51 scientific facts that disprove the Bible

1.) As has been stated, the Bible clearly denies that the first six "days" were literally 24 hours.
- If this were the claim in Gen. 1, then in Gen. 2, the Bible would have already blatantly contradicted itself, as on the 6th 'day' both Adam and Eve were created. In Gen. 2 we see that Eve is created only after Adam first names every kind of creature on the Earth. There is no possible way this all happened within one day.
- Further proof against the 24 hour creation days lies in the Hebrew term used, 'yom,' which means an indefinite amount of time.
- Even further proof is provided in Gen 1:14 where previously the 'lights in the heavens' that marked the LITERAL days were not yet visible in the Earth's sky. Therefore, the events before this had happened have no grounds with which to measure a 24-hour day from.-----2.) This claim is never made. The verse simply says that all the plants of the earth are available as food. It does not say that plants are the only food, nor does it command animals only to eat the plants.-----3.) I believe Buzsaw's point against this argument is the best one possible.-----4.) This 'snake' was actually Satan (an angel, supernatural being, i.e: see the note at the top) which had taken the form of a serpent. Granted, the judgment is passed to all serpents, which is then classifiable as a supernatural event a.k.a. - see the beginning note.-----5.) Pure speculation. From what we know, perhaps, but according to the Bible, the human race has been around for at least 50,000 years (Verses that support this: Deut 7:9; 1 Chron 16:15; Psalms 105:8). The verses I cite here say that God has commanded his word to a thousand generations. Biblically speaking, a generation was considered to be 40 years. 40 x 1000 = 40,000 years. Taking into account a prolonged lifespan for the first few generations, 50,000y.a. is easily achieved. On a site note, no spiritual/religious artifacts or expression has been found to date that is older than 25 - 50k years (as would be predicted).
- Further: -----6.) Again, based on pure speculation. To believe in evolution one must believe that random mutation is possible. It seems inconceivable, an evolutionist saying that a large human is impossible. It is likely that Goliath was simply an abnormally tall human, who (due to his size) was likely trained in the art of combat from a very early age, making him a giant not just in height but also in intimidation.-----7.) The Bible clearly depicts a local flood upon even a light study of the original Hebrew meaning. There was a word in Hebrew that meant global (used several times in Genesis 1), this word was never used in reference to the flood. However, kol erets the Hebrew phrase that has been loosely translated into "all the earth," and "all the [creatures of the] earth" almost always refers to a local area, or a group of people. In this case, the flood was global in regards to the people targeted, as all of the human race at that time lived in the Mesopotamian flood plane, so the use of 'kol erets' to mean 'all the people' (which is its more common usage) is valid in this case.
- That all being said, the second part saying that the boat could not hold all the animals is invalid. The first part refers to the length of the boat, while mysteriously leaving out all the dimensions. The dimensions of the ark follow the ideal dimensions necessary for building a seaworthy ship. Surprising, considering the Hebrew weren't exactly notable in history for their ship construction. Further, this wood was reinforced by thick, water resistant resin, as well as the boat only needed to float in about 20 feet of water.-----8.) I presume you are talking about animal life, in which case refer to the previous answer. The Mesopotamian plane could have been repopulated from small nuclear groups such as those.-----9.) Agreed. The Bible also says this, as I have stated in #7. Another thing I forgot to mention actually, is that the Bible would have contradicted itself within the span of 5 verses if the flood were supposed to be global. Gen 8:5 says mountain tops were visible, but verse 9 (after 40 days have passed) says that a dove returns to Noah because water still covered all the earth. Obviously the mountain tops (the Hebrew word here is more commonly translated as 'hills', with a different word being used for mountain, mind you) had been uncovered for at least 40 days, and there is an obvious contradiction. A local flood resolves this discrepancy.-----10.) Not sure how to answer this one, but I do know that any time people are in an unnerving situation with an animal they are afraid of, the typical advice is "Don't worry, it's just as afraid of you as you are of it," regardless of the animal. I'd like to know which animals you presume are not afraid of humans, as well as documented cases of unconditioned animals in their natural habitat not being frightened by the presence of humans. Also, animal mothers protecting their young should be disregarded, as that can be considered a special case... more of 'the exception' rather than 'the rule.'-----11.) Not sure where you got that date, but if it was from a young-earth (an highly flawed) interpretation like is represented by #1, then your dating of the Tower of Babel is equally flawed. It is highly likely that his happened 10,000 or more years ago, as such the argument you present here is invalid.-----12.) Not sure what you're getting at with this... I'd like to have further clarification as to how this disproves the Bible, verses cited, and references from which these dates are pulled as well.-----13.) Where does it say that the Israelites comprised half the population of Egypt?-----14.) This has already been addressed, but beyond that this is a spiritual event - refer to top note.-----15.) If this refers to the age of the earth in a young-earth perspective, the argument is invalid for reasons already addressed.-----16.) Spiritual event - See top note.-----17.) This has already been answered by other posters, but it mostly comes down to translation and symbolism. The most accurate Hebrew-to-English translation that we have (99.9% accuracy to original text - I have many references to cite this number if you wish), the NASB or NIV (both are equally accurate) say that the eagle 'hovers' over its young. This suggests the way that eagles brood over their nests, as do most birds.
