Does the Bible ever contradict scientific observation?

[McCulloch]

The Bible will never contradict scientific observation, maybe confuse it with a miracle or two, … .

Is this a true statement? If you disagree, please be specific as to where the writers of the Bible contradict scientific observation. Show that the passage was not intended metaphorically and that the event was not explainable by miraculous divine intervention.

[rikuoamero]

Thus the Bible is correct, and in this instance it gives scientific information which scientists only discovered in the twentieth century.

Thing is, in science, we like to make predictions, then do tests to see if those predictions are true.

Prior to Lemaitre coming up with the Big Bang theory, did anyone read the Bible and think to themselves "Hmm...I think what the Bible is saying here is that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state". (Let's ignore the bit in Genesis 1 where God's spirit is floating above the waters before he creates light)

La Mystica, don't you think it odd that Quran apologists or Bible apologists like yourself are only ever able to link these verses to scientific theories after the discoveries have been made? They never seem to be able to do it beforehand. In fact, why don't you do it? Comb through the Bible, pick some verse or verses, make a prediction about the world, and then test to see if that prediction comes true?

[La Mystica]

[Replying to post 25 by La Mystica]

Well, it's great, except in creation, the Earth preceded the Big Bang and stars.
A problem is that God can't be shown to exist much before the Earth, so can't be pointed at as the creator of the universe, except in allegory.

In Genesis 1:1 the word "earth" ( �ֶרֶץ ) is contrasted with "the heavens" (
שָ�מַיִ� ). Therefore it doesn't necessarily refer to the planet Earth, but to the material world in contrast to the immaterial realms (the heavens). The word �ֶרֶץ occurs more than 2000 times in the Hebrew Bible and has various meanings.

For example, on the third day, God called the dry land Earth. This is clearly not the same "earth" as in Genesis 1:1.

[La Mystica]

The account of creation in Genesis gets many things completely wrong, but in my mind, the quickest snap argument against Biblical creation is the assertion that God created light before he created the sun.

And that is exactly what happened according to science! The first light in the Universe occurred a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. This is a relatively short time after the BB, and it occurred more than nine billion years before the Sun began to exist, according to science. Thus the Bible is correct, and in this instance it gives scientific information which scientists only discovered in the twentieth century.

According to Genesis, God made plant life before he made the sun and stars. Care to explain that?

When God created plant life, there was no man or animal to see it or make use of it. But God saw that it was good. So, God creating the plants doesn't imply that they were visible or touchable; they could exist as seeds in the ground, or even as spores or seeds in meteors.

It is no surprise that scientists have been examining meteors in the hope of finding life forms inside. A few years ago, they believed that meteors found in Antarctica did indeed contain very primitive fossilized life forms. But this is no longer believed to be the case. Meanwhile, scientists continue to search for life in meteors, or on other planets, or elsewhere, outside our planet. If one day they find extraterrestrial plant life, it may very well be much older than the Sun.

So, many scientists have no problem with the idea that life can be older than the Sun.

[La Mystica]

Thus the Bible is correct, and in this instance it gives scientific information which scientists only discovered in the twentieth century.

Thing is, in science, we like to make predictions, then do tests to see if those predictions are true.

Science is about spending taxpayer's money and fraud, lots of fraud, especially in medical research. No tests are being done about theories such as string theory or the multiverse, because such theories are only wild speculations, and testing them is impossible. Scientists themselves admit that testing the multiverse is impossible and always will be impossible. Yet they continue to earn handsome salaries with their unprovable musings.

Prior to Lemaitre coming up with the Big Bang theory, did anyone read the Bible and think to themselves "Hmm...I think what the Bible is saying here is that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state". (Let's ignore the bit in Genesis 1 where God's spirit is floating above the waters before he creates light)

Lemaitre was a Catholic priest. The Bible is not a scientific textbook.

