Post
Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device

Science And The Bible

This chart shows scientific facts and principles referred to in this ancient Bible, but not actually discovered by humankind until later centuries. Dead sea scrolls, historical documentation, and word of mouth all confirm the authenticity of the Bible and when it was created. Since people had no official knowledge of these scientific facts until more than a thousand years after the Bible was written, is this scientific proof that the Bible was inspired by God?

Scientific Fact or Principle / Bible reference /  Date of discovery by man
Both man and woman possess the seed of life / Genesis 3:15 / 17th Century
There is a place void of stars in the North / Job 26:7 / 19th Century
Earth is held in place by invisible forces /  Job 26:7 / 1650
Taxonomic classification of matter / Genesis 1 / 1735
The Earth is round / Isaiah 40:22 / 15th Century
Certain animals carry diseases harmful to man / Leviticus 11 / 16th Century
Early diagnosis of leprosy / Leviticus 13 / 17th Century
Quarantine for disease control / Leviticus 13 / 17th Century
Blood of animals carries diseases / Leviticus 17 / 17th Century
Blood is necessary for life Leviticus / 17:11 / 19th Century
Oceans have natural paths in them / Psalms 8:8 / 1854
Earth was in nebular form initially / Genesis 1:2 / 1911
Most seaworthy ship design ratio is 30:5:3 / Genesis 6 / 1860
Light is a particle and has mass (a photon) / Job 38:19 / 1932
Radio astronomy (stars give off signals) / Job 38:7 / 1945
Oceans contain fresh water springs / Job 38:16 / 1920
Snow has material value / Job 38:22 / 1905, 1966
Infinite number of stars exist / Genesis 15:5 / 1940
Dust is important to survival / Isaiah 40:12 / 1935
Hubert Spencer's scientific principles / Genesis 1 / 1820
Air has weight / Job 28:25 / 16th Century
Light can be split up into component colors / Job 38:24 / 1650
Matter is made up of invisible particles / Romans 1:20 / 20th Century
Plants use sunlight to manufacture food / Job 8:16 / 1920
Arcturus and other stars move through space / Job 38:32 / 19th Century
Water cycle / Ecclesiastes 1:7 / 17th Century
Life originated in the sea / Genesis 1 / 19th Century
Lightning and thunder are related / Job 38:25 / 19th Century
Man was the last animal created / Genesis 1 / 15th Century


Science still has not caught up to where the Bible has been for over 4000 years. Carbon dating doesn't work: Carbon dating showed a 5 year old rock from a fresh lava flow to be over 12 million years old. Fossilization is only possible at a very rapid pace, usually less than a year or the material being fossilized would rot away, and this can be witnessed and has been scientifically observed in various caves and at hot springs around the world. No one saw the world form 5 billion years ago, it is a theory based on things like fossilization and carbon dating, which have been proven false.
VincentValentine VincentValentine 31-35, M 20 Responses Feb 1, 2012

Your Response

Cancel

"Science And The Bible This chart shows scientific facts and principles referred to in this ancient Bible, but not actually discovered by humankind until later centuries. Dead sea scrolls, historical documentation, and word of mouth all confirm the authenticity of the Bible and when it was created. Since people had no official knowledge of these scientific facts until more than a thousand years after the Bible was written, is this scientific proof that the Bible was inspired by God?"

Uhh, no. This is scientific proof that you are one or more of the following ...

1. Ignorant

2. Dishonest

3. Illiterate

4. Unethical

5. Disingenuous

6. Delusional

7. Irrational

8. Unconscionable

9. Irresponsible

10. Misleading

11. Deceitful

12. Unprincipled

13. Fraudulent

14. Unscrupulous

15. Corrupt

The actual truth is, the bible does not specifically articulate and/or accurately describe any scientific principle or natural law. On the contrary, beyond grasping stupidly obvious causal relationships such as "blood is necessary for life" the bible's authors not only clearly didn't understand any of the natural processes they were observing, but ignorantly attributed virtually all phenomena to an allegedly omnipotent and omniscient supernatural entity who, according to the authors, exercised absolute control over everything.

