Bronze-level article

Eternal Productions: 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Behemoth)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Light iron-age reading
The Bible
Icon bible.svg
Gabbin' with God

101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge is a booklet and article from Eternal Productions, a group which produces numerous writings and videos on fundamentalist Christian topics. This particular article attempts to demonstrate the credibility of the Bible by finding passages that supposedly demonstrate foreknowledge of scientific facts. What actually happens is that Eternal Productions finds allegorical, metaphorical, and poetic phrases, and then interprets them to fit their point. All the parts of the Bible that are scientifically wrong? Ignored. An examination of every one of their claims follows.

#1 -- #11 --#21 -- #31 -- #41 -- #51 -- #61 -- #71 -- #81 -- #91 -- #101

Eternal Productions' claims of scientific foreknowledge in the BibleRationalWiki's responses


The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true – “He hangs the earth on nothing.”

This is what Job 26:7 says: "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." (all translations used are from the King James version.) Creation Ministries International specifically singles out the book of Job as not having scientific insight.[1] Instead, they say that Job is poetic, and should be read as the author intended its readers to read it.

The earth does not "hang" — it is caught in a gravitational pull and moves due to angular momentum. This verse says that the earth is above nothing. Nothing is defined as non-existent. However, beneath the earth (and all around the earth) is empty space, cosmic dust, stars, electromagnetic waves, and more. That is not nothing.

This passage also seems to contradict Job 38:4-6, which refers to the earth having a foundation and footings, in direct contradiction to the idea that it is unsupported. Job 26:11 says heaven is supported by pillars. Many verses throughout the Bible refer to a solid firmament. And obviously, before science discovered it could not possibly be so, this led to the faithful constructing a model of a flat earth, held over an "empty place," a great abyss, by pillars.


Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

This is what Hebrews 11:3 says: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." This seems to imply, not that life is made up of invisible particles, but rather that God did not start from pre-existing things, which would make much more sense as a reading, since that belief is "through faith." The idea that there are invisible atoms was suggested by ancient Greek and Indian thinkers, not a new idea in the 19th century. Incidentally, to suggest that the idea did not occur in the West until the 19th century is to say that nobody noticed that in the Bible for a long, long time.


The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.

Genesis 6:15 says "And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits." Putting aside for a moment that we don't know exactly how big a Biblical cubit is, it's not clear that a wooden vessel constructed at those dimensions would be seaworthy.

There are no all-purpose "ideal" dimensions for a ship. It's interesting that no reference is made to any propulsion or steering mechanism for the Ark, presumably a large disadvantage when attempting to navigate floodwaters greater than any ever known. In practice, the ideal length-to-width ratio of a ship depends on the purpose of the ship. Sailing vessels are typically built with a larger ratio; war ships have a small ratio to attain the required speed; cargo ships are built with a large ratio because load capacity is more important than speed (the cargo does not depreciate during the voyage). Even in Biblical times this would have applied: ancient warships (rowed, fast) were built slimmer than cargo ships (sailed, large loading capacity).

In addition, Genesis was not written 4,500 years ago but in the 6th century BCE, when the construction of wooden ships had already been the subject of a great deal of study and development. It is hardly out of the question that one of the writers went down to a shipwright and asked roughly how wide and tall a 450ft hull would have to be. Many of the later "facts" also ignore historical evidence that the books of the Bible are not nearly as old as they claim to be.

It's also notable that "ark" does not mean "ship". The Hebrew word, תיבת (tevat), means "box". It seems unlikely that something supposedly designed as the Platonic ideal of seaworthiness would earn the name "Noah's Box".


When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.

Leviticus 15:13 says: "And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean." There's no order in the passage to not use standing water, no claim that standing water is dirtier or has ill effects. Running water was associated with life by many contemporary cultures, and the advice given is blatantly a purification ritual rather like baptism, not a means of controlling disease.

Also, considering that this comes in the middle of a bunch of references to bathing in water with this being the sole reference to running water, it would seem that this ostensible foreknowledge was inspired for exactly one line and then promptly forgotten. It should also be noted that it never tells people to bathe downstream of places the water is used for drinking or washing, meaning that following this advice as given could actually spread disease, and if there was a town upstream you could end up even dirtier than you were when you started. The writer is apparently unaware that river water is not the same as modern tap water.


Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.

Deuteronomy 23:12-13 says: "Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad: And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:" There are a large number of non-divine reasons for this command. Maybe the priests hated the smell of crap. Maybe they were observant enough to note that living in your own filth can make you sick (or maybe the people who did didn't survive to write holy books). Maybe it was felt that the ancient Hebrews didn't get enough exercise, and that this would help. Considering numerous Biblical references to excrement and uncleanliness, it's very likely that Jewish priests viewed excrement as unholy (perhaps because anything holy the body would have tried to retain). Anyhow, it seems unlikely that the ancient Israelites were the first people to ask their fellow nomads to please not shit in the camp. Particularly when many species of animals will shit away from where they live and bury it too, so this interpretation implies that humans are less intelligent than animals.

The passage seems to assume that people prior to World War I had no idea that they should isolate their shit. Germ theory was developed from the second half of the 19th century, and increasing awareness of unsanitary wartime conditions during the 19th and 20th centuries did indeed save many lives (at the same time as increasingly advanced weapons made actual combat more deadly). However even this awareness didn't meant that trenches in WWI or prior conflicts would necessarily be constructed with high-quality facilities. There were other considerations: resources, the need to fortify defensible positions, irrespective of whether these were sanitary; the fact that in most wars most soldiers are very badly treated; and so on. Sanitary conditions in trenches were generally appalling, but that's not because the soldiers hadn't read their Bibles or didn't know that shit made you sick.[note 1]

In any case, the reason that historically more soldiers died of disease than battle is not failure to "isolate human waste" but lack of antibiotics. Penicillin meant that infections became far less deadly - there's a reason it has a reputation as a proverbial "miracle drug". If God really wanted to help, telling the chosen people to use antibiotics (or not invent machine guns) would have been much more useful.


Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

The words of Job 38:16 are "Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?" Oooh, Job says the seas are deep. Clearly, the ideas of shallow and deep only come from God, and so the authors of Job could not have known that (despite living on the coast of the goddamn Mediterranean and whatnot). Incidentally, this claim is bullshit: the discovery in question was of hydrothermal vents, which are not "springs", they merely recycle ocean water. They certainly don't "feed" the ocean: no, that's something only rivers and rain do. This seems more to be the Bible-writers imagining that, since rivers can come from springs, there might be springs the ocean comes from as well: simple inference, with no need to have any advanced knowledge.


There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

Jonah 2:5-6 says "The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head. I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God." Nowhere in the passage does it say that the mountains themselves are underwater. It merely implies that their base is beneath the water. In any case the story of Jonah is almost certainly fictitious so it's not much evidence for anything.

Moreover, this is bullshit since we have accounts of undersea mountains from centuries ago, such as this one from Ammianus Marcellinus of the sea receding before the tsunami caused by the earthquake at Alexandria in 365 AD:

"(...) in the abyss of the deep thus revealed men saw many kinds of sea-creatures stuck fast in the slime; and vast mountains and deep valleys, which Nature, the creator, had hidden in the un-plumbed depths..."'[2]

It was not necessary to go down to these depths to see them, and it is entirely possible that this "foreknowledge" is actually based on observation of a tsunami, even if it is accepted that is what the verse is talking about.


Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creator’s presence – “in Your presence is fullness of joy” (Psalm 16:11).

The words of Acts 14:17: "Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness." Modern science has in fact done extensive research on emotions, and how they are driven by a combination of nerve impulses and hormones (i.e. "matter"), and how these emotional responses evolved (it's not exactly hard to understand how an evolved fear response could enhance survivability, for example, or why parents that feel an emotional bond with their offspring would be more successful in reproducing). It's hard to count something as scientific foreknowledge if it's not true or scientific.

The fact that the scripture includes the Ancient Egyptian belief that the seat of emotions is the heart rather than the brain also does not exactly imply advanced scientific knowledge.


Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled” and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” long before science understood its function.

Leviticus 17:11 and 14 say, respectively, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul," and "For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off." Wow, the ancient Israelites managed to figure out that you could die if you bled a lot. Human beings generally figure this out through experience pretty easily, even before the development of large-scale states and warfare. That's not even close to scientific foreknowledge. In any case, if the Biblical message was unambiguously "don't bleed your patients", why did devoutly Christian physicians continue to use bleeding (and leeches) for hundreds of years?


The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe – namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.

Genesis 1:24 says "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." Since their claim is pretty much wrong (the horizontal genetic boundaries are to direct reproduction, not to change), that's not an example of foreknowledge, only another example of how the Bible was wrong about science.


#1 -- #11 --#21 -- #31 -- #41 -- #51 -- #61 -- #71 -- #81 -- #91 -- #101

Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest.