La Mystica, don't you think it odd that Quran apologists or Bible apologists like yourself are only ever able to link these verses to scientific theories after the discoveries have been made? They never seem to be able to do it beforehand. In fact, why don't you do it? Comb through the Bible, pick some verse or verses, make a prediction about the world, and then test to see if that prediction comes true?

I don't link those verses to scientific theories. I only responded to someone who mistakenly claimed that the Bible is wrong, while in fact the Bible was right in that instance. I am not a concordist.

If belief in scientific theories were necessary for salvation, those theories would certainly have been included in the Bible.

[McCulloch]

When God created plant life, there was no man or animal to see it or make use of it. But God saw that it was good. So, God creating the plants doesn't imply that they were visible or touchable; they could exist as seeds in the ground, or even as spores or seeds in meteors.

Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them�; and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Does this really sound like a description of invisible untouchable seeds?

[La Mystica]

When God created plant life, there was no man or animal to see it or make use of it. But God saw that it was good. So, God creating the plants doesn't imply that they were visible or touchable; they could exist as seeds in the ground, or even as spores or seeds in meteors.

Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them�; and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Does this really sound like a description of invisible untouchable seeds?

They were not visible by Man, because there was neither Man nor animal, as I wrote. But they certainly were not invisible to God. God saw that it was good.

[benchwarmer]

When God created plant life, there was no man or animal to see it or make use of it. But God saw that it was good. So, God creating the plants doesn't imply that they were visible or touchable; they could exist as seeds in the ground, or even as spores or seeds in meteors.

Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them�; and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Does this really sound like a description of invisible untouchable seeds?

They were not visible by Man, because there was neither Man nor animal, as I wrote. But they certainly were not invisible to God. God saw that it was good.

You are entirely missing the point.

Plants require light to grow. If you don't believe me, try growing a fruit tree in complete darkness.

Also note that your description completely ignored the actual description in the bible:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV (I added the bold)

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.� And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.

So there you go, straight from the Bible. We have trees bearing fruit, not just seeds in meteors or whatever tap dancing you tried to do there.

Now, let's further break this down to show that Genesis does not match reality (the first account, we can also discuss why the second account doesn't match the first, but let's skin one cat at a time here).

All quotes from https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV with any additional bolding by me.

1. We start with the heavens (space I guess), a formless earth, and some water.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

2. God makes light.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,� and there was light.

Already we have a problem. Did God light a campfire? Where is this light coming from. Did He just create the concept of light? Let's try to be accommodating and assume He just imagined the concept.

3. Ok, it's actual light since it separates day and night.

4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,� and the darkness he called “night.� And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Oops. So much for just a concept. Light is separating day and night, but we have no source for the light.

4. God makes the sky.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.� 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.� And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Umm, what? So now we have water above the sky and water below the sky. Was the writer trying to talk about the rain clouds or something? Which, by the way, are IN the atmosphere, not above it. It's falling apart fast and we aren't even at those pesky plants yet.

5. God makes land.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.� And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,� and the gathered waters he called “seas.� And God saw that it was good.

Ok, no real problems here I guess. Other than the fact that most planets seem to form from land first, not water. Pretty hard to make a ball of water produce land. Making water would require some chemistry (hydrogen and oxygen which could come from solids), but God is doing magic, so let's go with it I guess.

6. God makes plants. So we have land, water, and no sun or stars to make light yet.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.� And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

I guess all this vegetation grew from God's original campfire?

7. God finally makes some light sources. Though the description is scientifically inaccurate.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.� And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

So, we have the greater light which is presume is the Sun. We have the lesser light which I can only assume is the moon. Oops, that's not a light source, but a light reflector. The sun is what lights up the moon. Hmm, maybe you have a better 'interpretation'?

8. God makes fish and birds.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.� 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Umm, all modern knowledge of biology including genetics show birds are descendants of land dwelling animals (reptiles) which haven't appeared yet. Hmm, more magic that will later confuse what we observe.