Other than relating some historical events, the bible is worthless.

Vincent. I think you need to remove this list. I understand you want to recruit and retain membership. But you know and I know that this is simply telling blatant lies.

Let's take another, shall we?

Light is a particle and has mass (a photon) / Job 38:19 / 1932

Alright. Vincent claims that the bible in Job 38:19 miraculously describes light as a particle with mass, thousands of years before the modern day discovery in 1932.

I guess that alone would prove the existence of God. Right? I mean ... a miracle is a miracle. No way could the authors of the bible known this.

Maybe we should check Vincent's 'facts'. That ok?

Well, here are several versions of Job 38:19

American Standard Bible

19 Where is the way to the dwelling of light? And as for darkness, where is the place thereof,

1599 Geneva Bible

19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and where is the place of darkness,

King James Bible

19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,

Any of those verses describe a photon as a particle with mass?

IUmm. No. Amusingly, Job could be the biblical poster child for the non-existence of God.

What is really going on here? Well, throughout Chapter 38 of Job, God is bragging to Job about all his incredible powers. Here God is asking Job if he knows where God stores light. And darkness too, available when God wants to use it. The bible is describing darkness ... the absence of light ... as a tangible 'something' of substance ... just like light.

I don't think so. Additionally we know that there is no intelligence or deliberate intent involved. God is not putting light and/or dark wherever and whenever he feels like it.

And about the 'discovery' that photons have mass ...

A photon is massless,[Note 3] has no electric charge,[11] and is stable. A photon has two possible polarization states. In the momentum representation, which is preferred in quantum field theory, a photon is described by its wave vector, which determines its wavelength λ and its direction of propagation. A photon's wave vector may not be zero and can be represented either as a spatial 3-vector or as a (relativistic) four-vector; in the latter case it belongs to the light cone (pictured). Different signs of the four-vector denote different circular polarizations, but in the 3-vector representation one should account for the polarization state separately; it actually is a spin quantum number. In both cases the space of possible wave vectors is three-dimensional.

I find it quite disturbing that on such an important issue as this, people like Vincent have no qualms about lying.

Interesting comparison, thanks.

No. This is not scientific proof. Christians have no problem making stuff up to trick you into believing.

For example, do you really think somebody didn't try to grow a plant inside a structure (cave, whatever) in 200,000 years?

Or this one: Invisible particles. If they were invisible then we couldn't see them. But we can with our technology.

Fail.

Christians rely on your gullibility. Of which there is no shortage.

Pffff that only proves that Atlantis really existed and that we should in fact be worshipping Poseidon. (Just this isn't a proof of anything else than just that some people weren't completely retarded. Isn't it obvious plants need sunlight? They won't grow in the dark. Yeah a real scientific breaktrough you have there. Some are just plain wrong of course :P)

Okey. Have you ever heard of Bill Nye? He is the science guy who had a debate with this other guy (Ken Ham) whom is a creationist, you should see it, either you believe it or not, you should also check the debates of Lawrence Krauss vs Dr. Craig.

Now before anything I'm not being disrespectul nor my intention is to offend you. I respect you and you are allowed to have your opinion. But the problem here is that well you being all corky and confident may confuse some people.

So here's some facts.
Yes, The Bible does have some empiric science fact in their scripts. But the world is not 2000 years old, buddy. The mightiest civilizations that ever stepped this world are from waaaay before. And The Bible with all its facts is just a collection of the facts that were already known. The Bible was not and certainly is not any groundbreaking book.

SCIENCE HAS STILL NOT CAUGHT WITH THE BIBLE? Are you serious? Yes, maybe they haven't because we dont have neither empiric nor analitic evidence! Science is ruled by a method. And one of the steps or that method is is observation. We have never seen a guy who dies and wakes up 3 years safe and sound. We have never seen a guy with his epic beard breaking the oceans in two. God has never spoken to any of us. And even if He did, we are all bunch of prejudgemental ******** who will just take him as a loco.

