid and asking my father -- a well read and well versed man -- about dinosaurs; his answer was thoroughly unsatisfying. For him, the Bible is the Word of God and that's all there is to it. Accounting for dinosaurs is unimportant. What he had to say is he figures they were created and then killed off before Adam.

So, what do others have to say on it?

1. Dinosaur bones were put there by God to test our faith (just like the light from distant stars were created en route).
   
2. Dinosaur bones were put there by the devil to subvert our faith.
3. Dinosaurs lived alongside man until the Flood, wherein they were killed.²
4. Dinosaurs lived alongside man and Noah gathered them into the Ark. They slowly died off after the Flood.³
5. Dinosaurs lived alongside man and Noah gathered them into the Ark. They still live today in isolated areas of the world.⁴

If you ever have time to read about creationist views of dinosaurs, I highly recommend it for the levity. The probability of coming across the line "Scientists are baffled about what killed the dinosaurs. For creationists, it's really quite simple" is about 90%. If you look into it, be sure to also read about Flood Geology. Answers in Genesis has articles on most topics.

Ray does not state in his posts which of 3-5 he accepts.


Largest Animals
Ray commits a very subtle logical fallacy in his second post, if you can spot it. By his own dubious sources (see the section below on sources), he claims that the largest whale is 171,000kg (188 tons) and 90ft in length. He claims the longest whale is "over 110ft." The source where he got those numbers from says that the blue whales are the biggest animals to have ever lived, even bigger than dinosaurs. Ray makes the note of:

They are wrong about this. See the below quote about how dinosaurs are bigger

The quote below it says that the dinosaur (it makes no claim about it being the largest) was 100 tons and 120ft in length. Where is the fallacy? The reader to whom he is responding and also the statement in the source to which he is responding is claiming the largest creature. He challenges this by offering a longer creature.

The largest animal, which any fourth grader knows indeed, is the blue whale. Why does Ray reject this in favor of the dinosaur? Because it contradicts his "theory" that the biblical creature in question is a dinosaur, the largest animal.

Blue whales are the largest animals of all time. Females grow to a length of 79 to 89 feet, weighing well over 100 tons. The heaviest blue whale ever weighed was more than 190 tons, and the longest ever measured was more than 108 feet long.
-- Smithsonian Institute

The sources Ray uses.
I find the sources Ray chose to be rather comical. If I were looking for a website from which to cite a statistic, if I find it on a site, I would first ensure the accuracy of the information. In this, Ray has found a statistic for the blue whale, but the sentence which immediately precedes it contradicts exactly what he is arguing! Why in the world would you use a source which offers a statistic for your argument which has the entirely opposite conclusion? If you believe the first part of a statement is wrong, why would you trust the second part?

Behemoth and the Bible
I won't debunk the arguments specifically he uses. I will touch on a few of the logical problems of some, but there is a more general counter-argument below.

To justify the statement that the behemoth eating grass is a dinosaur, he makes the statement

What Did Dinosaurs Eat? "Although some fans of carnivorous 'Tyrannosaurs rex' and 'Velociraptor' may find it a bit disappointing — the vast majority of dinosaurs were plant-eaters. Most plant-eating dinosaurs had peg-like or broad, flat teeth designed for snipping or stripping vegetation."

But, vast majority (if that's accurate), is not all of them. Here is one of my biggest gripes with the whole dinosaurs living with man conjecture:

T. Rex: 43ft long & 7.5 tons
Giganotosaurus: 43ft & 6.2 tons
Spinosaurus: 59.1ft & 9.9 tons
Carnotaurus: 30ft & 1.76 tons
Carcharodontosaurus: 44ft & 3.20 tons

These are just five large carnivorous dinosaurs. Now, if dinosaur really lived alongside man, don't you think there would be a bit more than the obscure mentions of this behemoth? Do you know how many times behemoth is mentioned in the (New American) Bible? 2 times. Do you know how many times ass is mentioned? 84 times. Ox? 81 times. Cattle? 61 times. Lion? 111.

If these monstrous carnivores really lived alongside humans, don't you think it would merit a few more descriptions, given the Bible's propensity for such? Oh no, there are these giant dinosaurs eating our animals and our people, but that hardly warrants inclusion in here over the 84 mentions of the ass.

We don't even need to go into the scientific problems with this. Dinosaurs predated humans, grass had just shown up when the sauropods were in decline (and thus couldn't have eaten grass like an ox), etc. Plus, the description of the behemoth says that it eats grass as an ox. An ox chews cud. But the sauropods have no teeth, meaning they can't chew. But far be it for pesky little things as facts and details get in the way of YECs. If they broadly dismiss the overwhelming scientific evidence of dinosaurs not existing alongside humans, why can't they just as simply dismiss the scientific evidence that they could not chew? Behold: the never-ending supply YEC White-Out.

