Atomic orbitals for hydrogen and quantum numbers. Does the Bible mention this anywhere? Clearly NO! Thus, a major error of OMISSION!
The problem with committing to an uncompromising stance in which a single flawed source is claimed to contain all truth is that it can come back and bite you in the ass. Case in point: the Bible. Under stress from secularism, it appears more and more Christian fundamentalists are given to making rash and hyperbolic claims that their “good Book” contains the essence of all the truth there is, INCLUDING scientific!
This is absolutely astonishing in its boldness, and chutzpah. Because science is not predicated on what some ancient camel driver or sheep herder scribbled down on parchments, but on actual testing of reality. Conducting experiments and measurements then calculating from first principles or a given theory whether the experiments, observations hold up. A recent case in point was been a column by Roger Marshall in The Barbados Advocate(‘Bible Ahead Of Science’, Feb 21) in which Marshall claimed his good Book had so much truth it was actually “ahead of science” and superior to it! He exclaimed that – as his God had inspired it- it couldn’t be wrong, plus had ALL the answers! In other cases, Marshall tries to show even when science got the answers his Bible actually beat Science to the finding - by already revealing it! Neato trick, but doesn't work in real life and for sober people.Three examples from Marshall’s pick list are the following:
1- Isaiah 40:22a predicted "the host of heaven cannot be numbered" long before Astronomy realized it.
2- Biblical authors knew of the Earth's sphericity long before anyone else. (cf, Isaiah 40:22 :“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."
3- There were Bible references to the Universe expanding long before Science discovered expansion.
But let's examine these in more detail, while clarifying that a few odd confluences of remote, generic similarity don’t mean diddly squat or disclose that the Bible makes accurate "pronouncements" on scientific matters, or that it confirms any scientific evidence, or that it can be remotely be substituted for an actual scientific paper or textbook.
1) Star counts:
Isaiah 40:22a makes no scientific assertion when it avers that "the host of heaven cannot be numbered". This is simply common sense that anyone who peers into the night sky (especially with a powerful telescope) can see for himself. The best we can do, even with the most modern photometric methods is make estimates of stellar numbers- say in open clusters (like the Pleiades) or galaxies (see, e.g. the image of star region in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud).
We can’t actually "count" each star and no professional I know of would be daft enough to even try! What one can do is make estimates of star counts using sophisticated “blink” techniques and computers. In the case of a whole galaxy, one can apply the Kepler form of the third law of planetary motion for an assumed semi-major axis and thereby obtain an estimated mass for the galaxy, say in solar masses. If one uses a solar mass as an individual stellar mass standard, one can then translate the solar masses into galactic star estimates. (This is how we arrive at 100 billion stars for the Milky Way and 200 billion for Andromeda)2) Circularity does not equal sphericity!
2) Spherical vs. Circular
Nor does the Bible break any remarkable ground when Marshall attests that its authors "knew the Earth was spherical". Indeed, the ancients knew about the sphericity of Earth since the time of Aristotle, Eudoxus and Eratosthenes, hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. Thus, any references made in the Bible were likely already in the Zeitgeist of the learned folk of the time, and would naturally have been included- if the Bible author (or more likely, later transcriptionist-translator) had any awareness at all.
Roundness (circularity) and sphericity are two different properties. One (circularity) applies to a simple two dimensional surface or geometry. Indeed, the property of circles was investigated by Sumerian and Egyptian mathematicians long before any of the biblical authors emerged from their caves.
As I pointed out also in an earlier blogs, the particular property of sphericity can only be determined by the use of mathematics. Without mathematics, people would believe the Earth is a round, flat space. How so? If one looks across a vast, flat horizon – either from the middle of a desert or the ocean- the perspective one obtains is that of a vast FLAT expanse with a circular boundary at the far periphery. Thus, the impression created in an ancient mind – without use of discriminating mathematics- would be that he or she inhabits the center of an enormous flat circle!
How did the ancient Greek astronomers (e.g. Eratosthenes) break out of this and arrive at sphericity? In Eratosthenes’ case, around 240 B.C., he had to first decide what exactly he had to measure to assess sphericity as opposed to circularity. This is where a key assumption entered: that the Earth was spherical and the Sun distant enough that its rays at Earth were essentially parallel.Eratosthenes thereby performed a measurement of the angle of elevation of the Sun at noon at Alexandria, and at Syene. This value could then be used to obtain Earth’s circumference, at 250,000 stadia or about 24,900 miles.