And, dude, read some scientific **** once in a while, YouTube videos, google, even Netflix, pal. You'll see science has some crazy things going on. The CERN in switzerland, Titan the moon of Saturn. Thee parallel universes. Science fiction stuff but without the fiction.

By the way, I'm not even gonna discuss about the 4000 year old planet of yours. The terms get too complicated and well, apologist like you just use a bunch of fancy words so people without own minds would dig in it. But any time you wanna talk about it you know where you can find me.

this is cool!

Carbon dating isn't used on rocks. Only organic matter..

Rocks often have carbon in them, silly...

You can carbon date anything with carbon in it, since it measures the radioactive decay of carbon. Most rocks have carbon 14 (the type used for carbon dating) in them in trace amounts. How else do you think they have carbon dated meteorites that have no organic material whatsoever in them?

Maybe you should leave science for people who understand it, or learn it before trying to debate it.

No. Sharpie is right. Look it up!

It often helps to provide a direct reference, and though this isn't exactly definitive it does contain the relevant information at the start: http://sciencequestionswithchris.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/how-do-geologists-use-carbon-dating-to-find-the-age-of-rocks/
People are often too lazy to look things up.

@VV - I'm surprised for you to have lapsed on such a simple point...

Note to self: I guess he didn't look it up.

1 More Response

I once read that during the last century many esteemed scientists used the bible to find statements of fact then set out to research such information often finding that the bible was in fact correct.They used it as a starting point to begin research.

That is correct.

Watercycle and photosynthesis? Pfff child's stuff. Indian Vedas talk about nuclear wars, gas powered vehicles, fusion airplanes and space vehicles powered by prana. It is rumored Hitler sent a few people to look this up in hopes he could win the war with it. Maybe he shouldn't have scared all the jews into America where they helped building exactly what he was looking for. Silly fanatic xD So I suggest India if you're into fiction. Bible is way lamer :P

One great book that I have read on this topic is The Biblical Basis for Modern Science by Henry M. Morris.

Good Stuff!! Thanks for sharing the information!

Very Good study. Wish I could share this with some other people. Hoping for more.

Share it if you like.

Interesting break down. But I think some of these facts were found way before the bible was written. For example it does not take much to realize lightning has something to do with thunder. Second there is not an infinite amount of stars in the universe. We are only saying that because we cannot count them all. To say the number is never ending is not a fact. Further more I do agree carbon dating is not always reliable because we use machines to measure how many atoms of nitrogen are in a substance. The process is hard, and there can be mistakes. But I think when the fossil record comes up usaully consistant it can be accurate. But none of this is to argue the existance of god.

I would say "the fossil record" as presented is not a fact of anything except that something died. The fossil record just as the so called "geological column" only exist in text books and can be found nowhere on earth.

I assume that you have been able to study this at length to make such a bold comment like that. Perhaps you have studied paleontology for a long time. Or you have done your research to prove my comment wrong, because what you just said is a very very very interesting thing to say. I would only accept an expert on this matter to claim something as big as this which I assume you are given you saying this without citing any outside source for me to read. If in fact my assumptions are untrue and you have not studied the fossil record as thoroughly as one must to make this claim, don't waist my time with such a preposterous statement.

the important thing to remember about that is that scientists are forced to admit that the universe had a definite beginning.

You are sure a bundle of misinformation, aren't you?

This was the generally accepted theory for quite some time. But there is some data suggesting an eternal cycling universe, and other data suggesting multiple universes. Look into recent research by Roger Penrose and others on this.

I find that most people use science instead of faith in God. Why not explain science because of God? Example: most people who support the Big Bang theory, deny the existence of God. How do we know that God didn't use the Big Bang method? I mean, why can't both be correct?

I was not aware that most who embrace the BB deny god. The official Catholic church position is the BB was the moment God created the universe. Correct me if I am wrong.

Great list! Thanks!

Say it then. I love it.

The Bible, obviously

Thank you for sharing this most interesting information ! I am looking forward to reviewing every point you made.

You may also want to check the validity of each. Research each claim using independent sources. Christian sources are not going to be objective.

Good break down. Thanks.