John 15:13 says "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Romans 5:7-8 says "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." These are not even close to resembling scientific foreknowledge, or a scientific claim of any sort. Let's discard for a moment the many, many examples of self-sacrifice or devotion that are "revealed" in non-Christian texts.[note 2] Let's also ignore the many, many examples of human depravity that the Bible provides, many of them endorsed by God.[3] This is a complete misunderstanding and misapplication of evolution. Evolutionary biology and game theory do in fact provide reasonable explanations for the existence of altruism; this is an evolving field and we can expect to see more on this in the future. But in any case, the point of a scientific theory isn't to provide moral guidance; any more than our scientific observations of cannibalism in nature are a sign that we should practice human cannibalism. If, however, you are going to hold up your sacred scripture as an infallible example of scientific and moral knowledge, then you'd better come up with a convincing explanation of why it endorses slavery and genocide.


Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.

Genesis 1:20-22 says "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth." Once again, THIS IS NOT SCIENTIFIC FOREKNOWLEDGE. This is also circular reasoning at its worst. "Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken, because the bible says so. How do we know the bible is accurate? Because it accurately predicted that the chicken came before the egg."

It's also worth noting that reptiles laid eggs before birds (and before reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates).

A scientifically informed answer to the question might be: An animal almost, but not quite, a chicken laid an egg that contained a chicken. So the egg came first.

See also: Omphalos hypothesis


Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.

The words of Revelation 4:11 are "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Once again, this is not foreknowledge. This is simply another that God created everything. Their last sentence betrays ignorance of the idea of scaffolding, where parts are built up from other parts, until those parts can exist on their own and the base parts are removed.


Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of[sic] some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth.

Genesis 2:7 and 3:19 say, respectively, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul," and "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Let's ignore the fact that these passages seem more poetic than scientific. One, the fact that we "return to dust" is easily observable from the decomposition of dead bodies. Two, soil is incredibly varied in its composition, so the fact that those elements are also found in humans (and a variety of other things which the bible doesn't mention) is not surprising. Also, it is not in any way surprising that life on earth is made from things that are found on earth.


The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.

The words of Genesis 2:1-2 are "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made." Once again, we have to ask: "If this knowledge is so clear cut, why did no Christians make these predictions BEFORE the laws of thermodynamics were established?" Secondly, the idea of God creating matter is a direct violation of that same law. Energy and matter are coming from nowhere. And God is apparently not finished with creation; he creates Manna in Exodus 16:4[note 3] and creates rainwater in Genesis 7:4.[note 4] In Exodus, God proves he is not done once again by turning a rod into a snake, turning water into blood, and creating frogs, pestilence, and other plagues out of nothing. In Mark 14, Jesus creates more food from a starting amount of food, once again violating principles the bible supposedly predicted.


The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).” No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.

The beginning of Genesis is "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Once again, these "predictions" are being applied after knowledge is already known. Also, light is not energy, or rather, light is not all that energy is, and reading heavens as representing space, earth as representing matter, and the beginning as representing time are interpretations that are all applied well after science has had time to define itself.

From the first tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh: "Anu granted him the totality of knowledge of all. He saw the Secret (space), discovered the Hidden (matter), he brought information of before the Flood (time). He went on a distant journey, pushing himself to exhaustion (energy), but then was brought to peace."

Clearly, the Epic of Gilgamesh;; also mentions all the expressions of science. Its writers must have had foreknowledge.

From the prologue to Beowulf: "You have heard of the Danish Kings in the old days (time) and how they were great warriors. Shield, the son of Sheaf, took many an enemy's chair (matter), terrified many a warrior (energy), after he was found an orphan. He prospered under the sky (space) until people everywhere listened when he spoke. He was a good king!"

The writer of Beowulf must also have been inspired divinely, right?


The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

Genesis 1:1 can be found above in #16. Hebrews 1:10 -12 states "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail." How the bible claims the universe was created is in conflict with scientific theory on the matter. The bible claims God created it, and science asserts that a Big Bang is the most likely explanation. And in the words of one user at this site with regards to the universe having a beginning, "A coin flip can answer that question with 50% accuracy." By the way, even though they formed the basis on what would later be the Big Bang theory, Einstein's studies don't suggest the universe had a beginning.


The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.

Isaiah 40:22 says "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" Where to begin? A circle, which is the word the bible uses, is not a sphere, and is flat. The earth is not actually spherical anyway, it is an oblate spheroid. And Isaiah 11:12 contradicts Isaiah 40:22 completely; "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

Known counterarguments to this rely on assuming that "circle" simply means "sphere" in this context, because the word just didn't exist. This is, of course, nonsense: the word ball was present in English at the time the KJV was written, as was sphere (coming from Greek through Latin and Old French). The original Hebrew of Isaiah 40:22 uses חוּג, which translates as "circle",[4] or in other cases "domain" or "department", indicative that the passage really isn't referring to shape at all - if they had meant to refer to the physical shape, the word כדור was also available that definitely refers to a ball or globe or sphere.

Another more likely explanation is that passage is best translated as "it is he that sitteth above the vault of the earth" since the word for circle can also mean "arch," and the passage is therefore referring to the firmament.


Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.

From Luke 17:34-36: "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left." And that's why the Church was so supportive of the idea that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Oh wait... Anyway, the passage says only "in that night," which could be interpreted to mean that it was believed to be night everywhere on earth, which would contradict a rotational earth. Also, it's not unheard of for men to work the field at night. Also also, organizations like the Flat Earth Society have (almost) plausible ideas for how simultaneous day/night could exist on a flat earth. Also also also, a non-flat earth was an established idea by the time the New Testament was written, so if the bible does mention the Earth's rotation, that's not that surprising, though it would contradict the numerous biblical claims (both Old and New) of the Earth being fixed and immobile. Finally, simultaneous day and night could exist on a round Earth if the Earth was stationary and the sun revolved around it.


Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow “in the cloud” as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets – which act as a prism – separating white light into its color spectrum.

Genesis 9:13-16: "I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth." Genesis 2:5-6: "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." Their claim makes no sense. It's a non sequitur. IT OFFERS NO PROOF OF ANY SORT. As to the environment required to have no rainbows, see here.


#1 -- #11 --#21 -- #31 -- #41 -- #51 -- #61 -- #71 -- #81 -- #91 -- #101

Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!

The words of Job 38:24 are "By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?" But this is only in the KJV, and there are a lot of alternative translations for this verse. For a start, most other translations identify this as two statements, one "what is the way to the place light disperses from?" and the second "where does the east wind come from?" Some translate it as lightning rather than light. Some scholars consider it to be referencing the parting of light from darkness in Genesis.

In other words, this is simply choosing one of many possible interpretations of a very ambiguous verse, which happens to sound a bit like something from modern science. If the early authors of the Bible knew that light could be divided into seven colours, why does the explanation of the origin of the rainbow in Genesis not reflect this knowledge?


Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the “paths of the seas.” In the 19th century Matthew Maury – the father of oceanography – after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury’s data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Psalms 8:8 says "The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas." This interpretation of "paths" is pretty loose, and can be interpreted many ways by any passing apologist with an agenda: one could simply take it as the ancient writers assuming that the seas had natural trails just like the land does, or referring to their own trade routes. While it is interesting that Maury studied the ocean based on this passage, it proves very little. In any case Maury was nowhere near the first to discover or write about currents; however, he was the first to unify all of these together into scientific writings and did make a lot of progress in the field. In 1513, Juan Ponce de Leon described the gulf stream. Benjamin Franklin produced a detailed map of the gulf stream in 1769 (37 years before Maury was born). Even though Maury may have produced many maps of ocean currents, it is clear that the currents' existence was known well before his time and it is highly unlikely Maury would not have been aware of it. The story that Maury may have been inspired by Psalms to look for more currents is an interesting one, but pat anecdotes of how major scientific discoveries are made (e.g. Newton and the apple) are very common and mostly untrue.


Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that “he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body,” and that those who commit homosexual sin would “receive in themselves” the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.

1 Corinthians 6:18: "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." Romans 1:27: "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." These passages describe "fornication" as being a sin, which is perniciously identified here as a physical harm. Venereal diseases were known in ancient times and were one reason (though not the only one) that cultures in the ancient Mediterranean insisted on sexual monogamy for women. But the association of extramarital sex or non-heterosexual sex acts with disease might have had more plausibility in ancient times; it's not at all valid now, when standards of contraception and hygiene mean people can and do engage in sexual act outside of marriage in a safe way.

Maybe the author is trying to point out how modern technology (in this case, condoms) can overcome God.


Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.

The words, in order, of Genesis 1:27-28, Genesis 2:24, and Mark 10:6-8 are "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" and "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." All this example does is show how ignorant the authors are of the extensive work that has been done on the evolution of sexual reproduction. The fact that not all reproduction is sexual and not all species have two distinct biological sexes also seems to escape the author, since the bible does not explain such species at all.


Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars – that’s a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

Jeremiah 33:22 states "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me." Wow, the writers of the bible looked up and saw a lot of stars. Amazing! "Innumerable" in poetry is very often a purposeful hyperbole, or indeed used indiscriminately for any very high number, as pre-modern people didn't often reckon in sums of more than a few thousand. And as they admit in number 26 below, the number of stars is a finite number, as is the number of grains of sand. And at last check, we're still waiting for the population of Levite Jews to reach ten thousand billion trillion.