- The argument here is a pretty pathetic attempt at debunking the Bible, IMO.-----18.) Gonna have to see some sources for that one.-----19.) Spiritual event - You know the drill. Circular reasoning will get you nowhere (no pun intended)-----20.) Where in the Bible does it say anything about Astrology? The only place I can see anything related to astrology (albeit remotely) is where in Job it speaks of the Pleiades and Orion star clusters. Actually, here the Bible states that these star clusters are gravitationally bound, and the Orion cluster is slowly drifting apart, which has been proven true by modern-day astronomy. Pretty impressive for what you are supposing are some delusional nomad shepherds in the desert.-----21.) I suppose this means you know of an experiment involving a person with that much hair, or perhaps have personally tried to grow out that much hair. Maybe the physically strongest human in the Bible just might have the follicle strength to hold up a few pounds of hair. Before you go and say that Samson could not have been as strong as he was, I'll refer you to the top note, as that is clearly defined as a spiritual event by the Bible.-----22.) Where is this found? Not saying it isn't in the Bible, but I'd rather have a verse citation so I can look it up myself.-----23.) Spiritual event-----24.) ...Spiritual event - a bit redundant...-----25.) Not sure what part you're referring to here, but I believe you're talking about the same event mentioned in #19 with the sun standing still. Nothing has changed from 19 to 25 here unless you're talking about a different event. If so, please cite it so I may read it.-----26.) Agreed. Amazing how one verse can be taken out of context and used to mean anything you want it to mean. Oh wait, isn't that your argument?
- I can't even think of another instance in the Bible where it is said that the 'world will not be shaken' - and in fact other instances say that the earth trembles. I'm putting my money on the Hebrew for 'world' in this case going back to the aforementioned 'erets', rather than the actual word for the globe of the earth, in which case it is probably referring to people.-----27.) Not sure where you're coming from here, give me some verse citations so I can read this (presumably it is in either # Kings or # Samuel I suppose? Maybe # Chronicles?)-----28.) It was an object lesson using something that the audience who was being addressed could understand. Not to mention that God comes along later and says that Job's friends didn't know what they were talking about.-----29.) This claim is never made, and this argument has been addressed by several other people already.-----30.) If you're referring to Revelations at the end of the Earth, then why do you assume that this means literal stars in the sky? It was written by a man from Bible days looking into what we now know as current day, or perhaps even further into the future. What looked like stars coming out of the sky to him could be missiles from fighter jets or any bright object coming quickly down to the earth, probably in an explosion.-----31.) This has been addressed by other people on this thread-----32.) Read #31.-----33.) Read #31.-----34.) Going to need verse citation to support this timeline please, I want to read it myself.-----35.) Already refuted by others in this thread-----36.) Read #35.-----37.) Already addressed pretty effectively by others in the thread as well.-----38.) I assume you have proof of this?-----39.) Again, presupposing spiritual events as impossible. Also, 90% of the events in the Bible have naturalistic explanations. Is it so hard to believe that events in the spiritual realm, being beyond our dimensions, could have effects that manifest naturalistically in our realm? Beyond that, refer to the top note.-----40.) Where is this coming from? The mustard seed passage? Don't really understand how this stance refutes the Bible.-----41.) Refer to #39.-----42.) Unfalsifiable claim against yet another spiritual event.-----43.) Spiritual event - Should I just start abbreviating these to S.E.?-----44.) ...S.E. - Guess so.-----45.) Bible never states otherwise. If you are referring to 'death entering the world' at the original sin, then you must be ignoring the names Adam gave to the animals, as well as the Hebrew word for the land animals created on the 6th day (the word means carnivores, or animals that eat other animals).
- As for the names Adam gave the animals, the names in Hebrew for a few animals are as follows:
Lion - It's name is derived from the Hebrew that means "In the sense of violence."
Hawk - "Unclean bird of prey".
Eagle - from an unused root meaning "To lacerate".
Owl - "To wrong, do violence to, treat violently, do wrongly"-----46.) While this may be true (sort of.. we don't have scales or chitin), humans are fundamentally different from all other animals in that the Bible says we have both Body, Mind, and Spirit - existing in a triune entity (in the image of God who shares this characteristic, no less). I can't think of a place where the Bible says the flesh of man is not similar to animals' flesh, perhaps a citation would help me out.-----47.) The Bible never claims this. If you're referring to Jesus saying that some among the group would not taste death until seeing Him return (John, specifically), the verse has already been fulfilled, and John has died. John was the apostle who was shown the end-times in a vision from God (Revelation), during which he SAW the second coming of Christ, fulfilling what Jesus said. He said 'until SEEing him return,' which John did.---------------------------------------Alright, that takes care of all of it except the ones which require further clarification.If you're reading this you either skipped it all or actually read that book of a post... in which I must thank you for reading it.If you did NOT read all of my answers, then you have little ground to stand on in arguing against any of them, as you do not know my full argument.References are available upon request... I didn't want to make this post any longer than it had to be .

