51 scientific facts that disprove the Bible

Couldn't god be more clear then? Or imparted in him the knowledge he needed to be absolutely clear? He can do anything right? Why not make it absolutely clear what he was intending? Does he want people to doubt?The message could still be clear by adding a simple disclaimer. Something like "Yes, you don;t understand these images, but when you do, know the time is nigh!"In short, if it was meant to be clear, it would've been.

---

I hunt for the truth

So, you expect a full list of all the animals to fit into a very well-planned and well-written poem? Gen. 1 is clearly a Hebrew poem, of which there are recurring themes of 3, 7, and 10. This was by design, as the author intended this theme (whether it be through divine intervention or not is indeterminable).Such an extensive list would not have fit very well into the structure of this poem.Beyond that, it does talk about the creatures and their kinds, meaning basically 'this type of creature, and all the other creatures that are similar to that type'.It actually says along with the creation of the swarming creatures that God created the "giant sea monsters" - listing them separately from the others, but still on the same "day" as all sea creatures.Edited by General Anubis, : Grammar

So, you're saying that Revelation would've still been able to convey its meaning even if the entire description of events was beyond the comprehension of those reading it? A disclaimer would not have helped anyone understand the meaning of it if they were completely confused by everything contained in it. Also, why risk some people being unable to understand Revelation, when it could just simply be represented in symbolic terms in order to be sure that everyone can understand it.Try to explain division (in math) to a small child using terms that the child has never heard before (dividend, quotient, etc.) and the child will be completely confused and then refuse to listen. However, use something the child can understand, such as a box, containing a number of smaller blocks, and chances are more likely that the child will understand. Someone who is older and more advanced in knowledge can still understand the childish model, so it is ensured that the more simplistic model will reach a larger number.

In dramatic contradiction to the actual facts........
but oh well.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

No, that's not the point. What I expect is for it to be confined to the very limited knowledge of the middle-eastern authors, and to therefore contain an inaccurate view of the formation of earth and a parochial view of the flora and fauna. And that's exactly what we find. Of course I know that there will be no mention of a single "new world" animal or plant, because the authors had no idea those continents and their animal and human inhabitants existed.It is exactly what we'd expect of a human work, with absolutely nothing to justify the claims of divine influence or authorship. Ah! I got whales from my King James version. I wonder if it's the same Hebrew word as in the Jonah story. Anyway, all sea creatures were definitely not created at the same time, so that would count as one of the scientific facts against the Bible. And the cetaceans were not before land animals, so that's another. It also has birds on the same day, before land animals, so that's a third.We're doing quite well on the first few verses of a very long book.

In Genesis 1:28, God declared that man's dominion was to include every living thing that moves on the earth. Lo and behold, there's no moving creatures that mankind is not incapable of managing. That includes bacteria. Were it not for management from man, the black death and other diseases would likely have won the war against mankind. I manage the potato bugs in my potato patch so as to get a crop. The Fae collar on my dog manages fleas. Woe to woodie woodchuck that thinks my garden is his for his dinner.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I refer you both to http://godandscience.org/apologetics/model.htmlThis website is where I get a large majority of my information, as it is a very science-fact-oriented website. Nearly every claim found on the website is supported by factual evidence and cited accordingly.Compare the times in that timeline to what we know, and tell me again that it is inaccurate.Also - the King James Version is quite notorious for its skewed interpretations using today's English applied to the English of that time. Your best bet will be New American Standard or New International Version. These have both been translated directly from the Hebrew/Greek texts using thousands of corroborating documents and translating meaning for meaning rather than word for word, to ensure a more accurate description of the original meaning.

For that, you have to thank the people who were doing science, instead of Bible-thumping. But actually, we depend on bacteria for our existence, and cannot live without them. They can live without us, predate us by billions of years, and will be there when we're gone.As they constitute most life on earth and are central to it, the Bible must surely tell us a lot about them. What does it say? Which day were they created on?

At a brief glance, he's missed out the first 2.5 billion years of life on earth, then he's dead wrong on land mammals, and slightly wrong on a few other things. But it's infinitely better than AnswersInGenesis!!! However, he has problems with Genesis. For example, the first land plants were nothing to do with the seeds and fruit bearing plants of Genesis.Anyway, he's missed out the prokaryotes, which is most of life for most of the time. Big mistake for him, and an enormous mistake by the authors of Genesis.I get the impression that by trying to squeeze the Bible story into science, he'll end up wrong according to both Genesis and science.

What has that got to do with the topic? We've addressed what pertains to creatures relative to this topic. Can we move on to some of the other items on the list?Methinks there's a resident moose nearby tracking our trail. I grew up in moose country and they will actually track you down sometimes when backpacking or when hunting elk in the mountains. They're a curious animal.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Bible thumpers weren't the ones doing science? According to history, all scientific institutions were run by clergy in the middle ages (the time of the Bubonic Plague), usually in monasteries.

General Anubis,Out of interest, what scientific institutions existed in the middle ages?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

No wonder half the population of Europe died!

The fact that the Bible claims to describe the creation of life, but your God fails to mention what would have to be by far his favourite form of life (prokaryotes) is an example of science disproving the Bible. Biologically speaking, it's worse than missing out fish or birds. So that's on topic. Curious also is the absence of all specifically American life forms like the Moose from the Bible. Didn't your God know about them?

He has mentioned them all in Genesis 1. They're included in the phrase, "all moving things." That's my final comment relative to your nitpicky nonsense.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.