The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along – “He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name” (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

Isaiah 40:26 says "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth." So the writers, looking up at the stars, assumed there were no other stars than the ones they saw, and said there were a finite number, but they couldn't count them. Whoop-de-doo! Also, they never actually state that it's a finite number. They only say that God can count them. And an all-powerful God should be able to count an infinite number of stars.

This also contradicts the previous point which said the number of stars were incalculable.


The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.

Genesis 22:17 and Hebrews 11:12 are respectively, "That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;" and "Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable." This is pretty clearly poetic simile. The bible is not trying to scientifically predict anything in this passage. Also, the number of stars is "grossly" estimated at 7 x 1022 while the number of grains of sand on earth is probably anywhere between 1020 and 1024[5] so if you count up to two orders of magnitude off in either direction as close, then yes, "gross estimates" make them comparable. Though the fact that we have even a rough estimate for the number of grains of sand kind of poops all over the "innumerable" description of sand grains. Mars might also have contained seas at one point, so would the sand next to its shores be included as well?


Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.

Romans 1:20-32 is too long to put here, so here is a link for it. Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated, bullshit. One, evolution and God are not incompatible ideas - ask the Pope. Two, has lawlessness really increased with increased scientific knowledge of evolution? Who says? How do we measure it? Maybe the number of humans killed by other humans (murder, infanticide or cannibalism), let's try that! That's, um, 12% in the extremely pious Middle Ages, and about 1.33% now, with some countries as low as 0.01%. Oddly, these tend to be the most secular counties.

The trope that "everything used to be better in the old days" has existed throughout human history and it's normally wrong. Three, consumption of pornography has obviously risen recently, because it was harder for people before Darwin to get access to porn (which didn't stop them - ancient cultures depict sex and titillation very frequently, and the history of erotica and pornography reach back thousands of years).[note 5] Modern technology has made both genocide and war more devastating but the practice of both is far older than the study of evolution, and they have often been perpetuated by Biblical-literate Christians. Darwin didn't invent rifled gun barrels or high explosives. Abortions have always been common historically but in the past been poorly documented, but there is evidence they were actually permitted in ancient times before being banned in the 18th century. It is true that those pesky advances in modern medicine have made abortions safer and easier to record, but evolutionary biology can't take all the credit for the massively increased standards of public health the western world enjoys compared to biblical times. Just some of it.

Also, in Numbers 5 it is made very clear that if a married woman gets knocked up by another man she should be taken to the priest and forced to have an abortion, so it's not like the Bible doesn't approve of that.


The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was God’s judgment on man’s wickedness.

2 Peter 3:5-6 says "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:" Hmm, maybe the writers of the bible realized that they were trying to convince people of an event that never happened with no scientific evidence. No wonder they predicted it would be denied. Rather than go through and try to systematically debunk the entire flood myth here, readers should instead be redirected to our articles on Global flood and Noah's Ark.


Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.

Genesis 7 can be found here. Nowhere in the chapter does it say that fossils will form. No one ever predicted fossils from this passage. Rather than history and science agreeing with the bible, this is the bible being reinterpreted to agree with history and science, and barely even does that, since it's very unlikely that a global flood ever happened (see #29 above).


#1 -- #11 --#21 -- #31 -- #41 -- #51 -- #61 -- #71 -- #81 -- #91 -- #101

The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent – just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.

Genesis 1:9-10 says "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good." They're hanging on to every little thing they can get it. The passage does not say that the earth was one continent. Also, if there was only one continent less than ten thousand years ago, it would be impossible for Earth's landmass to be in the state it is today. Instead, it would have to have existed, say, 250 million years ago. Think about the speed of continental drift they're suggesting here: continents moving thousands of miles in just thousands of years, crashing into each other and pushing up mountain ranges. Surely this sort of thing would have been noticed by peoples at the time, and we would also need some explanation for why they've come to a (in geological terms) screeching halt.


Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the “fountains of the great deep were broken up.” This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.

Genesis 7:11 says "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." That's not even close to plate tectonics. It is not the rapid process that they claim the bible claims it is. Honestly, these are the same points as brought up in #30 and #31.

And if the Bible predicted this, why was the man who came up with the idea of continental drift ridiculed for it by believers until they day he died?


Ice Age inferred (Job 38:29-30). Prior to the global Flood the earth was apparently subtropical. However shortly after the Flood, the Bible mentions ice often – “By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen” (Job 37:10). Evidently the Ice Age occurred in the centuries following the Flood.

Job 38:29-30 says "Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it? The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen." How do you read a passage that mentions ice and even come close to inferring an ice age? HOW? Anyway, the most recent ice age began over 130,000 years ago, more than 10 times how long ago they claim it started.[6] It would have ended before Adam and Eve were supposedly created.[7][dead link]


Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.

Jeremiah 1:5 says "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." Exodus 21:22-23 says "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life." The standard interpretation of "if mischief follow" is if the woman is injured. That means that the punishment for destroying an unborn fetus is a monetary fine. If a fetus were counted as human, than the bible would forbid accepting money as compensation, as stated by Exodus 21:12[note 6] and Numbers 35:31.[note 7] Needless to say there is substantially more to the question of "what makes a person" than this passage suggests.


God fashions and knits us together in the womb (Job 10:8-12; 31:15). Science was ignorant concerning embryonic development until recently. Yet many centuries ago, the Bible accurately described God making us an “intricate unity” in the womb.

Job 10:8-12 and Job 31:15 say "Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about; yet thou dost destroy me. Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again? Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews. Thou hast granted me life and favour, and thy visitation hath preserved my spirit," and "Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?." Rather than amazing foreknowledge, witnessing of a single birth is enough to know that human beings normally emerge in "intricate unity" from their mother's womb. In any case it is cellular mitosis that forms a human being in the uterus, a process that, surprisingly, bears little or no resemblance to God curdling cheese.


DNA anticipated (Psalm 139:13-16). During the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the genetic blueprint for life. Three thousand years ago the Bible seems to reference this written digital code in Psalm 139 – “Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.”

Pslam 139:13-16 says in full: "For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." One fails to see how anyone can draw the inference of DNA from that passage. Needless to say, that passage was not used by anyone to predict the existence of DNA. For what it's worth, Watson and Crick were atheistic/agnostic with a firm dislike of organized religion.


God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam).

Acts 17:26 says "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;" Genesis 5 is here. See here, but what the research shows is that one strain of male DNA became dominant. Looking further into the research, we find that rates of mutation in DNA indicate the originator of the strain lived about 60,000 years ago, yet cretinists claim the earth is 10,000 years old. Even worse for their argument, that 60,000 number is too small, according to some scientists, as the H. sapiens exodus from Africa took place over 100,000 years ago.


Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

Genesis 11 can be found here. Besides the fact that they offer no proof of the Tower of Babel ever even existing, let alone language being scattered all at once, here are some evolutionary explanations of how language evolved. To explain diversity, one looks simply at the fact that humans would not have all lived together. Languages change naturally and rapidly, (just compare the Declaration of Independence to Huck Finn), and languages separate from each other will obviously develop differently.


Origin of the different “races” explained (Genesis 11). As Noah’s descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

The link to Genesis 11 is in #38. Isn't that pretty much evolution and natural selection? It seems so. The only thing wrong is that different languages would have developed from being separated; people weren't separated because of different languages.


God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along – there are healing compounds found in plants.

I'm not even going to bother with the actual passage for this one. If ancient cultures used them, how is it amazing in any way that the bible mentions them?


#1 -- #11 --#21 -- #31 -- #41 -- #51 -- #61 -- #71 -- #81 -- #91 -- #101

Healthy dietary laws (Leviticus 11:9-12). Scripture states that we should avoid those sea creatures which do not have fins or scales. We now know that bottom-feeders (those with no scales or fins) tend to consume waste and are likely to carry disease.

Leviticus 11:9-12 says "These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you." And that's why so many Christians follow the Old Testament dietary laws. Oh wait... This passage is rather embarrassingly ignorant of the fact that the Old Testament dietary laws are set aside in the New Testament. So maybe God doesn't want us to eat healthily after all?

This verse is also hilariously incomplete as a dietary list, since there are some fish which it is a terrible idea to eat, but hey, according to our article writer it's much more dangerous to eat shrimp or lobster than fry up some choice fillets of Japanese pufferfish and tuck in.


The Bible warns against eating birds of prey (Leviticus 11:13-19). Scientists now recognize that those birds which eat carrion (putrefying flesh), often spread disease.

Leviticus 11:13-19 can be found here. Like above, this might have been impressive, if the bible had actually given any scientific reasons as to why one should not eat them. Birds of prey spread diseases, but so do animals described as kosher, like cows (e.g. BSE), chickens (e.g. salmonella), and goats. In addition, not all birds of prey eat carrion, and many will get sick or outright die if they try, so this justification is more than a little flimsy.


Avoid swine (Deuteronomy 14:8). Not so long ago, science learned that eating undercooked pork causes an infection of parasites called trichinosis. Now consider this: the Bible forbid the eating of swine more than 3,000 years before we learned how to cook pork safely.

Deuteronomy 14:8 says "And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase." See #42. Cows, chickens, and goats, all okay according to the bible, can carry disease if not cooked properly. And a pig carcass certainly can't do anything to you if you just touch it!

