Friday, July 11, 2008

Mr. Comfort: Part Deux

In what is said to be the oldest book of the Bible, God Himself speaks and talks about an amazing and massive creature. Look closely at this portion of Scripture from Job 40:15-24, and visualize the creature being described:

Job is the oldest book of the bible, ok, who cares, it isn't the oldest record we have, you'd think with as many dinosaur fossils as we have, there would be, you know, other sources? But for fun, I'll continue with this charade.

Some commentators have in the past believed that the behemoth is a reference to a hippopotamus. With due respect, that is ridiculous. This creature moves his tail "like a cedar." A hippopotamus doesn’t have a tail that is like a large tree (see verse 17). It’s more like a small twig.

Except that it wasn't talking about a tail as I previously stated, I'll get more to devending my perspective when he attacks it later.

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."

Dinosaurs ate lots of things, but the herbivorous ones ate ferns, cycads, club mosses, horsetails, etc. They didn't only eat grass, in fact, it is possible that only younger dinosaurs ate grasses because they were easier to digest, but harder to reach. Now for some facts, most dinosaurs did not have broad, flat teeth, they had spoon-shaped teeth for the most part. NONE had flat teeth, in fact, no animal has flat teeth, the closest you can get are elephant teeth, which are not flat at all. Also, citing a children's teaching site is kind of inept and not likely to be very accurate when discussing scientific concepts. It is good if you want to explain to a nine-year-old how an animal ate, but not to reference as a means of determining diet.

Moving on.
Study the structure of the dinosaur and you will see that its strength is in its huge leg and hip muscles (its loins).
Really? I really thought that was only in the bipedal ones, because looking at the ceratopsians, they seem to have a VERY heavy forlimb structure, titanosaurs have their necks as the heaviest part of their body. What have we learned about this animal? It has huge legs and hips (which are the heaviest part of it's body, and it eats grass like an ox. Ok, let's continue.
A cedar is a massive tree. Skeptics, in an effort to discredit Scripture, have maintained that this is not a reference to an actual tail. However, the Hebrew word translated "tail" is (zanab -- Strong's 02180). In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) the Greek word used here is (ouran). This is the Greek word for "tail."
YAY, my favorite part, what he seems to forget is that the primary reason for interpreting it as "penis" rather than "tail" is the reference to "stones" which is actually "testicles" in the Latin. So, you decide, is a reference to a "tail" and "testicles" pretty close enough to a "penis and testicles" for you? If not, I'll point out that dinosaurs didn't have dangling testicles, they were inside the body cavity like modern reptiles and birds. As such, "testicles" wouldn't be mentioned in a description of a dinosaur.

"The word 'armor' is used to describe the hard, bony shell that some dinosaurs were covered with, rather like a crocodile's scaly skin or a tortoise's shell. Some of the best-protected dinosaurs were the plant-eating (herbivorous) ankylosauruses. A paleontologist called Torsten Scheyer from the University of Bonn has been looking at ankylosaurus fossils under a very strong microscope. He's been able to work out exactly how the armor was made and how strong it would have been. Torsten found that one type of ankylosaurus amour was made in exactly the same way as the materials for bullet-proof vests are made nowadays."
Wait, so now he's saying that bony scales that are sewn together are like a dinosaur's skin? Ok, so it's an Ankylosaurus now, which means it's NOT the biggest animal. The biggest animal doesn't fit the description, so he's picking which ones fit what parts of the description. Mr. Comfort doesn't put the entire description together because it completely excludes ALL dinosaurs. I'll explain why later.

But next, he says:
This is the largest creature that God made: "The biggest dinosaur is probably ultrasauros. We only have a few bones of this late Jurassic [dated by evolutionists at 140 million years ago] plant-eater from Colorado but they show an animal that was six stories high and may have weighed more than 50 tons."
Sorry, "ultrasaurus" didn't reach 50 tons, "supersaurus" only reached 40, no, the largest dinosaur was Amphicoelia fragillimus, but I wouldn't expect to have that information. I'd also like to take this time to note that Ultrasaurus wasn't 140 million years ago, but 110 million at the latest. More incorrect statements...

"Although this mass extinction didn't happen literally overnight, in evolutionary terms, it may as well have--within a few thousand years of whatever catastrophe caused their demise, the dinosaurs had been wiped off the face of the earth."
It is no mystery as to why the dinosaur disappeared. The dinosaur’s Creator made his sword to approach him.
Why? Did they do something to piss this "god" off? How did they offend this deity?

20-23 "Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lies under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinks up a river, and hastens not: he trusts that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth."
I know he doesn't talk about this part, but I will, because it is important to point out WHY he doesn't talk about it.
1) the largest animal ever to walk the Earth, but yet it can lie under a tree, in reeds, and be covered? He can put lots of water in his mouth? I'm sorry, so the largest animal also has the largest oral capacity? What about blue whales? I'm sorry, but I must also point out that even a hippo's skull is longer than most sauropod skulls.
2) The largest sauropods would definitely have trouble laying under shady trees.
3) It most certainly wouldn't get any kind of secrecy from reeds!.

I'll move along now

This, the biggest creator God even made, was so tall its nose broke through tree branches: "Although paleontologists claim to have found bigger dinosaurs, Argentinosaurus is the biggest sauropod (four-footed herbivorous dinosaur) whose size is backed up by convincing evidence. This plant-muncher (named after Argentina, where its remains were found) measured about 120 feet from head to tail and weighed over 100 tons."
When you're wrong, you're wrong, Argentinosaurus still wasn't the biggest, but what ever happened to this being Ankylosaurus? We've moved quite some way from a 20 ft animal to a 120 ft animal. That's a six fold increase in length! I mean, talk about picking your evidence. Is this describing one animal, or several? And if it's describing several, couldn't it be describing several animals that scientists agree were around at the time?

Don’t believe all the absurdity about bats not being birds, other untruths such as the Bible saying that the world is flat, and the mockery of Israel’s judicial system. Every one of these many weak arguments have rational explanations to those who are prepared to soften their hearts and listen. There is too much at stake for the skeptic to embrace small-minded arguments, as though they were the gospel truth.

So, bats are birds? The bible doesn't say the world is flat? What about in Ezekiel 7:2? What about in Luke 4:5? Job 38:12-13 also says that the Earth has edges. And now he wants to talk about RATIONAL explanations? I also protest statements about the "gospel truth" because the gospels, in all likelihood, have many false statements in them. Oh, and the bible does call bats birds in Deuteronomy 14:11-18 when talking about the "unclean birds" you can't eat. What Mr. Comfort is saying is to ignore the TRUTH about what his book says and embrace his wishful interpretation of what it says.
The Bible proves itself to be the Word of God, not just because of its scientific, prophetic and historically accurate facts, but because it points to Him who is both knowable and who grants everlasting life to all who trust in the Savior. It is the fact that God manifests Himself (see John 14:21) to all who call upon His name that is the ultimate proof the truth of His Word.
Now this is my favorite paragraph of them all, here's the SCIENCE in the bible. I'm warning you, it's some pretty convincing stuff. Mr. Comfort, having pi to the two millionth digit in the bible would be convincing, describing the genetic code would be interesting, explaining the cosmological constant would be really cool, but a book which describes the mustard seed as the smallest on the planet and pi as being equal to three doesn't strike me as the most scientifically sound book on Earth, not to mention one written by an all-knowing creator god. And how is a name proof of truth or existence? It's just proof of a name, nothing more.

No comments:


Stumble Upon Toolbar