The repeat of the experiment from thousands of different directions, orientations, shows sphericity not just circularity. Why? Because if Eratasothenes (or any of his thousands or millions of followers – who repeat the experiment even today at assorted universities) were measuring a circle, they’d have to be on the circle’s EDGE to obtain its circumference . Cut out a circle from cardboard and examine it. Any distance on the circle itself would be a chord, not a circumference. One would have to stand or situate exactly ON THE EDGE to get the circumference.
No untrained, non-mathematical ancient mind would remotely contemplate this, because to him one would “fall off” at the edge. (Gravitational physics would need another 2500 years to be developed by Galileo and Newton)Thus, the very act of measuring a circumference using a shadow angle (and trigonometry) on any part or place of Earth implicitly presumes its sphericity , since the extension of all such measuring lines leads to a circle that can be oriented around any direction across Earth.
What then is the sphere? Technically – as we see from calculus, it is the integration of an infinite number of conic sections that are each circles – which results in a sphere (see diagram).Thus, mathematically, we take a circle – say defined by:
x^2 + y^2 = 4
And rotate it around the x-axis to generate a sphere (see Fig. 1). This is done by using calculus to integrate: pi(4 - x^2)dx from (-2) to +2. Thus, in the process of rotation an infinite series of circles is generated, to obtain a sphere with radius 2 and volume 33.427 cubic units. That the integration yields cubic units proves that the result is a sphere since circles lack volume as geometrically defined.The ancients had not yet processed sphericity and hence no rotation of Earth (to generate days and nights).
Thus, they beheld the situation as depicted in Fig. 2. They inhabited a flat circular Earth and the SUN moved across the sky each day to provide day and night. When the Sun went below the western horizon it was evening, then night. When the Sun appeared on the eastern horizon it was morning. To read Isaiah 40:22 and then assert the roundness is really sphericity and argue that there'd be no day & night without it, is therefore wrong-headed and turns the actual situation on its head. Remember, in the ancients' world view it was the Earth that was stationary and always at the center of the universe (geo-centric view) all else moved around Earth - including Sun, stars etc. This perception configures exactly with Fig. 2.
Thus one cannot assert or claim that a biblical quote such as Isaiah 40:22 – referring to a circle- actually implies a sphere. NO, it doesn’t. People read into those quotes what they want. They so much NEED the quotation to be accurate – to prove their spurious “divine inspiration” that they will torture and twist the meaning to make it so.
3) Expansion? Really?
Any biblical reference to the Universe "expanding" also can’t be interpreted as anything more than a generic, perhaps lucky bit of insight. The reason is that no details of the expansion are given, nor does the Bible indicate how the measurement was made (using red shifts determined from spectroscopy). For example, does the Bible say how long it’s been going on? Does it tell us the age of the universe deduced from it? Does the Bible anywhere state that this expansion is now accelerating owing to the presence of dark energy? By the way, IF the bible is so prescient on scientific issues, why doesn't it mention two key recent discoveries – dark matter and dark energy- anywhere? Inquiring minds want to know.
Errors can also be of OMISSION!
In any case, since all of the above constitute omissions, then they are also ERRORS! (One can have errors of commission or omission). If I have a chemistry text that is bragged on as being the “best ever written’ and yet it contains none of the known oxidizing agents, and the Periodic Table is missing twelve elements, then all of these constitute errors! All omissions are errors! Hence, in like manner all the omissions of detail we can tote up pertaining to any astronomical phenomenon only partially referenced are ERRORS! (We won't even go into detailing all the omissions to do with modern biology, chemistry and physics - which would easily add another 20-30 million errors by omission. After all, I see Newton's laws of motion mentioned nowhere in the Bible, or even the vague mention of chemical bonds!)
Let’s see: over 100,000 galaxies and clusters have been identified as expanding with specific red shifts. Does the Bible, King James or other, name any of them? No, it doesn’t! 100,000 omissions = 100,000 errors!