This is another example of assuming we can't know something if we don't know everything. People understood to cook pork "safely," just not precisely why something bad would happen if they didn't, and pork is a common element of cuisine in other cultures. The most likely reason for the prohibition is actually that pagan festivals would often include a roasted pig for people to share, and that letting the Israelites go to those festivals might lead to them getting strange ideas that perhaps the pagans were nice people who shouldn't be brutally slaughtered.

The Mosaic dietary laws also covered horses, frogs, catfish and many other animals. Is there a specific disease that each one carried?


Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, God’s Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as “Mother” and naturalism is enshrined.

Romans 1:25 says "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Paganism and nature worship are both much older than Christianity. Paul is here reacting to something that he was observing in the cultures around him, not a new thing that he was predicting "scientifically".

Christianity incorporated a great many pagan customs.[8][9][10] Again, paganism and worship of the natural world were a part of the Roman culture Paul lived in. It's not very surprising that he mentions them.


Black holes and dark matter anticipated (Matthew 25:30; Jude 1:13; Isaiah 50:3). Cosmologists now speculate that over 98% of the known universe is comprised of[sic] dark matter, with dark energy and black holes. A black hole’s gravitational field is so strong that nothing, not even light, escapes. Beyond the expanding universe there is no measured radiation and therefore only outer darkness exists. These theories paint a seemingly accurate description of what the Bible calls “outer darkness” or “the blackness of darkness forever.”

Matthew 25:30 says "And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Jude 1:13 says "Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever." Isaiah 50:3 says "I clothe the heavens with blackness, and I make sackcloth their covering." It's pretty selective of them to say that Isaiah predicts "dark matter," which incidentally is not called that because of any literal "darkness", but ignore the fact that the heavens are in fact NOT covered with sackcloth. In regards to Jude, all it "predicts" is that darkness is black. As for all three of them, they are poetic passages, meant to be read poetically. Finally, these are all loose interpretations applied after knowledge is already known (big surprise there).


The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God – resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is “grow(ing) old like a garment” (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.

Psalm 102:25-26 says "Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:" Do these people even know what entropy actually is? (It refers to states of energy—the "disorder" thing is just an analogy used to help explain the concept.) Do they know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics actually states? One, the law does not say that the universe is running down; it states that "the entropy of an isolated system does not decrease." Two, Earth is not an isolated system (it receives energy from the Sun), so the Second Law doesn't apply to it. Third, the Bible does not state why the universe will run down (besides not actually saying that at all) and does not mention randomness as a guiding principle. Entropy did not just "enter"; it always existed. Had entropy not existed in the garden alone (ignoring the catastrophe of an entire universe without entropy), Adam and Eve would have died immediately, their bodies becoming an unliving mix of CO2, leftover biomolecules, trace metals, and a ton of water. Finally, evolution does NOT violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because, again, the environment receives a constant supply of power from the Sun, and because the creation of complexity does not involve the destruction of entropy.[11][12]


Cain’s wife discovered (Genesis 5:4). Skeptics point out that Cain had no one to marry – therefore the Bible must be false. However, the Bible states plainly that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain married his sister.

Genesis 5:4 says "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:" Ahh, incest: God's Answer. Except when it's punishable by death... Besides the fact that the Bible never actually states that Cain married his sister, this isn't foreknowledge or scientific accuracy; this is apologists covering up for mistakes in the Bible.

This is also a bit of a straw man — critics are far more likely to assume that Cain committed incest than they are to wonder who he married.


Incest laws established (Leviticus 18:6). To marry near of kin in the ancient world was common. Yet, beginning about 1500 B.C., God forbid this practice. The reason is simple – the genetic mutations (resulting from the curse) had a cumulative effect. Though Cain could safely marry his sister because the genetic pool was still relatively pure at that time, by Moses’ day the genetic errors had swelled. Today, geneticists confirm that the risk of passing on a genetic abnormality to your child is much greater if you marry a close relative because relatives are more likely to carry the same defective gene. If they procreate, their offspring are more apt to have this defect expressed.

Leviticus 18:6 says "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD." Rather than be about incest, this seems to be more based on Genesis 9:21-23,[13] where Ham uncovers Noah's nakedness, causing him shame. As for other incest laws in the bible, not a single one mentions genetics or diseases as the reason for it. A possible other explanation for the ban on incest is that if the ancient Hebrews had been allowed to marry relatives, the tribes, and even the families within the tribes, would not have mixed. This would have resulted in 12 (or more, if the tribes themselves split) distinct, non-unified groups, each slowly developing away form the others with no connection among them, something the priests would not have wanted in their attempts at unified consolidated power.


Genetic mixing of different seeds forbidden (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9). The Bible warns against mixing seeds – as this will result in an inferior or dangerous crop. There is now growing evidence that unnatural, genetically engineered crops may be harmful.

Leviticus 19:19 says "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee." Deuteronomy 22:9 says "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled." Hmmm. One wonders if these guys never mix clothing material. What's the scientific reason for this? Fashion? Comfort?

Assuming this is talking about genetic engineering is ridiculous, since there are perfectly "natural" ways to mix seeds. Hybrid plants produce superior crops to their non-hybrid ancestors, so this claim is flatly wrong.

Also, considering it would have been pretty hard for the ancient Israelites to genetically engineer crops, one can safely assume that is NOT what the Bible is talking about. Finally, they offer no citation of any kind for the claim that genetically engineered crops are harmful.


Hydrological cycle described (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Jeremiah 10:13; Amos 9:6). Four thousand years ago the Bible declared that God “draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man” (Job 36:27-28). The ancients observed mighty rivers flowing into the ocean, but they could not conceive why the sea level never rose. Though they observed rainfall, they had only quaint theories as to its origin. Meteorologists now understand that the hydrological cycle consists of evaporation, atmospheric transportation, distillation, and precipitation.

Ecclsiastes 1:7 says "All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again." Jeremiah 10:13 says "When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures." Amos 9:6 says "It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name." For how "clear" these passages are, no one ever made predictions of evaporation based off the bible. Also, two of the steps, atmospheric transportation and distillation, are not even close to being "mentioned" in these passages. The evaporation of puddles is easily observable, so it's not too unlikely that the writers of the bible could have extrapolated from puddles to oceans.


#1 -- #11 --#21 -- #31 -- #41 -- #51 -- #61 -- #71 -- #81 -- #91 -- #101

The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity – the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit – just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago!

Psalm 19:6 says "His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." "His" refers to the Sun. This would be nice and all, if the Bible had been used to conclude that the Sun traveled through space with the Earth moving around it. Instead, it was used by Christian geocentrists as the main reason for their belief that the Sun revolves around the Earth — in other words, this bit of "foreknowledge" led people to conclude the exact opposite of the truth. Considering the number of passages that mention Earth as immobile and fixed, it is much more likely that this passage was meant to be interpreted as the Sun revolving around the Earth. So in the end, they've reinterpreted these passages radically different from the way they used to, AFTER scientific knowledge of the subject was widely known.


Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!

Genesis 17:12 says "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed." Leviticus 12:3 and Luke 1:59 say pretty much the same thing. These people seem to think the Hebrews were idiots who were unable to make any observations on their own, or that they never tried circumcising anyone on any other day. They could easily have known through trial and error. Babies died or were seriously injured more often on days that weren't the eighth, ergo, babies should be circumcised on the eighth. Scientific observation. Astounding.


God has given us just the right amount of water to sustain life (Isaiah 40:12). We now recognize that if there was significantly more or less water, the earth would not support life as we know it.

Isaiah 4:12 says "Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?" Nowhere does the passage imply that the water we have is exactly what we need. And considering the amount of water would have to be, in their own words, significantly more or less, the amount of water we have is not "just right." "Just right" implies a degree of accuracy that is not in their argument. And "life as we know it" is technically correct, but if life had developed a different way due to the amount of water, that way would be "life as we know it." So this whole thing proves nothing really.


The earth was designed for biological life (Isaiah 45:18). Scientists have discovered that the most fundamental characteristics of our earth and cosmos are so finely tuned that if just one of them were even slightly different, life as we know it couldn't exist. This is called the Anthropic Principle and it agrees with the Bible which states that God formed the earth to be inhabited.

Isaiah 45:18 says "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; and there is none else." The concept described in the interpretation is not the anthropic principle, but is rather the argument from fine tuning, which is a distinct but related idea. The anthropic principle simply states that however unlikely the appearance of intelligent life may have been (and we have no way of knowing without knowing more about the universe), it was not sufficiently improbable to prevent it - otherwise there would be nobody around to ponder the question. This is an effective counter for the "argument from fine tuning", since even though we can't assign a probability to the emergence of intelligence, it's clearly (based on the evidence of us) non-zero and thus was bound to happen somewhere sooner or later. To claim that the Earth was designed for us to inhabit is disingenuous from a scientific perspective — the earth is habitable for us because we evolved to live on it. If it were different, we would have evolved differently. As for Earth's hospitability to life, that's largely caused by life itself — life has changed the planet a great deal: the presence of free oxygen, for instance, is caused (and maintained) by photosynthesizing plant life. Basically, the fact of our existence doesn't prove any "design" or "fine tuning".[14]


The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). Repeatedly God declares that He stretches out the heavens. During the early 20th century, most scientists (including Einstein) believed the universe was static. Others believed it should have collapsed due to gravity. Then in 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were receding from the earth, and the further away they were, the faster they were moving. This discovery revolutionized the field of astronomy. Eisntein admitted his mistake, and today most astronomers agree with what the Creator told us millennia ago – the universe is expanding!