Interpreting the Bible for science statements.
What I find humorous is Ray's fellow YECs Answers in Genesis urging people to stop reading scientific knowledge into bible verses. Have you ever seen a list of science facts of the Bible? If not, I urge you to Google for it and spend time at Christian sites reviewing such lists (Ray wrote a book about them). Prepare to be underwhelmed.

Seeking to validate the Bible, they read scientific knowledge into passages in the Bible to misconstrue them into revealing some profound scientific knowledge millenia before it was discovered. This is just what Ray has done with dinosaurs and behemoth. Let me lay a few of my favorites on you from the same book that Ray has plucked evidence for dinosaurs from. I will give you the verse and see if you can figure it out before looking beneath it. (verse/answers pairs taken directly from a Christian site)

Job 38:19 "Where is the way where light dwells?"

Stumped? "Modern man has only just discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a "way," involving motion traveling at 186,000 miles per second."


Job 38:22 God says: "Have you entered into the treasures of the snow?"

Stumped? It wasn't until the advent of the microscope that man discovered that each and every single snowflake is uniquely a symmetrical "treasure."


Job 38:35 (God Himself speaking): "Can you send lightnings, that they may go and say unto you, Here we are?"

Stumped? The Bible here is saying a scientifically ludicrous statement -- that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves move at the speed of light?


Prophecies
People plucking things out of the Bible and trying to read scientific knowledge into it reminds me of people who try to validate the ramblings of "prophets" by reading historical knowledge into it. For example, take one of the most famous by that marvel of all marvelous prophets, Nostradamus:

Volcanic fire from the center of the earth
will cause trembling around the new city:
Two great rocks will make war for a long time.
Then Arethusa will redden a new river.

Stumped yet? Clearly, he is predicting 9/11.

"Hard" Philosophy

It amazes me, sometimes, the things that Ray says. He'll say that light is invisible... we just can't see it. He'll say he doesn't know why there are fires in California, but then turn around and say they're because God's punishing the homosexuals. And now, he says that atheists don't know what "hard" is because we don't have it written down in a book somewhere.

This is also from the same man who says that no one is good because God is the perfect good. By that logic, then, he must also admit that there is nothing hard because God is the perfect hard. Where in the Bible does it define everything that is hard, anyway? I know the places in the Bible where it defines things as good (sacrifice animals, own slaves, stone unruly children, etc), but I can't recall where it defines things as hard.

It would be nice for us atheists to have an imaginary friend who knows everything, like Ray has. After all, by Ray's logic if you were to have an imaginary friend who you claim knows everything, then you would know everything; you would have "absolute truth."

Without the solid foundation of the Word of God you will be blown about by the winds of an ever-changing secular philosophy.

Until Ray owns slaves and, upon having his virgin daughter raped, demands 50 shekels of silver and a wedding, I don't want to hear about the "solid foundation" the Bible has or how secular philosophy is "ever-changing." As I described in an earlier post, the Bible is ever-changing as well.

Today's Theist Memory Verse, VIII

The Setup

A bit of a long one today. The host, who has a virgin daughter, has taken in a Levite and his concubine.

The Passage
I've emboldened key parts of the passage if you wish not to read it all.

Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, [...] Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel. (Judges 19:22-29)

The "Moral" of the Passage

Yet another passage of misogyny and homophobia. The story is very reminiscent of the incestuous tale of Lot from Genesis. The passage is vile. Rather than suffer his male guest to be raped (or in some translations "met"), he offers of the guest's concubine and his own virgin daughter! How wicked of a passage is this.

The mob of perverts, at least, refuse the host's daughter and instead take the concubine and gang rape her and abuse her all night. Her fate? To die at the door of the host's house. Then, in a bizarre twist on the story, the guest dismembers the concubine and sends her to the coasts of Israel.

The legacy of this passage, and also the passage of Lot, is disturbing. Are you familiar with those institutions which try to rehabilitate homosexuals? This is a passage they use. The homosexual mob were offered women to have sex with and they took a woman and had sex with her all night.

This passage also continues the theme from the past few memory verses of the value of women. The daughter is nothing more than property to the man, so why would he not think to offer his daughter to be gang raped so that they would not take his guest?

Arrogance of Theology. Humility of Science.

"The most important scientific revolutions all include, as their only common feature, the dethronement of human arrogance from one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our centrality in the cosmos." -- Stephen Jay Gould

So, I was listening to the latest Way of the Master radio show (I'm a masochist), and there was something very revealing about the way theists think about Scripture and why we hear what we do with them about science. A person had emailed them about the new perspective on Paul, and he responds as such:

Why do we need a new perspective on Paul? There's an assumption that is built into the premise of the question and that is there is something wrong with the old perspective. Or is it that time has changed the Gospel that Paul delivered? Either one is ridiculous, so out of the shoot I say: if I'm going to take a look at a new perspective on Paul that means that every great man, every great woman who have [sic] gone before me and studied Scriptures and understood very clearly what Paul's perspective was, they were an idiot! I'm not buying that. [... brief digression on recent trend to bring new perspectives or thoughts...] It's not needed and it's not good!