9. God makes land animals.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.� 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Ok, bit of an ordering issue again based on modern knowledge of biology, but let's chalk it up to more magic.

10. God makes humans. Wait, actually it says THEY made humans.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.�

Ok, more than one God, or God has multiple personality disorder.

Anyways, after all that we can clearly see that Genesis (account 1) does not match what we know now about meteorology (water is in the air, not above it), animal biology (genetics show us how things are actually related), plant biology (live plants, certainly fruit bearing trees, need light to grow), physics/astronomy (the moon is not a light, it's simply reflecting the sun), and even modern Christianity which claims one true god.

Looking forward to how one rationalizes all that.

[Justin108]

The account of creation in Genesis gets many things completely wrong, but in my mind, the quickest snap argument against Biblical creation is the assertion that God created light before he created the sun.

And that is exactly what happened according to science! The first light in the Universe occurred a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. This is a relatively short time after the BB, and it occurred more than nine billion years before the Sun began to exist, according to science. Thus the Bible is correct, and in this instance it gives scientific information which scientists only discovered in the twentieth century.

According to Genesis, God made plant life before he made the sun and stars. Care to explain that?

When God created plant life, there was no man or animal to see it or make use of it. But God saw that it was good. So, God creating the plants doesn't imply that they were visible or touchable; they could exist as seeds in the ground, or even as spores or seeds in meteors.

There is absolutely no scientific support for the notion that plant life existed before the sun and stars, whether in seed form or not

According to science, the order of creation is
- stars
- sun
- earth
- plants (seed or otherwise)

According to Genesis, the order of creation is
- earth
- plants
- sun and stars

Who should I believe? Science or Genesis? Because they certainly do not agree.

So, many scientists have no problem with the idea that life can be older than the Sun.

The sun? Maybe. The stars? Absolutely not

[Neatras]

Besides, germinating seeds didn't appear in the evolution of life until spores began to develop the characteristics we see in a variety of modern seed-like structures. Plant evolution is markedly different than what is portrayed in the Bible. In fact, it's a scientific dead-end to think that seeds evolved, and THEN plants occurred as a result of seed evolution. Unless we're to invoke God as intervening in natural processes to make plants happen, which sort of puts the Bible at odds with scientific observation.

A misunderstanding of evolution will often lead people to believe the strangest things, but the evolution of seed-bearing plants relies on precursors which did not produce seeds. This is pretty simple stuff to learn if one so much as google searches "plant evolution."

[JehovahsWitness]

... you are starting with the a priori assumption that the Bible is absolute truth.

Not necessarily; One can just as well say, *if* the bible is true, and the above is a logical inevitability, then when faced with between two possible interpretations, the best one would be that which agrees with what we know to be true scientifically.

Right. So *if* you begin with the a priori assumption that the Bible cannot be wrong, then logically the Bible cannot be wrong... ?

Again, I will state the point that the question under discussion is not whether the bible is wrong or not; the question under discussion is which interpretation should one favor. Even if the bible was entirely fictional and inaccurate, one is still faced with the question of interpretation of that fiction, and the possible choice between fiction that agrees with what we know to be true (whatever that might be) and fiction that does not.

If the search is for truth, since as I said truth does not contradict truth, once we have one truth (ie a scientific truth) we should logically use it as leverage to find another truth (if that is our objective). It's like finding a planet that we cannot see. Analysing the data (that we can see) a cosmologist can theorize that a planet should be just about ... there. If someone presents information that implies there is in fact a planet there or that there can be found an enormous cheese burrito, we have a choice. Planet or Burrito? Planet or Burrito?!

In short, when it comes to intrepreation, one is often faced with a choice: "Read things in a way that is exactly opposite with all available data " (which is generally the option taken by every atheist I have ever encountered) or favor that which harmonizes with any proven realities as we understand them.

Generally, all things being equal, I see the latter as the way to go.

JW