Let's take these passages one at a time. Job 9:8 says "Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea." It does not say that the spread is continual. Also, Job is one of the most poetic parts of the bible. Isaiah 42:5 says "Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:" Once again, nowhere is it implied or stated that the "stretch" is ongoing. Jeremiah 52:15 says "He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding." "Hath." Perfect tense. Once again, not an ongoing thing. Zechariah 12:1 says "The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him." The one thing that works against pretty much all these passages is the scientific consensus that the expansion of the universe is due to the Big Bang, not an unseen power.


Law of Biogenesis explained (Genesis 1). Scientists observe that life only comes from existing life. This law has never been violated under observation or experimentation (as evolution imagines). Therefore life, God’s life, created all life.

Genesis 1 can be found here. First of all, if God is life, why doesn't God need life creating him? Secondly, if we gave our scientists an entire planet undergoing super-volcanic activity and being exposed to large numbers of meteors and cosmic rays and half a billion years to experiment, they might be able to produce life from non-life. See also abiogenesis. Evolution itself says nothing about the origin of life; it's an explanation for how life develops once it's arisen — just as chemistry doesn't concern itself with how matter came to be, but how it behaves.

Also, according to the definition of life most commonly used, God is not alive, because He, being a creature that is eternal, could not possibly have a metabolism.


Animal and plant extinction explained (Jeremiah 12:4; Hosea 4:3). According to evolution, occasionally we should witness a new kind springing into existence. Yet, this has never been observed. On the contrary, as Scripture explains, since the curse on all creation, we observe death and extinction (Romans 8:20-22).

Jeremiah 12:4 says "How long shall the land mourn, and the herbs of every field wither, for the wickedness of them that dwell therein? the beasts are consumed, and the birds; because they said, He shall not see our last end." Hosea 4:3 says "Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away." Neither of these passages refer to extinction of species, simply the death of many creatures. Neither mentions the creation of new species. The reason for extinction is very probably the spread of humanity and their interference with the ecosystem. Also, "kind" as they define it, would probably not spring into existence. A new species might: in fact, we've witnessed that on so many occasions that creationists had to move the goalposts and come up with this "kind" nonsense. Also, "spring" is a horrible way of describing it. They don't spring, they gradually develop.


Light travels in a path (Job 38:19). Light is said to have a “way” [Hebrew: derek, literally a traveled path or road]. Until the 17th century it was believed that light was transmitted instantaneously. We now know that light is a form of energy that travels at ~186,000 miles per second in a straight line. Indeed, there is a “way” of light.

Job 38:19 says "Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof?" Notice they conveniently forget to mention that light is also mentioned as dwelling, or staying in one place. Also, they ignore the fact that the bible treats darkness like it actually exists, when really it's the absence of light. Also, it's Job, which, once again, is a very poetic part of the bible. They also ignore Job 38:20: "That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?" Light and darkness do not have "bounds" or as the NIV translates it, places and dwellings (at least not one specific one).


Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established “a weight for the wind.” In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.

Job 28:25 says "To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure." Once again, poetic. Secondly, they ignore the passage right before this, Job 28:24: "For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;" The earth is round, so it doesn't have ends.


Jet stream anticipated (Ecclesiates 1:6). At a time when it was thought that winds blew straight, the Bible declares “The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit.” King Solomon wrote this 3,000 years ago. Now consider this: it was not until World War II that airmen discovered the jet stream circuit.

Ecclesiastes 1:6 is pretty much what they wrote. First of all, Ecclesiastes (the forerunner of emo) is all about how nothing matters and nothing changes. So it poetically refers to the wind as not really changing no matter what it does, or where it blows. Secondly, Ecclesiastes 1:5 shows a geocentric world view: "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." We now know that the sun does not actually rise, but the Earth's rotation makes it appear that way. So why couldn't God predict that?


#1 -- #11 --#21 -- #31 -- #41 -- #51 -- #61 -- #71 -- #81 -- #91 -- #101

Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.

Leviticus 13:45-46 says "And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean. All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be." Numbers 5:1-4 says "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead: Both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell. And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp: as the LORD spake unto Moses, so did the children of Israel." Both of these passages have very unscientific explanations. One, biblical leprosy was reported to contaminate houses and clothing, so the people would not want to have it near them. Two, leprosy was viewed as punishment for sin, so that is an even more obvious reason; religious people would not want to surround their holiest objects with sinners.


Each star is unique (1 Corinthians 15:41). Centuries before the advent of the telescope, the Bible declared what only God and the angels knew – each star varies in size and intensity!

1 Corinthians 15:41 says "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory." Huh. Glory is not synonymous with size and intensity. Since glory is not scientifically measurable, that statement by the bible is unprovable. And why did God not include the sun with the other stars? Our sun is a star, and surely God should have known that. Far from scientifically "predicting" anything, biblical authors could observe that stars appear different from each other by looking at them with the naked eye.


The Bible says that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech (Job 38:35). We now know that radio waves and light waves are two forms of the same thing – electromagnetic waves. Therefore, radio waves are a form of light. Today, using radio transmitters, we can send “lightnings” which indeed speak when they arrive.

Job 38:35 says "Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go and say unto thee, Here we are?" Lightnings, not light. There's a bit of difference. Actually, there's a freakin' huge difference. And the part where "they" say "Here we are?" Thunder. Amazing! The Hebrews knew about lightning and thunder! Incidentally, God here is talking about how much greater he is than humans because he can do this stuff and they can't, so isn't it the claim that God is referring to radio waves kind of awkward given that humans can now broadcast radio waves?


Laughter promotes physical healing (Proverbs 17:22). Recent studies confirm what King Solomon was inspired to write 3,000 years ago, “A merry heart does good, like medicine.” For instance, laughter reduces levels of certain stress hormones. This brings balance to the immune system, which helps your body fight off disease.

Proverbs 17:22 says "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones." Laughter does indeed make you feel good physically, and a positive attitude does help us fight off diseases, but the biblical authors are hardly the only people to notice this. Once again, scientific observation can confirm something that people observe to be true, but that's not the same as making a scientific prediction.


Intense sorrow or stress is harmful to your health (Proverbs 18:14; Mark 14:34). Researchers have studied individuals with no prior medical problems who showed symptoms of stress cardiomyopathy including chest pain, difficulty breathing, low blood pressure, and even heart failure – following a stressful incident.

Proverbs 18:14 say "The spirit of a man will sustain his infirmity; but a wounded spirit who can bear?" Mark 14:34 says "And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch." First off, the Mark passage comes nowhere close to saying or implying what they say it does. The Proverbs passage isn't much clearer, and could easily be referring to the spirit.


Microorganisms anticipated (Exodus 22:31). The Bible warns “Whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts he shall not eat, to defile himself with it: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 22:8). Today we understand that a decaying carcass is full of disease causing germs.

Exodus 22:31 says "And ye shall be holy men unto me: neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs." There is no scientific reason given, no mention of tiny organisms carrying diseases. Most carnivores which are not carrion-eaters will instinctively avoid prey that was not alive when they first encountered it, a survival trait since the prey may have died of disease, and many have also evolved to find the scent of decaying meat disgusting. The fact that sickness follows eating such food would be readily observable, and so this does not in any way indicate scientific foreknowledge. As with several other points, the author here seems to believe that if we didn't know exactly why something happened we didn't know anything about it at all, which is bullshit: the Romans had no working theory of gravitation, but they could still build a trebuchet capable of hurling a boulder the size of a car.


The Bible cautions against consuming fat (Leviticus 7:23). Only in recent decades has the medical community determined that fat clogs arteries and contributes to heart disease.

Leviticus 7:23 says "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat." Someone's been listening to health scares, it seems. Fats are vital to the human metabolism, with only excessive consumption or over-consumption of certain types (saturated and trans, with the latter only really becoming a problem with the development of hydrogenation in the 1890s) causing the stated problem: to the societies in question, food would probably be too scarce for this to ever be an issue. The prohibition against animal fat may have multiple sources: for example, animal fat was generally included in burned offerings (this may even be a reference to a Greek myth where Prometheus tricks Zeus into accepting bones and offal as the sacrificial part of an animal by layering fat over them while hiding the good stuff in the animal's gross stomach so humans get it), and the raw fat had additional uses like being used as a fuel.


Do not consume blood (Leviticus 17:12). A common ritual in many religions in the ancient world was to drink blood. However, the Creator repeatedly told His people to abstain from blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:20; 21:25). Of course, modern science reveals that consuming raw blood is dangerous.

