Scientific Facts in the Bible:
Scientific Facts in the Bible:
Scientific Facts in the Bible:
- Earth sits on nothing – Job 26:7
- Creation made of invisible things (atoms) – Heb. 11:3
- The earth is circular in shape – Is. 40:22
- There are four directions – Mark 13:27
- The ocean has distinct paths (currents) – Ps. 8:8; 2 Sam. 22:16
- Ocean has valleys, mountains, springs – Jonah 2:5-6; Job 38:16
- Air has currents and weight– Eccl. 1:6; Job 28:25
- The earth has fire under it – Job 28:5
- Hydrologic Cycle – Job 26:8; Amos 9:6; Ps. 135:7; Eccl. 1:7; Eccl. 11:3
- Each star is different – 1 Cor. 15:41
- Plants and animals only yield their own kind – Gen. 1:12, 21, 24, 25
- Blood is the code of life – Lev. 17:11
- Bodies turn to dust after death – Gen. 3:19
- Running water reduces bacteria and quarantine the ill – Lev. 15:13; 13:46
2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Scientific Facts in the Bible:
Scientific Facts in the Bible:
Thermodynamics is a branch of physics that relates to heat and energy distribution. The second law states that there is no spontaneous flow of heat without work or a physical effort being done. Simply put, this means that an effort needs to be done in order to get a result, and it also relates to entropy, or the idea that disorder is more probable than order.
Why is this important to biblical science? Because it proves that molecules were purposely organized into their current state.
For example, if you were to put the 26 letters of the alphabet into a bag and shake them up, what is the probability that you would randomly pull out eight letters, and that those letters would spell the word
c-r-e-a-t-i-o-n in that order?
The answer is 1 in 62.9 billion.
If you put those letters back in the bag and then tried to randomly pull all the letters out in alphabetical order, your chances of success would be 1 in 403,291,461,126,600,000,000,000,000 (four hundred and three septillion).
Now, let's try something more scientific, like chromosomes. A human typically has 46 chromosomes in a specific order to create a life.
The probability of these chromosomes pairing up correctly is 1 in
5,502,622,159,812,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (5.557; octodecillion)
And this is for just ONE person!
There are currently almost 8 billion people, not to mention all the animals and plants which also have chromosomes.
The probability that all these chromosomes perfectly paired randomly is astronomical. When studying science from this viewpoint, it is obvious there was a master plan and someone in control of creation.
Q&A: the Bible in Science
Can I believe in evolution and still be a Christian?
What about current evolving animal, plant, & bacteria?
Can I believe in evolution and still be a Christian?
No, evolution denies the existence of God and his almighty power.
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
“For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, He created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord there is none else” (Isaiah 45:18).
“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible…” (Colossians 1:16).
What about intelligent design theory?
What about current evolving animal, plant, & bacteria?
Can I believe in evolution and still be a Christian?
Intelligent design theory is worse than evolution as the basic principle is that a supreme being created the world, but then abandoned us to the elements.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son…”
(John 3:16).
In fact, practically the entire Bible is God having direct interaction in the affairs of the world, both in nature and in human ambitions and actions.
What about current evolving animal, plant, & bacteria?
What about current evolving animal, plant, & bacteria?
What is the difference between adaptation and evolution?
This is adaptation and genetics, not evolution. Adaptation is based in genetics. A certain trait that is advantageous to the species is passed along while the recessive or non-useful traits eventually die out or occur in only a small portion of the species population. The core species remains the same.
The best example of adaptation is the color of moth wings before and after the industrial revolution. Prior to factories, white wings were dominate. However, after coal factories opened white winged months were easy to spot and eaten by birds. Black winged moths surged in population because they were the ones procreating and passing along the survival trait (dark wings).
What is the difference between adaptation and evolution?
If scientists have data and the Bible is scientifically improvable, how do I know/prove it’s true?
What is the difference between adaptation and evolution?
Adaptation is simply variations in traits passed down to future generations.