Does the bible say anything about the fifity thousand or so black holes, OR the two thousand quasars, OR about the 370-odd extra-solar planets we’ve discovered? No? Then all are omissions, and hence all errors! Does it mention DNA or anything that could be construed as such? What about genes and the human genome? Does it identify any of the 3,000 or so genomes already mapped by biological science? No? Then all omissions add up to all errors!
Does it mention EVOLUTION? The fact that the protein cytochrome –c in chimp and human are very nearly identical? That the two ape chromosomes 2p and 2q are fused in the human to yield chromosome ‘2’ (accounting for why we have 23 chromosome pairs vs. 24 in apes)? Does it give the dozens of evidences for macro-evolution? No? Then all of these omissions translate to errors!
Does it mention quantum numbers (e.g. n, m, l. m_s) assigned to atomic levels and probability distributions? We are talking about 4-7 levels in each atom of some 100 elements. Thus, all these are omissions, and hence errors. What about barrier penetration and tunnelling? (The putative basis for all solid state electronic devices.) What about even stellar spectra? Does the Bible mention anywhere that we can obtain a star's chemical composition from them? Does it even know (remotely) what chemical composition means? Has any Bible author identified ONE single chemical element? Again, compounding all these in concert leads to nearly two million errors of omission.
What about tectonic plates – mutual collisions of which (e.g. the North American and Caribbean plates) caused the Haiti earthquake? Does it mention those?Here’s something for Marshall and others of his ilk to take away: the Bible is not a book of science, and any conformity between odd biblical quotes and a generic, general scientific finding is pure fortuitous (and the most general or generic) happenstance – not a result of the “Good Book” getting it right before science found it out.
The danger with making a claim that a source or book (like the Bible) is completely consonant with Science is that if proven wrong, OR if INCOMPLETE -the believers in the book have egg all over their faces. Of course, they will never admit this, they'd have nervous breakdowns before admitting any part of their book is in error, OR incomplete. And you may be sure that just as they have tried to rationalize away the Bible's 14, 551 contradictions (for which one of each must at least be in error, since two statements on the same event - i.e. whether Jesus carried his own cross or not, can't BOTH be true!), they will try to find a way to rationalize away the millions of errors of omission. They'd rather go to all this effort than simply fess up their book is not "inerrant" and must be read in the spirit of the book, not by the literal word!
This is absolutely astonishing in its boldness, and chutzpah. Because science is not predicated on what some ancient camel driver or sheep herder scribbled down on parchments, but on actual testing of reality. Conducting experiments and measurements then calculating from first principles or a given theory whether the experiments, observations hold up. A recent case in point was been a column by Roger Marshall in The Barbados Advocate(‘Bible Ahead Of Science’, Feb 21) in which Marshall claimed his good Book had so much truth it was actually “ahead of science” and superior to it! He exclaimed that – as his God had inspired it- it couldn’t be wrong, plus had ALL the answers! In other cases, Marshall tries to show even when science got the answers his Bible actually beat Science to the finding - by already revealing it! Neato trick, but doesn't work in real life and for sober people.Three examples from Marshall’s pick list are the following:
1- Isaiah 40:22a predicted "the host of heaven cannot be numbered" long before Astronomy realized it.
2- Biblical authors knew of the Earth's sphericity long before anyone else. (cf, Isaiah 40:22 :“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."
3- There were Bible references to the Universe expanding long before Science discovered expansion.
But let's examine these in more detail, while clarifying that a few odd confluences of remote, generic similarity don’t mean diddly squat or disclose that the Bible makes accurate "pronouncements" on scientific matters, or that it confirms any scientific evidence, or that it can be remotely be substituted for an actual scientific paper or textbook.
1) Star counts:
Isaiah 40:22a makes no scientific assertion when it avers that "the host of heaven cannot be numbered". This is simply common sense that anyone who peers into the night sky (especially with a powerful telescope) can see for himself. The best we can do, even with the most modern photometric methods is make estimates of stellar numbers- say in open clusters (like the Pleiades) or galaxies (see, e.g. the image of star region in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud).
We can’t actually "count" each star and no professional I know of would be daft enough to even try! What one can do is make estimates of star counts using sophisticated “blink” techniques and computers. In the case of a whole galaxy, one can apply the Kepler form of the third law of planetary motion for an assumed semi-major axis and thereby obtain an estimated mass for the galaxy, say in solar masses. If one uses a solar mass as an individual stellar mass standard, one can then translate the solar masses into galactic star estimates. (This is how we arrive at 100 billion stars for the Milky Way and 200 billion for Andromeda)2) Circularity does not equal sphericity!