There's no point in showing the passage on this one. As they say, "A common ritual in many religions in the ancient world was to drink blood." In order to keep their people away from "heathen" rituals, blood would obviously have been forbidden. Also, it did not take "modern science" to show people that drinking raw blood was dangerous, it just explained precisely why it was dangerous. If ancient peoples thought like the writer of this article seems to think they did, they would never have had a concept of "poison."


The Bible describes dinosaurs Job 40:15-24. In 1842, Sir Richard Owen coined the word dinosaur, meaning “terrible lizard,” after discovering large reptilian-like fossils. However in the Book of Job, written 4,000 years earlier, God describes the behemoth as: the largest of all land creatures, plant eating (herbivore), with great strength in its hips and legs, powerful stomach muscles, a tail like a cedar tree, and bones like bars of iron. This is an accurate description of sauropods – the largest known dinosaur family.

If you read it, you see there's not much "reptilian" about the behemoth. It's not so weird to think that the Hebrews could dream up a big creature, and they may well have been familiar with elephants. Also, the implication here is that sauropods lived among men. That's definitely not true, as multiple dating techniques can confirm.

Though we may never know exactly what animal the Bible was talking about, we can confidently say that it was not any species of reptile or dinosaur. How so? Job 40:17 states that "...the sinews of his stones are wrapped together." In case you're not up to date on your biblical euphemisms, they're talking about his testicles. Dinosaurs, like birds and reptiles, do not have external testicles. They also do not have a navel, while Behemoth is explicitly stated to have one.

There's also a quote mine; the behemoth's tail is not "like a cedar tree" as they claim, but rather "he moveth his tail like a cedar," which could apply to a cedar branch, used for swatting flies. What's also interesting is that this is practically the only bit of the description that stands out, aside from describing the Behemoth as massive. There is no mention of long necks, horns, spikes, plates, wings, feathers, beaks or crests, or any other kinds of traits the likes of which are abundant in dinosaurs, meaning it was definitely a compact creature with otherwise unremarkable details.


Pleasure explained (Psalm 36:8). Evolution cannot explain pleasure – even the most complex chemicals do not experience bliss. However, the Bible states that God “gives us richly all things to enjoy” (1 Timothy 6:17). Pleasure is a gift from God.

Psalm 36:8 says "They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of thy house; and thou shalt make them drink of the river of thy pleasures." "God gave us richly all things to enjoy" does not mean "God gave us the ability to enjoy." Chemicals such as endorphins are exactly what provide us with a feeling of bliss.[15] Saying that chemicals don't "experience" bliss is like saying that a sound wave doesn't know what it's like to hear something.


#1 -- #11 --#21 -- #31 -- #41 -- #51 -- #61 -- #71 -- #81 -- #91 -- #101

Life is more than matter and energy (Genesis 2:7; Job 12:7-10). We know that if a creature is denied air it dies. Even though its body may be perfectly intact, and air and energy are reintroduced to spark life, the body remains dead. Scripture agrees with the observable evidence when it states that only God can give the breath of life. Life cannot be explained by raw materials, time, and chance alone – as evolutionists would lead us to believe.

Genesis 2:7 says "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Job 12:7-10 says "But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this? In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind." Multiple things are lost when one dies that cannot just be reintroduced. For instance, the brain suffers permanent damage from oxygen loss. Their last sentence is a lie, plain and simple. And it's not so amazing that people who could not resurrect the dead would believe an all powerful being could. Also, once again, evolution makes no claims as to the origin of life. In addition, the claim that 'only God can give the breath of life', in the situation they describe, indicates that they are unfamiliar with CPRWikipedia and defibrillators.

In addition, while evolution cannot explain the origin of life (since allele variation cannot occur before there are alleles), abiogenesis models can, and there are a great many models showing how simple self-replicators (effectively a free-floating metabolism) could have developed into simplistic "cells" enclosed by lipid membranes. What the author means is that he will not let life be explained that way, because he has already decided that a wizard did it.


Origin of music explained (Psalm 40:3). Evolution cannot explain the origin of music. The Bible says that every good gift comes from God (James 1:17). This includes joyful melodies. God has given both man and angels the gift of music-making (Genesis 4:21; Ezekiel 28:13). Singing is intended to express rejoicing in and worship of the Lord (Job 38:7; Psalm 95:1-2).

Psalm 40:3 says "And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD." Not only does this explain nothing (really, God is so vain that he had people sing just to praise him?) it's also flatly wrong since many other species vocalise for a wide variety of reasons: yet, according to the Bible, they have no souls and so no reason to praise God. The idea that a human might find specific sounds pleasurable, soothing or exciting is well within the reactions we know other animals have for entirely practical reasons, such as mothers being able to make sounds that reassure their children, cries that warn of danger causing alertness, or mating songs causing interest and arousal.

Moreover, singing and music are not the same thing.


Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archaeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with God’s Word.

This is deliberately deceptive cherrypicking since archaeologists have also discovered our more distant ancestors lived in caves and used simple stone tools, and we have also discovered simplistic tool-use (including crafting of tools such as stripping leaves from sticks) among other extant primates, showing a clear chain of development. The fact that the Bible describes the past as having the technology of societies that existed at the time when it was written, rather than those millennia beforehand as it should, is actually an example of how bad it is as a historical document.

The passage cited in Genesis is objectively wrong even by creationist standards: the technology to work iron did not exist until 1,500 BCE in Mesopotamia, long after the YEC date of the Flood. The passages in Job, on the other hand, are just saying people were wiser in the good ol'days: given what the Bible defines as "wisdom," it does not follow that they were technologically advanced.

This point is linked to the attempt to discard evidence of primitive human societies in #74, a case of begging the question since the next dubious argument is an assumption of this dubious argument.


Cavemen described in the Bible (Job 30:1-8). Four thousand years ago, Job describes certain “vile men” who were driven from society to forage “among the bushes” for survival and who “live in the clefts of the valleys, (and) in caves of the earth and the rocks.” Therefore “cavemen” were simply outcasts and vagabounds – not our primitive ancestors as evolutionists speculate.

Job 30:1-8 can be found here. Oh, where to begin. Besides the fact that they offer no proof for this radically different hypothesis on cavemen (big surprise), they don't explain how these cavemen were of a different species than H. sapiens (see H. neanderthalensis, H. habilis, H. erectus, etc.).

And this is more of apolgetics than anything, and absolutely horrible science. They go in with an assumption (H. sapiens were the first and only, and never lived in caves) and then fit the evidence to that assumption (all those fossils and traces of cavemen were really just outcasts). Also it's circular reasoning, as they are basing their proof off the bible, whose certifiability they base off things such as this. Job probably dates back to the bronze age, but it certainly wasn't written down 4,000 years ago: it's also clearly a fable rather than a literal account.


Environmental devastation of the planet foreseen (Revelation 11:18). Though evolution imagines that things should be getting better, the Bible foresaw what is really occurring today: pollution, destruction and corrupt dominion.

Revelation 11:18 says "And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth." First of all, EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY THINGS SHOULD BE GETTING BETTER. WHERE DO THEY GET THIS FROM? Evolution only says that the creatures best adapted to their current conditions are the ones that survive: we're seeing this, with the thriving of species that get along well with us around such as foxes, raccoons, seagulls, pigeons, rats and former cave spiders.

Anyway, the other implication from that is that we are living in end times, a belief which has been held in nearly every century and continuously proven to be wrong. The idea that things are necessarily getting worse is also dubious, since not so long ago environmental laws were so lax in the USA that rivers routinely caught fire.[16]

Also, it is the general opinion of scholars who aren't fundamentalists that Revelation is not a prophecy, but a book of seditious literature disguised as one.


The seed of a plant contains its life (Genesis 1:11; 29). As stated in the Book of Genesis, we now recognize that inside the humble seed is life itself. Within the seed is a tiny factory of amazing complexity. No scientist can build a synthetic seed and no seed is simple!

Genesis 1:11 says "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." That is nothing at all like what they claim it says. All it says is the incredible observation that seeds produce fruits with seeds in them. Genesis 1:29 says "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." Once again, it does not really mention what they claim it does. Of rather major importance is the fact that there is absolutely nothing incredible about the fact that the ancient Hebrews realized that plants grew from seeds, as agriculture was well established at that point in time.


A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, “unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.” (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells “give their lives” to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain.

1 Corinthians 15:36-38 says "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body." First of all, their first point is not a "fundamental concept" in biology, and is an attempt to try to discredit abiogenesis as much as possible, without giving evidence (not giving evidence seems to be a pattern for them). Secondly, it's not extraordinary for an agricultural society to realize that a seed "dies" to produce new life, yet we know today that a seed doesn't die, but rather it grows into a plant. If the seed dies, it never becomes a plant.


The order of creation agrees with true science (Genesis 1). Plants require sunlight, water, and minerals in order to survive. In the first chapter of Genesis we read that God created light first (v.3), then water (v. 6), then soil (v. 9), and then He created plant life (v. 11).

Plants require sunlight, water, and minerals to survive. OK, great. What has the order of creation got to do with photosynthesis though? God could have created plants first then created soil to put them in, if he wanted, right? The order isn't obviously significant in enabling photosynthesis. It seems like God created day before he created the sun (v. 16), so what were the plants meant to be photosynthesizing (not "sunlight")? What on earth is "true science"? It's kind of sounding like it means "parts of science that we think agree with us".