The theory of evolution dictates that changes spontaneously occur in a species which, over the course of time, change the host species into another species all together.
The Bible clearly is against this believe. “And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose see was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:12).
If one creature could simply evolve into another, why did God command Noah to bring two of every kind onto the ark when only a couple of animals would have been necessary?
“And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive” (Genesis 6:19-20).
Scientists are firm in their belief of the origins of life. How does this fit with religion?
If scientists have data and the Bible is scientifically improvable, how do I know/prove it’s true?
If scientists have data and the Bible is scientifically improvable, how do I know/prove it’s true?
It doesn’t. Leading scientific minds in Noah’s day declared rain was impossible based in their “research” and see what happened to them.
Many times scientists have declared something is impossible, just to have that very event happen before their eyes. Who are you more willing to believe? God who tells you exactly what has happened and what will happen, or human who are still looking for a missing link?
The Bible warns against men and women that believe/support/create these “scientific” theories. In 1 Timothy 6:20, 21 it says, “…keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith…”
The Bible and God are the ultimate truth. You must remain firmly rooted in your believe in the Bible and God, just as scientists and supporters of their theories stubbornly cling to their ungodly beliefs.
If scientists have data and the Bible is scientifically improvable, how do I know/prove it’s true?
If scientists have data and the Bible is scientifically improvable, how do I know/prove it’s true?
If scientists have data and the Bible is scientifically improvable, how do I know/prove it’s true?
The Bible is not scientifically improvable. Archaeologists digging in Israel and Jerusalem have been able to verify many sites mentioned within scripture. Some of these sites were originally thought by researchers to not exist, (such as Hezekiah’s wall), only to find conclusive data such as the king’s name literally stamped on the evidence, thus proving the bible true.
Geological scientific data can help researchers prove the certain Biblical sites existed (i.e. iron or certain other mineral contents which can only be manmade).
Other sites are not “officially” recognized due to the political nature of the find, such as an obviously non-Egyptian (Israelite) city located in the Biblical “Land of Goshen” (Genesis 45:10) where archaeologists discovered signet rings bearing the Hebrew name, Jacob.
Yet, researchers even after making these finds insist it's not "really" a biblical find. You cannot argue with people who are willing to knowingly disregard concrete evidence simply because it doesn’t fit their theories or agenda.
Among creationists there is division, old earth & young earth. What are these and which is biblical?
Among creationists there is division, old earth & young earth. What are these and which is biblical?
Among creationists there is division, old earth & young earth. What are these and which is biblical?
Old earth view is the belief that each creation "day" actually took place over hundreds or thousands of years. Old earth supports still believe that God created the world, but that it basically had to mature to the world that existed when Adam and Eve came along. It's similar to intelligent design theory and was developed to coincide with the so-called scientific evidence.
Young earth creationists believe that each creation day was a literally 24-hour time period. They believe the world is no older than 12,000 years, most suggesting about 6,000 years old.
From the biblical perspective, the young earth view is correct. In Genesis 1, it is very clear that each day of creation had an evening and a morning. If this was not a literal day, then what would be the purpose in mentioning these specific time indicators?
Look at Exodus 20:11. God is very clear on how long it took him to create the earth, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."
What is BC/AD and BCE/CE dating? And why does it matter?
Among creationists there is division, old earth & young earth. What are these and which is biblical?
Among creationists there is division, old earth & young earth. What are these and which is biblical?
BC and AD are the traditional indicators used to tell the distinction between years. For example, Cleopatra lived in BC, while Winston Churchill was in AD.
BC= Before Christ
AD= Anno Domini or After Death
These were first used in about 525 AD when Dionysius Exiguus created his Easter table. He marked that year as 525 years since the birth of Christ (he was off a few years, but more on that later). The important thing was that the dividing line between BC and AD was the birth of Christ.
The new terms BCE and CE mean, before the common era and common era, respectively. The additional of BCE and CE is a political move to remove religion from our lives and be politically correct.
Most scientists and new textbooks use these terms. However, the dividing line between the two is still the birth of Christ!