2) Spherical vs. Circular
Nor does the Bible break any remarkable ground when Marshall attests that its authors "knew the Earth was spherical". Indeed, the ancients knew about the sphericity of Earth since the time of Aristotle, Eudoxus and Eratosthenes, hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. Thus, any references made in the Bible were likely already in the Zeitgeist of the learned folk of the time, and would naturally have been included- if the Bible author (or more likely, later transcriptionist-translator) had any awareness at all.
Roundness (circularity) and sphericity are two different properties. One (circularity) applies to a simple two dimensional surface or geometry. Indeed, the property of circles was investigated by Sumerian and Egyptian mathematicians long before any of the biblical authors emerged from their caves.
As I pointed out also in an earlier blogs, the particular property of sphericity can only be determined by the use of mathematics. Without mathematics, people would believe the Earth is a round, flat space. How so? If one looks across a vast, flat horizon – either from the middle of a desert or the ocean- the perspective one obtains is that of a vast FLAT expanse with a circular boundary at the far periphery. Thus, the impression created in an ancient mind – without use of discriminating mathematics- would be that he or she inhabits the center of an enormous flat circle!
How did the ancient Greek astronomers (e.g. Eratosthenes) break out of this and arrive at sphericity? In Eratosthenes’ case, around 240 B.C., he had to first decide what exactly he had to measure to assess sphericity as opposed to circularity. This is where a key assumption entered: that the Earth was spherical and the Sun distant enough that its rays at Earth were essentially parallel.Eratosthenes thereby performed a measurement of the angle of elevation of the Sun at noon at Alexandria, and at Syene. This value could then be used to obtain Earth’s circumference, at 250,000 stadia or about 24,900 miles.
The repeat of the experiment from thousands of different directions, orientations, shows sphericity not just circularity. Why? Because if Eratasothenes (or any of his thousands or millions of followers – who repeat the experiment even today at assorted universities) were measuring a circle, they’d have to be on the circle’s EDGE to obtain its circumference . Cut out a circle from cardboard and examine it. Any distance on the circle itself would be a chord, not a circumference. One would have to stand or situate exactly ON THE EDGE to get the circumference.
No untrained, non-mathematical ancient mind would remotely contemplate this, because to him one would “fall off” at the edge. (Gravitational physics would need another 2500 years to be developed by Galileo and Newton)Thus, the very act of measuring a circumference using a shadow angle (and trigonometry) on any part or place of Earth implicitly presumes its sphericity , since the extension of all such measuring lines leads to a circle that can be oriented around any direction across Earth.
What then is the sphere? Technically – as we see from calculus, it is the integration of an infinite number of conic sections that are each circles – which results in a sphere (see diagram).Thus, mathematically, we take a circle – say defined by:
x^2 + y^2 = 4
And rotate it around the x-axis to generate a sphere (see Fig. 1). This is done by using calculus to integrate: pi(4 - x^2)dx from (-2) to +2. Thus, in the process of rotation an infinite series of circles is generated, to obtain a sphere with radius 2 and volume 33.427 cubic units. That the integration yields cubic units proves that the result is a sphere since circles lack volume as geometrically defined.The ancients had not yet processed sphericity and hence no rotation of Earth (to generate days and nights).
Thus, they beheld the situation as depicted in Fig. 2. They inhabited a flat circular Earth and the SUN moved across the sky each day to provide day and night. When the Sun went below the western horizon it was evening, then night. When the Sun appeared on the eastern horizon it was morning. To read Isaiah 40:22 and then assert the roundness is really sphericity and argue that there'd be no day & night without it, is therefore wrong-headed and turns the actual situation on its head. Remember, in the ancients' world view it was the Earth that was stationary and always at the center of the universe (geo-centric view) all else moved around Earth - including Sun, stars etc. This perception configures exactly with Fig. 2.
Thus one cannot assert or claim that a biblical quote such as Isaiah 40:22 – referring to a circle- actually implies a sphere. NO, it doesn’t. People read into those quotes what they want. They so much NEED the quotation to be accurate – to prove their spurious “divine inspiration” that they will torture and twist the meaning to make it so.