That's even before we get to Genesis not being able to make up its mind about about the order of creation.


God created “lights” in the heavens “for signs and seasons, and for days and years” (Genesis 1:14-16). We now know that a year is the time required for the earth to travel once around the sun. The seasons are caused by the changing position of the earth in relation to the sun. The moon’s phases follow one another in clock-like precision – constituting the lunar calendar. Evolution teaches that the cosmos evolved by random chance, yet the Bible agrees with the observable evidence.

Genesis 1:14-16 says "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." Here we turn from butchering biology to butchering astronomy. First off, this passage says that the moon produces light, which is not true. The moon merely reflects the light of the sun. It also refers to the firmament, a solid layer in the sky that doesn't exist. And after that the response is wait, WHAT?. Weirdly, the authors seem to assume that any non-god-produced solar system would be entirely random and chaotic, which is complete nonsense as well as ignorant of the past 500 years or so of scientific observation. Also, evolution is a part of biology, not cosmology or astronomy. It has nothing to say about the formation of the solar system, so this bit about evolution teaching about the cosmos is not even wrong.

We don't need a god to explain why the years and days are roughly the same length: just the laws of gravity, which were discovered in the 1500s before biological evolution and which the biblical passages don't in any way predict or explain. The earth remains in a stable orbit around the sun (and the moon around the earth), giving rise to what we know as the seasons and years and other phenomena like the phases of the moon, because of gravity. "Random chance" has nothing to do with it. In fact, thanks to our knowledge of physics and astronomy, we can predict precisely things like variations in the length of the day and year, the timing of eclipses, and the positioning of the stars as viewed from earth at a given time. Ancient people themselves kept meticulous observations of the stars and planets; sensibly enough, they based their calendar on them (a "month" is roughly based around the phases of the moon for example). Are the authors seriously suggesting that God designed the intricacies of celestial mechanics to match the seasons and the months of a totally arbitrary human calendar, rather than have the one develop based on the other?


The Bible speaks of “heaven and the highest heavens” (Deuteronomy 10:14). Long before the Hubble Space Telescope, Scripture spoke of the “heaven of heavens” and the “third heaven” (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Corinthians 12:2). We now know that the heavens consist of our immediate atmosphere and the vast reaches of outer space – as well as God’s wonderful abode.

Deuteronomy 10:14 says "Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is." That would be nice and all, except that it is pretty well-known what model was drawn from these claims before science disproved it, that the sky was divided from the "heavens" by the firmament with the Highest Heaven somewhere above that.

The idea that we "know" of "God's wonderful abode" is interesting, since science has never claimed to have found any such place.


#1 -- #11 --#21 -- #31 -- #41 -- #51 -- #61 -- #71 -- #81 -- #91 -- #101

Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him – pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?

Luke 10:34 says "And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him." If olive oil is a good skin moisturizer and lotion, why is it so amazing that they used it? As to the wine, maybe they figured wine would do the same as olive oil. Or maybe they figured that the sensation felt from pouring wine on the skin meant it was doing something important. Either way, it's not like God commanded the people to use wine and olive oil. You'd think he would have, in order to keep them alive. And you would think that in the Middle Ages, when Christianity was near all-important and unquestioned, people would have used this pro tip if it were so self-explanatory.


Man is “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14). We are only beginning to probe the complexity of the DNA molecule, the eye, the brain, and all the intricate components of life. No human invention compares to the marvelous wonders of God’s creation.

Psalm 139:14 says "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well." Fearfully and wonderfully are not referring to complex, as indicated by "my soul knoweth right well." Instead, the passage seems to be trying to say that God made us, and that's about it. And if they were saying that the body was complex? Anyone can make that observation just by looking at the veins and arteries throughout one's body.


Beauty understood (Genesis 1:31; 2:9; Job 40:10; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Matthew 6:28-30). Beauty surrounds us: radiant sunsets, majestic mountains, brightly colored flowers, glowing gems, soothing foliage, brilliantly adorned birds, etc. Beauty is a mystery to the evolutionist. However, Scripture reveals that God creates beautiful things for our benefit and His glory.

For starters, "beauty" is subjective and hard to define. Humans differ across cultures and across individuals over what is considered "beautiful" - it's not as though there is some kind of biblical checklist of what is beautiful and what is not that humans adhere to, even broadly. That said, evolution can indeed help us establish why humans have a tendency to consider certain things "beautiful." Symmetrical features are often considered beautiful by humans, possibly because they correlate with health and reproductive fitness. For more on this see argument from beauty and the Ant and the Peacock.


Strong and weak nuclear force explained (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). Physicists do not understand what binds the atom’s nucleus together. Yet, the Bible states that “all things consist” – or are held together by the Creator – Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:17 says "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Hebrews 1:3 says "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven." As they say in their first sentence, we DO know what holds a nucleus together: the strong and weak nuclear forces. Saying Jesus holds everything together would imply that either fission is stronger than Him or that fission is the work of Satan (as one is removing the power of Jesus). Also, saying Jesus holds all things together is not very scientific, and no predictions can be made from it, unlike the strong and weak nuclear forces. It's also unfalsifiable and untestable, which means it's scientifically useless and engineers can't do anything with it.


Atomic fission anticipated (2 Peter 3:10-12). Scripture states that “the elements will melt with fervent heat” when the earth and the heavens are “dissolved” by fire. Today we understand that if the elements of the atom are loosed, there would be an enormous release of heat and energy (radiation).

2 Peter 3:10-12 says "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat." Once again, loose interpretation applied well after facts are known. Fire was probably the most destructive weapon the Hebrews knew of, so it's not surprising they would predict the world to end in fire.


The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.

Job 38:31 says "Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion?" According to Creation on the Web: "Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability."[1] When other creationists don't even agree with you, you know you're on shaky ground.


Safe drinking water (Leviticus 11:33-36). God forbade drinking from vessels or stagnant water that had been contaminated by coming into contact with a dead animal. It is only in the last 100 years that medical science has learned that contaminated water can cause typhoid and cholera.

Leviticus 11:33-36 says "And every earthen vessel, whereinto any of them falleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean; and ye shall break it. Of all meat which may be eaten, that on which such water cometh shall be unclean: and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall be unclean. And every thing whereupon any part of their carcase falleth shall be unclean; whether it be oven, or ranges for pots, they shall be broken down: for they are unclean and shall be unclean unto you. Nevertheless a fountain or pit, wherein there is plenty of water, shall be clean: but that which toucheth their carcase shall be unclean. So first of all, no reason given that relates to disease. Secondly, springs and cisterns, which would affect even more people, are perfectly okay to receive dead carcasses. Finally, ritual prohibitions around dead things are only partly based on a health aspect (that dead things cause disease could be observed in nature) but also based around a general concept that death was ritually unclean and therefore contact with dead things reduced one's holiness.


Pest control (Leviticus 25:1-24). Farmers are plagued today with insects. Yet God gave a sure-fire remedy to control pests centuries ago. Moses commanded Israel to set aside one year in seven when no crops were raised. Insects winter in the stalks of last year’s harvest, hatch in the spring, and are perpetuated by laying eggs in the new crop. If the crop is denied one year in seven, the pests have nothing to subsist upon, and are thereby controlled.

Leviticus 25:1-24 can be found here. Having land lie fallow for a year was developed by agricultural societies which had no contact with ancient Israel, so this is not Biblical foreknowledge: it is also to do with soil fertility, not insects. The bible makes no mention of insects anywhere in the passage. If you really wanted to deny insects food, you wouldn't plant every other year. Heck, why even bother planting at all? No crops would have given the insects much less to subside on. And anyway, the seventh year rest is parallel to God resting on the seventh day of creation. Later farmers would change this to a four-yearly cycle and get better results.

God also claims that the harvest on the sixth year will always be food for three years to make up for the fallow year, which kind of doesn't happen. Other societies came up with the much better idea of rotating which fields they were using so they were never all out of service at the same time. The advice in Leviticus, if the ancient Israelites actually followed it, might explain why they had to keep ransacking other societies.


Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if God’s commands were followed.

Leviticus 23:22 says "When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God." As you can see, the law was created with only their third purpose in mind. So that's really not that amazing in any sense. The Bible's agricultural ideas are well in line with those of older agricultural societies, and totally unremarkable. Our ignorant townie writer is also unaware of how many factors are involved in modern soil loss, from mechanised deep-tilling to the use of pesticides and fertilisers that kill soil bacteria: it would probably have been more useful for God to give us some tips on those if He was trying to help out.


Animal instincts understood (Job 39; Proverbs 30:24-28; Jeremiah 8:7). A newly hatched spider weaves an intricate web without being taught. A recently emerged butterfly somehow knows to navigate a 2,500-mile migration route without a guide. God explains that He has endowed each creature with specific knowledge. Scripture, not evolution, explains animal instincts.

