Ray "The banana man" Comfort explains why Neil deGrasse Tyson is wrong that the Bible is not a reliable source of science. Uh huh.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

Creationist Ray Comfort complained that Neil deGrasse Tyson had misrepresented the Bible. 

The astrophysicist and host of Fox’s “Cosmos” said recently that using the Bible as a scientific source was problematic, because no one had ever scientifically proven a theory based on scripture. 

Comfort said last week on his online “Comfort Zone” program that Tyson wasn’t qualified to make that determination because he’s not a theologian. 

“You know, the word ‘science,’ it’s kind of a magical word,” Comfort said. “‘I believe in science.’ It just means knowledge, that’s all it means. There’s different areas of science, different areas of knowledge. When you say the Bible is not a science book, you’re saying it’s not a knowledge book? It tells us how God created the Earth!” 

Knowledge, of course, is not quite all that defines science, which is characterized by systematic methods of observation in pursuit of new understanding. 

But Comfort insisted the Bible was a science book because it described the origins of the universe. 

“It gives us the basis for all creation, and it passes the scientific method,” he said. “It’s observable – Genesis – and testable. Evolution is not. You can’t observe something 60 million years old, but you can observe what Genesis says.”

So to be clear, this idiot is saying that Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, cannot judge the scientific merit of the Bible because he is not a theologian, that science itself is a "magical" word, and that the Bible does indeed describe the origins of the universe.

Here let us examine this incredibly detailed description of the beginning of our universe, as explained in the Bible, shall we?

From the book of Genesis:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. 

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. 

Wow, that really does describe exactly how the universe came to be, how it functions, what it is made up of, it's dimensions, it's age, and everything right? Um, not exactly.

So according to this there was an earth BEFORE there was the light of the sun? But are we not trapped in the orbit of the sun?

And the sky is made up of water? Water?

What about the stars?

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

So the stars are trapped in the "vault of the sky," which is made up of water, and are there simply to "mark sacred times?"

And the moon is a "lesser light to govern the night," and NOT simply a satellite trapped in earth's orbit which reflects the light of the sun back to earth?

Really?

But what about dark matter, gravity, super novas, black holes, the Big Bang?

The Bible addresses none of that. In fact, and I hate to be a skeptic here, it is as if the people who wrote the Bible only had a fundamental, and perhaps illogical, understanding of the world around them.

Do you know what might help to clear up any questions that might remain, AFTER reading the Bible?

Science.

In fact it does not appear that there are really any actual factual explanations about the world, its people, and the universe in which we live, that cannot be answered WITHOUT the Bible.

I'm just saying.

And I would assume that as science moves forward and continues to answer heretofore unanswerable questions, the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran, will be looked to less and less for answers that can now be factually explained, with evidence provided to back them up.

And that's really the problem that Ray Comfort has with this Cosmos program isn't it?

He knows in his dark little heart that the more people turn to education and science to find answers, the faster charlatans like himself, and Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and William Lane Craig will be out of a job.

P.S. For those who may wonder why I call Comfort the "Banana Man" take a moment to learn why NOBODY should take this guy seriously about anything.