3) Expansion? Really?
Any biblical reference to the Universe "expanding" also can’t be interpreted as anything more than a generic, perhaps lucky bit of insight. The reason is that no details of the expansion are given, nor does the Bible indicate how the measurement was made (using red shifts determined from spectroscopy). For example, does the Bible say how long it’s been going on? Does it tell us the age of the universe deduced from it? Does the Bible anywhere state that this expansion is now accelerating owing to the presence of dark energy? By the way, IF the bible is so prescient on scientific issues, why doesn't it mention two key recent discoveries – dark matter and dark energy- anywhere? Inquiring minds want to know.
Errors can also be of OMISSION!
In any case, since all of the above constitute omissions, then they are also ERRORS! (One can have errors of commission or omission). If I have a chemistry text that is bragged on as being the “best ever written’ and yet it contains none of the known oxidizing agents, and the Periodic Table is missing twelve elements, then all of these constitute errors! All omissions are errors! Hence, in like manner all the omissions of detail we can tote up pertaining to any astronomical phenomenon only partially referenced are ERRORS! (We won't even go into detailing all the omissions to do with modern biology, chemistry and physics - which would easily add another 20-30 million errors by omission. After all, I see Newton's laws of motion mentioned nowhere in the Bible, or even the vague mention of chemical bonds!)
Let’s see: over 100,000 galaxies and clusters have been identified as expanding with specific red shifts. Does the Bible, King James or other, name any of them? No, it doesn’t! 100,000 omissions = 100,000 errors!
Does the bible say anything about the fifity thousand or so black holes, OR the two thousand quasars, OR about the 370-odd extra-solar planets we’ve discovered? No? Then all are omissions, and hence all errors! Does it mention DNA or anything that could be construed as such? What about genes and the human genome? Does it identify any of the 3,000 or so genomes already mapped by biological science? No? Then all omissions add up to all errors!
Does it mention EVOLUTION? The fact that the protein cytochrome –c in chimp and human are very nearly identical? That the two ape chromosomes 2p and 2q are fused in the human to yield chromosome ‘2’ (accounting for why we have 23 chromosome pairs vs. 24 in apes)? Does it give the dozens of evidences for macro-evolution? No? Then all of these omissions translate to errors!
Does it mention quantum numbers (e.g. n, m, l. m_s) assigned to atomic levels and probability distributions? We are talking about 4-7 levels in each atom of some 100 elements. Thus, all these are omissions, and hence errors. What about barrier penetration and tunnelling? (The putative basis for all solid state electronic devices.) What about even stellar spectra? Does the Bible mention anywhere that we can obtain a star's chemical composition from them? Does it even know (remotely) what chemical composition means? Has any Bible author identified ONE single chemical element? Again, compounding all these in concert leads to nearly two million errors of omission.
What about tectonic plates – mutual collisions of which (e.g. the North American and Caribbean plates) caused the Haiti earthquake? Does it mention those?Here’s something for Marshall and others of his ilk to take away: the Bible is not a book of science, and any conformity between odd biblical quotes and a generic, general scientific finding is pure fortuitous (and the most general or generic) happenstance – not a result of the “Good Book” getting it right before science found it out.
The danger with making a claim that a source or book (like the Bible) is completely consonant with Science is that if proven wrong, OR if INCOMPLETE -the believers in the book have egg all over their faces. Of course, they will never admit this, they'd have nervous breakdowns before admitting any part of their book is in error, OR incomplete. And you may be sure that just as they have tried to rationalize away the Bible's 14, 551 contradictions (for which one of each must at least be in error, since two statements on the same event - i.e. whether Jesus carried his own cross or not, can't BOTH be true!), they will try to find a way to rationalize away the millions of errors of omission. They'd rather go to all this effort than simply fess up their book is not "inerrant" and must be read in the spirit of the book, not by the literal word!
3 comments:
This is a terrific post, about the omissions! Of course, your pastor or make believe pastor, brother - has a new blog up trying to defend his bible and it's hilarious.
He says for example that one "mistake" bible critics make is: "Assuming that the Unexplained is Not Explainable"
But he doesn't get that this isn't the issue! It's assuming an explanation must be a *supernatural* one. Now, either one has supernatural explanations OR one has natural ones. If one wishes to rely on the last then he goes to science, not the bible! The bible can't even get remote explanations about the origin of the Earth correct, as you pointed out in previous blogs, so how can it can it get any natural explanations correct? It can't!
