51 scientific facts that disprove the Bible

But the Black Death doesn't. Black Death - Wikipedia

Considering that most of the world's biomass is composed of bacteria, and considering the essential role that they play in relation to all other life forms (we're dead without them), what does the Bible tell us about them, and where?As you mention Genesis, and "soulish animals", doesn't Genesis have something interesting to say about whales that might relate to this topic?Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

A mere glancing reference to something central to life on earth? How strange. I think that would refer to visible swarming creatures, actually. One striking group of animals are the marsupials, with the way they carry their young. Is there a reference to any of these? Also, is there any reference to the animals that are unique to the Americas, Australia and Antartica? Or the plants? And if not, why not? I assumed that. And what do the wise authors of Genesis have to say about when the whales were created? Didn't they come before land mammals?

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.

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.

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?

All moving things? All moving things. Buzsaw, if this planet has a creator God, he cannot be the author of your Bible. Any creator of life on this planet has to be a prokaryote lover. Ask anyone who knows their biology. This planet was clearly created for them. The creator created them first, and he created them lovingly, and watched over them lovingly for 2 or 3 billion years before he bothered to create anything else, and they still comprise most of the life on earth. It is obvious that creatures like us were only created to accommodate those billions that exist happily in each of our bodies (and which keep us alive).If you worshipped the true creator, you would thank Him for them in your prayers. They are the Chosen Ones. A book that does not mention them specifically and in detail cannot be the word of the creator God of this world. Their ubiquity and dominance disproves the Bible.

But do you understand my argument, General? Here you have a book which you claim is the word of the creator of the universe and of life on this planet. In the section on the creation of life, the author/s omit the creatures that comprise most of the biosphere.That would fit if the author/s were humans who did not know of the existence of these creatures, which are the base of all life on earth, but it does not fit a creator god who would know of their existence and of their central importance. If this god is supposed to be communicating to us, he would have told us about the creatures without which our bodies can't function, which shape the nature of the atmosphere we breath, and some of which can be lethal to us.It's 1000 times more important than mentioning, for example, birds.So, this is very strong evidence against the proposition that the Bible is the word of a creator god, and shows it to be (like all other books) a human work.