Thanks for the warm welcome! (Hopefully it won't go from warm to heated! xD)Yes, I'm quite sure that there are some creationists out there who would label me as a heretical compromiser between evolution and creationism, but I'm just following where the facts lead with an open mind.Anyway, as a response to the dodos/seals/sea lions being cases of animals not being afraid of humans:
I have to say that the Bible verse mentioned is, in context, God telling man that he (man) is in a dominating position toward all animals. Walking up to an animal and killing it with little/no resistance would seem to support this claim.

There's one major problem with your linking of these two arguments that I made. You're taking both of them out of context for one thing (surprise surprise) and then putting them together to make it look like they contradict. The Pleiades and Orion clusters are actually written out fully-named as such in the Bible, not just referenced as 'stars'. This reference is made in Job, where God himself is speaking and asking Job (and his friends) who else can "bind the chains of Pleiades, or loose the cords of Orion?" This is God trying to inform them of his omnipotence.The other part, where JOHN (note: different person, different context) is being shown a vision of the future (modern day or perhaps further) and is attempting to describe what he is seeing in words that will be understood by the people of his time. Do you think anyone would have known what he was talking about if he said "And F-22 Raptors launched ICBMs from the sky"? Clearly John HAS to use symbolism in order for people to understand what he's talking about.I reiterate - A pathetic attempt.Further into your response, as you state that the Bible clearly contains many contradictions, it is likely that these contradictions of which you speak are of similar nature to the one you just tried to create from my words. Out of context, they seem to contradict. Beyond that, delving into the original Hebrew meaning of the words involved is sometimes necessary to resolve apparent contradictions.And as a response to your last part there, yes I am fully prepared to argue against any young-earth creationist and global-flood advocate. The evidence from the Bible itself and science corroborates to support old-earth creationism and a local flood.The important thing to note, however, is that believing the Bible is the inerrant word of God and being born again (and redeemed from your sins) are the only requirements for entering heaven.So, while a belief in young-earth creationism may be scientifically unsound, the fact remains that they are still Christian. Therefore, the majority of my effort is directed toward countering evolutionist claims in an attempt to pull just one more out of the fire.

While a bacterium may be a living thing, the Hebrew word here translated as animals probably refers to the 'soulish animals' - Meaning those with a will of their own. The Hebrew use of this word makes this distinction clear in the creation account of Genesis 1.

I realize F-22's are not capable of carrying ICBMs, I was trying to get my point across. The meaning would've been no different if I had said ballistic missiles in general, not necessarily of the intercontinental variety.Also - The Bible refers to bacteria in its reference of the forming of "swarming creatures" which is a catchall term in Hebrew for anything that is very tiny and typically comes in large groups, it even includes rats. Yes, whales are considered soulish creatures.

Alright - So we've established my knowledge of modern aircraft weaponry is limited. My point remains that John could not have described the events shown to him without using symbolism, or else everyone would've been completely confused. It is also quite likely that John was quite confused by the events shown to him, and made sense of them the best he could.

Like I said, it is highly likely that John wrote it down to the best of his understanding. He would have understood the images just as the others of his time would have, so he was probably quite confused about what he saw, but wrote down what it looked like to him. Also, the Bible is meant for all, not just one specific time period. While Revelation may pertain to one time period, the message contained is meant to be understood by all.

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.

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.

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.

I suppose technically you don't have to believe the Bible is flawless (actually, there is 0.1% error from reading the English translations), and no the Bible doesn't specifically say that. However, the Bible does say that it is the Word of God, in which case you would have to call God a liar to not believe something in the Bible. That is quite blasphemous if I'm not mistaken, considering God cannot lie, and also considering He said He has put His Word above Himself, meaning He would be subject to a lie if the Bible were found false in some part of it. Also, if any part of the Bible were false, what guarantee is there that any part is true then?Further, the only real requirement is obeying the Word of God, which the Bible does say this. However, obeying the Word of God requires knowing what that Word is, which is why it is necessary for the Bible to be true, or else we would have no guide to follow in order to please God.In response to cave, 'evolution' in itself is a bit of a broad term, but if you believe in evolution to the extent of abiogenesis, then you are in direct opposition to the Bible. Furthermore, if you believe that man descended from another animal naturalistically, you completely degrade the purpose of man, and oppose the creation account. The only way someone can call themselves a Christian and believe in evolution is if they believe God created everything to begin with, set in motion the evolutionary chain for the animals, then created man separately. Beyond that requires either extreme ignorance to the Bible or evolution, one of the two.Also, yes I dismiss YEC very quickly, because every piece of evidence uncovered by science destroys it, and the Bible does not support it (unless you use a garbage translation and refuse to take verses in context).Edited by General Anubis, : No reason given.

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.htmlSorry, I was off by 0.4%, the actual number is 99.5%

Star cluster NGC 1981 makes up a portion of the lower half of the Orion constellation.

Yes... they are the chosen ones surely, since God sent His Son in the form of a bacterium to die for THEIR sins. [/sarcasm]Even a basic understanding of the Bible makes it obvious that your argument is hopelessly flawed.