…

So… Isreal is breaking it’s treaties with Lebanon? Or selling them small-pox infested blankets?

but, but…. he can’t be serious. he does think that what we did to the american indians was *bad* doesn’t he?

As oppossed to too stupid to do a quick google of the number of stars in the universe?

Aha! But, you see, this only reveals the true genius of the Bible in its prophecy. See, for instance, Genesis 44:12:

Then the steward proceeded to search, beginning with the oldest and ending with the youngest.

See? If those stupid scientists would have read the Bible, Google would have been invented 2000 years ago!

My understanding is that the 1100 number includes a correction from Ptolemy’s actual catalog of 1022 taking into account the part of the sky he wasn’t able to see.

However, where I part company from Mike is in saying that that number is somehow at odds with the “countless” description that appears in the baaable and elsewhere. It’s a pretty trivial and obvious observation to make – the number of stars visible in a dark sky such as would have been visible to the ancients is indeed more than anybody could possibly count in a reasonable period. 1022 or 1100 is in fact a very large number of stars to count and catalog, and would certainly be beyond anybody but the most determined, and could only be made over a very long period of observing.

Mike is just pulling stuff out of his ass in asserting that the “countless” description necessarily implies “closer to a billion”. Asserting that describing the number of stars in the sky as “countless” is somehow stupefyingly insightful – to the point of implying divine inspiration – is bullshit.

For example, the fact that scholars can’t agree on who wrote the Book of Hebrews—they generally agree on the authorship of all other Books of the New Testament—is hardly a sticking point for non-believers.

“scholars” here means “theologians”. Historians, anthropologists and archaeologists do not even claim to know who wrote the Torah (easy answer: Moses. Hard answer: At least four different sources).

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross

Let’s clarify here, Astrophysicist and pastor Hugh Ross.

How much better would humanity have fared, had these scientists listened to the Word of God?

Huh? It is only in hindsight that you can make such a deduction from such a nebulous statement. One could just as easily argue that it states living sacrifices must be made in order to promote health.

Long after these words were written, scientists maintained the primitive view that air is weightless. Eventually they caught up to the Bible and realized that air has weight.

Uh, the line was about “wind”. The weight of wind is the pressure you feel when it blows against you. Did people not experience this phenomenon back then or is this just stupid?

When God asked these questions of Job, he was letting him in on the secret that light actually travels. It would take the scientists many years to figure that one out without the guidance of the Holy Scriptures.

Yea, if we just listened to scripture we’d know the speed of dark!

Long after Solomon shared the truth that the wind blows in cyclones, the backward scientists were still claiming that it blew straight. They should have listened to Solomon. He was a very wise man.

Number one, most scholars – even theologians – recognize Ecclesiastes as a pseudepigraphical work written well after Solomon died. Number two, who are these ancient straw-men of whom he speaks who never saw a dust devil?

Scientists once thought the earth was flat. Had they read the great prophet Isaiah, they would have learned much earlier about the “circle of the earth.�

Is this dolt really basing his argument on a total lack of understanding of the dimensionality of a circle? Hey Mike, here’s a clue: circles are flat. Spheres are round.

Oh, and additionally… Pythagoras claimed the Earth was spherical long before Isaiah was written. And Eratosthenes made a damn fine measurement of the circumfrance about the same time as Isaiah was composed.

The scientists believed there were only 1100 stars long after Jeremiah knew there were a closer to a billion.

Too bad the number is closer to 10^21 not 10^9. God was only a few orders of magnitude off…

I suspect that many of those who see me as a backwards (or back woods) fundamentalist will be shocked to read the passages in this short column.

No, not a bit.

That’s because, until now, most of them have been too narrow-minded to take the time to read the Bible.

As oppossed to too stupid to do a quick google of the number of stars in the universe?

As I close in on my eighth reading of the Bible I am now well aware that it is hardly an impediment to rational thought and human progress.

Yes. Yes it is.

So what are you waiting for, Mikey? Upload a copy already!

Hint: Google the phrase “1100 stars” in quotes, and see what shows up. The basis for his column appears to have been floating around in fundie circles for quite some time…

PS – there is actually some basis for the claim that it was at one time thought that there were only about 1100 stars. That estimate is due to Ptolemy. However, how Adams manages this conclusion is beyond me:

Jeremiah 33:22 says, “And as the stars of the sky cannot be counted and the sand on the seashore cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of my servant David and the Levites who minister before me.� The scientists believed there were only 1100 stars long after Jeremiah knew there were a closer to a billion.

ahem. From where does one get “closer to a billion” from the quoted passage? All it’s doing is reporting the vastness of the number of stars, something that would be very apparent to anybody in that era without the incumbrance of street lights. People of that time would probably think 1100 to be quite a lot…

Actually, quotation marks can be used to denote slang or any other kind of non-literal speech.

It’s used to indicate that there isn’t literally something on an actual alternative hand somewhere.

It’s a fairly archaic usage, and it tends to make your speech seem overly formal, but it’s still alegitimate use.

Adams’ colum is astonishingly moronic, even for him. Why on earth would you assume that “Circle” means “sphere”?

I can’t believe this guy teaches. I mean, I know you can compartmentalise your stupidity, but a person who doesn’t think there’s such a thing as a flat circle kind of scares me a little.

I love that he thinks we atheists haven’t heard this stuff before and will be shocked into silence, though.

He teaches criminology at UNC-Wilmington.

This, using wingnot logic, makes him qualified to speak at length on the Bible and on science. Using real logic, he’s a tool who works at the lesser end of the UNC gene pool.

I can’t help it. He’s just so dreamy!

He’s published actual, real scientific articles on galactic radio frequencies back in the seventies.

He’s a winger all right. But the nutty creationist folks at Answers in Genesis disavow him. Creationist catfight!