That... is very revealing. Firstly, Scripture does change. It has changed a lot. How many hands has it gone through? You must not only have faith that it is the word of God, but you also must have faith that it has not been corrupted by intent or accident as it has been passed along. Then, it is a fact that it has been through many translations and you can look up where things have been lost in translation, lost to scribal errors, and lost in the evolution of language.

But let's just take the false premise as true, that it does not change. You know what else doesn't change? The physical world; how it operates. The mechanics which governed the natural world three millenia ago (the oldest that the Bible is dated) govern it today. Science is all out understanding it. When Newton put forward his law of universal gravitation, it was based on the unchanging world. If scientists were as obstinate as you, Einstein would have simply said:

Why do we need a new perspective on gravity? There's an assumption that is built into the premise of the question and that is there is something wrong with the old perspective. Or is it that time has changed the way gravity operates? Either one is ridiculous, so out of the shoot I say: if I'm going to take a look at a new perspective on gravity that means that every great man, such as Isaac Newton, who has gone before me and studied gravity and the physical world and understood very clearly what Newton's perspective on gravity was, they were an idiot! It's not needed and it's not good!

You know why it's needed and why it's good? Because if you are seeking veracity of your beliefs and not just the confirmation of them, you are continually open to new ideas in one area as new truths have been discovered in others. This is why it is good that men do not live forever, or else our understanding would be so bound to those who have come before us that no new understanding can gain ground and we lose something quite profound -- or rather, we will fail to gain something profound.

This should be something you would think people would be more than willing to embrace about the Bible. If they think it is truly the Word of God, that means that they think a perfect being, with perfect understanding and perfect wisdom and perfect knowledge wrote the Book. Shouldn't that, by the very premise, mean that they could not possibly perfectly understand it, if even at all? As Ray would say: how dare you? You are not omniscient! Only God is.

Arrogance, ignorance, intransigence, and obstinance.

Today's Theist Memory Verse, Vol IV

[Sorry for posting this one early. I will be taking a trip out of town tomorrow, so I am not sure if I will have a chance to update. I wanted to leave tomorrow's quote for sure, though, and I will post on whatever Ray has to say by Tuesday :-)]

=============

A passage of immorality for today from the "Good Book." To set this up: God comes to Moses tells him to war against the Midianites. So, Moses raises an army of 12,000 to "execute God's vengeance." The army kills every single adult male Midianite, but saves the women and children (along with a bunch of other plunder). They come back...

And Moses was angry with the officers of the host, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who came from the service of the war. And Moses said to them, Have you saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against God in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of God. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:14-18)

The total number of virgins that they kept was thirty-two thousand (Numbers 31:35).

I chose this one as it's one Paine uses in Part II of Age of Reason, which I am rereading this week. Let me provide a Theist Memory Quote from this:

Whenever we read the obscene stories the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon rather than the word of god. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it as I detest everything that is cruel.

Before introducing this Bible passage, Paine has to say of Moses, that:

The character of Moses, as stated in the Bible, is the most horrid that can be imagined. If those accounts be true, he was the wretch that first began and carried on wars on the score or on the pretence of religion; and under that mask, or that infatuation, committed the most unexampled atrocities that are to be found in the history of any nation.

Today's Theist Memory Verse, Vol III

I was going to do an immoral passage from the Bible today, but decided instead to do a humorous one. I'll always try to do those which most probably haven't seen before.

To set this up, Judah has had three sons, two of whom are Er and Onan. Judah has taken a wife for Er, but Yahweh didn't like Er, so he killed him, and...

Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a husband’s brother to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was evil in the sight of Yahweh; and he killed him also. (Genesis 38:8-10)

(EDIT 6-29-08)
The main reason I chose this passage is because it's humorous. It's humorous because (1) the way it is written/worded, and (2) God killed Onan over something so trivial.

I selected it for another reason, for which I am making this edit. This passage is where the concept of onanism comes from. This concept is where we get two of the most inane Church doctrines:

1. Masturbation is immoral / wicked / condemned by God.
2. Contraception is immoral / wicked / condemned by God.

Yes, indeed this is the only passage these are based on. The traditional concept of onanism referred to masturbation, but has changed to reflect more of contraception. In the case of the Catholic Church, this passage condemns both masturbation and contraception as immoral.

When additional passages are tried to be used in conjunction with this passage, that is when it gets really twisted. We come to Ray's favorite passage of Matthew 5:28 wherein Jesus (incorrectly) defines adultery as simply lusting after a woman. So, even if onanism isn't condemning masturbation, they hold that this is, as it is likely that a male who masturbates is lusting after a woman, and is thus committing adultery. However, since this is the vile concept of a thoughtcrime, this leaves open a rather bizarre loophole: you may masturbate as long as you do not lust after woman.