Example: 1 BC is the same as 1 BCE and 1492 AD is the same as 1492 CE.
What is the difference between BC/AD and AM dating?
Among creationists there is division, old earth & young earth. What are these and which is biblical?
What is the difference between BC/AD and AM dating?
As we just discussed, BC/AD dating counts time in relation to the life of Christ.
BC= Before Christ
AD= Anno Domini or After Death
AM dating stands for Anno Mundi,
meaning 'Year of the World.'
In the Jewish calendar, they use this to count from the year of creation. (Note the current Jewish calendar is missing years).
An example of AM dating is stating the flood occurred in 1656 AM, or 1,656 years after creation.
The AM method is useful when tabulating any event in which the BC/AD year is debatable.
For example, using the genealogy tables in Genesis we can pinpoint how long almost any event occurred from creation up until the time of the Exodus, and even deduce that the first temple was built in 2993 AM.
How do you know which scientific results can be trusted, and is Carbon 14 dating reliable?
Easy, if it goes against biblical teachings, you can’t use that data. “If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20).
This mostly applies to dating methods. Other scientific tests, such as mineral counts, can be tested with the same verifiable results time after time, with no contradiction of biblical principle. However, dating methods even go contrary to scientist’s own standards. Carbon 14 (C14) dating is considered a scientific standard. It is used in almost every single dating question. It relies on counting the amount of carbon remaining in an object to calculate the age of that artifact/fossil. The problem arises with the fact that when testing historic artifacts/fossils using C14 dating, scientists conclude these objects are many thousand or million years old. This is impossible based on their scientific rules, yet they ignore their own standards. Carbon has a half-life of about 5,730 years. This means that it takes 5,730 years for half of the carbon molecules to decay (die) and be removed from an object. However, this is tricky because scientists assume the object was exposed to the same about of carbon and CO2 during the course of its existence, which often is not the case. They must also rely on tree ring data and soil layers to lay down firm dates as solely testing the object its self has been proven unreliable. According to science, one should not be able to get a C14 result more than 60,000-90,000 years old.
When testing objects with known formation dates, the objects test much later than the known date. Here’s some examples. When Mount St. Helens (Washington, USA) blew in 1980, the lava eventually cooled from its liquid state to a solid state of rock. These rocks should have produced a date of 2-3 decades old, instead the results came back 20,000+ years old. Another example is a location in the U.K. where the river has a high mineral content. If one places an object, such as a teddy bear, in the river for several weeks it turns it in a petrified object (basically stone). When tested, these items date thousands of years old, instead only months or years. Finally, a couple of men purchased a fresh fish at a market. They placed in salt and set it out in the sun. Using no chemicals, they turned the recently fresh fish into a fossil which they had tested. Scientists were thrilled with this ‘ancient’ find dated at millions of years old. It wasn’t until the men revealed how they had created their ‘fossil’ that the researchers were finally able to conclude the item was a forgery. If the men hadn’t told, the scientists would have never known. They couldn’t identify the fake because their tests all told them it was real.
Now, I don’t know about you, but if I placed my money in an account at a bank and then came back to retrieve it several years later I would want that exact amount back plus the set 2% interest agreed upon. I would not be confident in the reliability the institution if upon return one teller tells me the interest rate is 1% then another teller says it’s 20% while still another insists it’s 13%, and by the time I finally receive my money it’s less than what I deposited in the first place. The bank would be out of business and I would never trust another bank without firm, reliable evidence that the information they give me is correct. It would not be my job to convince the bank I believe them, it would be theirs to prove to me they are not making the same mistakes.
The same concept also applies to science. They have conclusively set standards and rules regarding the nature of minerals and molecules. If they receive a result that contradicts these set standards, the results should deemed faulty because they are impossible. One should not simply accept them just because a scientist says so.
Scientists are not infallible, and no matter how you look at it, their C14 results are impossible, even based on their own ideology. If you wouldn’t accept results like this with your money, why would you entrust your soul with it?