He also blathers: "No real scientist throws up his hands in despair simply because he cannot explain a given phenomenon . He continues to do research with the confident expectation that an answer will be found" but forgets or omits that in the meantime the scientist formulates a *natural hypothesis* (or guess) to forge at least a partial natural explanation!
He also says a "mistake" made is:
"Presuming the Bible Guilty Until Proven Innocent" and clarifies by adding, "assuming the Bible is wrong until something proves it right "
But there is NO "until"! The Bible is finished, done! No one is writing any more of it to explain any more stuff! So what you see is what you get and as you showed, there is not even a thing to explain or account for quantum states in atoms! Well duh...because no one would have even thought of QM back then!!
But the classic so-called "mistake" he alleges is: "Confusing Our Fallible Interpretations with God's Infallible Revelation "
But hey, if God couldn't have revealed the true nature of quantum numbers in association with atomic energy levels back then, then HOW can he have an "infallible revelation"
It's just like you said, these guys would all have nervous breakdowns if they ever conceded their good books are in error, including by omission!
Yes, you're quite right, Caleb. I suspect he's in serious denial, and no it's not the river through Egypt! Denial makes him stretch for spurious "explanations" to ease his existential anxiety that we may well be the ones correct here.
All the "mistakes" he lists are, of course, also spurious, since they don't address the omissions.
Indeed, he even contradicts himself since I recall that in an earlier blog about a year or so ago he admitted the bible can never be used as a text book of science. If that's so, and I know he wrote it, then it means any scientific claims for the Bible are spurious or in plain terms....bollocks.
Any sensible person with half a working brain knows you're never going to pass a medical examination (to become a dr.) using the Bible, nor will you ever get a graduate degree in physics, biology, chemistry or any other science using the bible.
The most bible punchers are able to do is read some vague science interpretations between the lines. This is nothing, even the astrologers and alchemists can do better than that.
This is what we behold when people have nothing more than the "will to believe" as Psychologist William James put it in his book by the same name.
Btw, have you seen Mike's latest? He tries to reconcile the contradiction between Matthew 28:5 and John 20:12, where the first says there was one angel at the tomb after the resurrection, and the John verse says there were two.
According to Mikey, these are "not mutually exclusive" since "it is a mathematical certainty that wherever there are TWO there must be ONE"!
But that is lapse thinking and zero sum logic. Like saying the population of the U.S. is really ONE, and not 301 million, since wherever there are 301 million there must be one!
But logic like that will get a person to the funny farm! But is also shows how and why their brains are so screwed up, probably beyond repair!
Yes, you're quite right, Caleb. I suspect he's in serious denial, and no it's not the river through Egypt! Denial makes him stretch for spurious "explanations" to ease his existential anxiety that we may well be the ones correct here.
All the "mistakes" he lists are, of course, also spurious, since they don't address the omissions.
Indeed, he even contradicts himself since I recall that in an earlier blog about a year or so ago he admitted the bible can never be used as a text book of science. If that's so, and I know he wrote it, then it means any scientific claims for the Bible are spurious or in plain terms....bollocks.
Any sensible person with half a working brain knows you're never going to pass a medical examination (to become a dr.) using the Bible, nor will you ever get a graduate degree in physics, biology, chemistry or any other science using the bible.
The most bible punchers are able to do is read some vague science interpretations between the lines. This is nothing, even the astrologers and alchemists can do better than that.
This is what we behold when people have nothing more than the "will to believe" as Psychologist William James put it in his book by the same name.
Btw, have you seen Mike's latest? He tries to reconcile the contradiction between Matthew 28:5 and John 20:12, where the first says there was one angel at the tomb after the resurrection, and the John verse says there were two.
According to Mikey, these are "not mutually exclusive" since "it is a mathematical certainty that wherever there are TWO there must be ONE"!
But that is lapse thinking and zero sum logic. Like saying the population of the U.S. is really ONE, and not 301 million, since wherever there are 301 million there must be one!
But logic like that will get a person to the funny farm! But is also shows how and why their brains are so screwed up, probably beyond repair!
Post a Comment