Once again, not going to bother with the verses, because they're so dead wrong anyway. Animal instincts are one of the things evolution best explains. Creatures with the instincts best suited for survival are the ones that survive to reproduce. One possible way the butterfly knows how to migrate is an ability to detect the magnetic poles. While not all animal instincts are currently understood fully, that doesn't mean that they will not be understood at some point in the near, or distant, future. And their explanation is not really an explanation, it's "goddidit" (though, then again, that's what all of their explanations are).

Also, newly hatched spiders do not "weave an intricate web." Spiderlings are not capable of producing silk at hatching and require at least one and sometimes two moults before they are ready to set out on their own: in the meantime they cluster together with their siblings for protection, and / or rely on their mother to lovingly ignore them until they are ready to leave. We can thus add "spiders" to the list of things the author of the article does not understand. A spider's web relies on a relatively simple repeating geometric pattern: they do not have "knowledge" in the human sense as the Bible claims, they simply run a set of rules.


#1 -- #11 --#21 -- #31 -- #41 -- #51 -- #61 -- #71 -- #81 -- #91 -- #101

Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in God’s image.

Psalm 32:9 says "Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee." Guilt is a social construct put in place by humans, based off the social constructs of right and wrong. There is no natural consensus among humans as to what they should feel guilty for doing, and some do not feel guilt for anything at all. This is also a misquotation, since the verse in the Bible is only talking about beasts of burden. Anyone who has ever owned a dog will know that some animals are indeed aware when they have done things they should not have, such as crapping in the living room.


Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: “profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science).” True science agrees with the Creator’s Word.

1 Timothy 6:20 says "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:" Reading the rest of the Pauline epistles makes it very clear that Paul's definition of "knowledge" is "the stuff in the Bible" and he is utterly disdainful of earthly wisdom, which he refers to as "foolishness." The article writer agrees, using his definition of "true science". So this is a legit point if you change it to "92. Modern creationist movement anticipated."


Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every manmade theory and all other so-called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews – which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science.

Colossians 2:3 says "In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." This is based on the assumption that everything they've said before this is true. But it's not, so their argument doesn't hold. Also, numerous errors in the bible include calling the earth fixed, the sky solid, pi equal to 3, mustard the smallest seed, and the sun rising and falling. See also scientific errors in the bible.


Human conscience understood (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible reveals that God has impressed His moral law onto every human heart. Con means with and science means knowledge. We know it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, etc. Only the Bible explains that each human has a God-given knowledge of right and wrong.

Romans 2:14-15 says "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)" Dang, the KJV is hard to understand. Anyway, if this knowledge is God-given, why must it be taught to our children? Also, they seem to think the only reason it is wrong to kill is because God said so, which is a pretty poor reason. Also, see argument from morality.


Love explained (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-12). Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, God’s Word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.

Not bothering with the quotes again. Once again, absolute bullshit. To read the evolutionary perspective on love, see wikipedia for now.[17].


The real you is spirit (Numbers 16:22; Zechariah 12:1). Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donor’s character. An amputee is not half the person he was before losing his limbs. Our eternal nature is spirit, heart, soul, mind. The Bible tells us that “man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7).

The reason your personality does not change after a heart transplant is because personality is contained in the brain. If you had a brain transplant, you would experience a change in personality, though it wouldn't really be you experiencing it in the first place. (Similarly, brain damage and certain chemicals can change an individual's personality, either temporarily or permanently, which is pretty solid evidence against a spirit separate from the brain, not to mention the idea of a person having an "eternal nature".) Same goes for amputees; personality is not contained in the limbs. Also note how the quote only supports the statement when read metaphorically.


The cause of suffering revealed (Genesis 3; Isaiah 24:5-6). The earth is subject to misery, which appears at odds with our wonderfully designed universe. However, the Bible, not evolution, explains the origin of suffering. When mankind rebelled against God, the curse resulted – introducing affliction, pain and death into the world.

This depends on what is meant by suffering: evolution can certainly explain pain as a reflex, since this warns a creature that it is being damaged, and the sensation is unpleasant because this will lead the creature to take action to minimise further damage: conditions that restrict the ability to feel pain result in people able to lean on a hotplate and not notice until they smell their own burning flesh, babies teething on their own tongues, back injuries due to sleeping in extremely stressful positions without feeling discomfort, etc. Sufferers of one such condition, Congenital Insensitivity to Pain (CIP) are lucky if they make it out of childhood with one working eye.

Grief, sorrow and so on are believed to be a side-effect of the evolutionary adaptations that let us have relationships: for example, producing stress hormones when separated from a group helps to keep a communal species together and makes them more alert to threats when alone, but this also results in loneliness, and grief when members of the group die.

On the other hand, in world watched over by a God who is all-good and all-knowing, the fact that suffering exists is a real problem (even if you'd rather handwave it as a consequence of the Fall). And what did the animals do to deserve it anyway? They never rebelled against God (except the snake, of course, unless you're a Christian in which case the snake didn't do anything either, Satan did).


Death explained (Romans 6:23). All eventually die. The Bible alone explains why we die – “The soul who sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is transgression of God’s Law. To see if you will die, please review God’s Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Have you ever lied? (White lies and fibs count.) Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing.) Jesus said that “whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked with lust? Then you’re an adulterer at heart. Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). Have you ever used your Creator’s name (Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ) in vain? This is called blasphemy – and God hates it. If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. And we have only looked at five of the Ten Commandments. This is why we die.

In terms of science, we die due to a series of irreversible chemical reactions that happen as our metabolic processes fail. This may be due to lack of oxygen, lack of blood, or the severing of connections, among other things. These are due to things such as old age, physical injury, cancer, diseases, etc. So, I'm not sure what they're trying to argue. Are they trying to say that science can't explain death?

This explanation also has an obvious problem: the Ten Commandments are only handed out in Exodus, but plenty of people are killed in Genesis (including everyone in the world except Noah's family and the populations of Sodom and Gomorrah). So why did they die, when God hadn't yet made the law?


Justice understood (Acts 17:30-31). Our God-given conscience reveals that all sin will be judged. Down deep we know that He who created the eyes sees every secret sin (Romans 2:16). He who formed our mind remembers our past offense as if it just occurred. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Physical death comes first, then the second death – which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). God cannot lie. Every sin will be judged. His justice demands it. But God is also rich in mercy to all who call upon His name. He has made a way for justice to be served and mercy to be shown.

If you haven't noticed, they're no longer even making a pretense of going into science, and are simply evangelizing. Also, if you look at Genesis 18:12-13, God does lie.[18] If you want to maintain that he cannot lie, as they do here, that amounts to denying His omnipotence.


Eternal life revealed (John 3:16). Scientists search in vain for the cure for aging and death. Yet, the good news is that God, who is the source of all life, has made a way to freely forgive us so that we may live forever with Him in heaven. “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). God desires a loving, eternal relationship with each person – free from sin, fear, and pain. Therefore, He sent His Son to die as our substitute on the cross. “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). Jesus never sinned, therefore He alone qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. He then rose from the grave defeating death. All who turn from their sins and trust Him will be saved. To repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ, make Psalm 51 your prayer. Then read your Bible daily, obeying what you read. God will never let you down.

Since they have yet to show that the existence of heaven is testable or falsifiable, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Once again, there's no science here. Thankfully, we're almost done.


#1 -- #11 --#21 -- #31 -- #41 -- #51 -- #61 -- #71 -- #81 -- #91 -- #101

The solution to suffering (Revelation 21). Neither evolution nor religion offers a solution to suffering. But God offers heaven as a gift to all who trust in His Son. In heaven, “God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away” (Revelation 21:4).

It's not the job of evolution to offer a solution for suffering, and many other religions do offer solutions. Once again, heaven is not proven to exist. Jesus is not proven to be divine. God is not proven to exist. And it took God an awful lot of time to offer this "solution," thousands of years according to the Bible between the creation and the birth of Jesus during which even the people who did their best to follow the Law the "perfect" God lay down presumably all went to Hell. And we're done.

Final observations[edit]

Looking through this, there is one passage (#22) that has possibly led to an increase in our scientific knowledge. Generally, these folks seem to believe that the Jews lacked the basic abilities of observation, inference, drawing conclusions, creativity, imagination, and general intelligence. They also selectively quote biblical passages, make up information, misapply evolution, read poetic and metaphoric passages literally, apply meanings to words and look for correlations after facts are known, even downright lie. But honestly, we've come to expect nothing less of these people.

And finally, we at RationalWiki dare a believer in biblical scientific foreknowledge to make a prediction, based on the Bible, of a piece of scientific knowledge that is currently unknown. Really, we dare you. Put your money where your mouth is. Don't be shy. If you truly believe this, stand up for what you believe in and make a prediction.


This heading is for people who honestly believe in scientific foreknowledge in the Bible, and would like to take us up on our offer of making a prediction. Here's your space. If it comes true, you'll be famous! If it doesn't, you can just claim it hasn't been proven yet, but will happen eventually. You can't lose!


  1. Incidentally, German WWI trenches were generally better built than those of the Allies and some included running water.
  2. Like the Epic of Gilgamesh that predates the Bible by at least a millennium.
  3. Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.
  4. For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
  5. Heck, just read the Song of Solomon in the Bible
  6. He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
  7. Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.