does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?
with a flawed view of cosmology picked up from the Sumerians. There was no Flood
and no Garden of Eden. Man came from evolution, not from dust. The Bible has no
recipe for soap or basic medical advice. Christians will say that the Bible has
no intention of being a science textbook. It simply worked through the flawed
worldview of the times. The Bible had no goal to improve the condition of our
lives; it taught Gods rules, not health rules.
That the Bible has flawed science and holds back the advancement of science is
created by Andrew D. White and John William Draper in the 19th century.
See Appendix A in "Did God Really Say".
(science) is covered extensively in "Did God Really Say?" in
particular chapters 46 through 59.
When someone throws this type of question
at you, the way to respond is to ask for specific proofs of what is being asserted.
What is the proof that Genesis is based on Sumerian cosmology? What is the explanation
for massive, continent spanning, deep layers of sediment? What is the proof that
evolution is true? Unless you are talking specifics, you can't have a discussion.
For example, if all one person says, "Man came from evolution." And
another responds by saying "Man did not come from evolution." The discussion
goes nowhere. All you get is one person saying, "Yes he did!" and the
other claiming "No, he didn't!"
Note: You cannot prove
a negative. That's why I did not ask for proof Noah's flood did not happen. However,
what the skeptic must do is provide reasonable explanations for all of the physical
evidence resulting from the flood. A standard "scientific" approach
is to make a hypothesis, such as: "The geographic features we see today resulted
from slow processes over long periods of time." Then make predictions based
on that hypothesis. If the predictions prove to be true, the hypothesis gains
credibility. For example, it was believed that it takes tens of millions of years
for coal to form, and much of the coal we mine today comes from organic material
deposited 300 million years ago. However, numerous coal
samples have been carbon dated and every one has C14, meaning they all are
less than 100,000 years old. This destroys evolutionists' predictions that there'd
be no C14. On the other hand, this is what we'd expect to find if the organic
material was deposited by a recent world-wide flood.
skeptic asking this question is saying is that his assertions don't need any proof.
We are to assume they are true. However, all but one of the assertions in this
question are false. The only one that is true is that the Bible is not a science
It is correct that the Bible was not written as a science textbook.
What that means is simply what it says. For example, I am holding in my hands
right now a copy of the teacher's edition of "The American Nation,"
This is a history textbook. To say this book is not a science textbook is a true
statement. Does that mean this textbook does not include scientific information?
Of course not. In the same way the Bible is not a science text book, BUT it does
include accurate information about our world and universe that has only been "discovered"
scientifically centuries after the Bible was written. Science has never proven
that ANYTHING the Bible asserts as true is false... including the creation of
everything by God in six days. On the other hand, belief in evolution is a faith
belief not supported by unbiased scientific investigation.
Okay, I've made
a counter assertion to what the questioner said. Where is my proof? Here is what
I'll do. This offer is open to anyone reading this article. Send
me one piece of evidence that evolution over millions of years is true. Just
one. To reduce confusion we'll deal with one claim at a time. In return, I'll
send you one piece of evidence God created everything thousands of years ago.
I'll then respond to your evidence and you can respond to my evidence, and I'll
make the entire discussion available on this web site. Please make your assertion
and response readable... meaning keep it at about about an 8th grade reading level.
Here is a link to the form to use for submitting your
To wrap up, and with nothing specific to answer, I'll just respond
to the last claim in this question.
The Bible teaches Gods rules,
not health rules.
Yes, the Bible teaches God's rules. Those rules include
health laws. Here is a quote from chapter 47 of "Did God Really Say?":
health laws in the Bible teach the principles people need to follow in order to
minimize both the spread of and the effects of disease. They require cleanliness
and hygiene, as well as the most effective tool (at the time) against infectious
disease... quarantine. During the black plague many Jews followed the Biblical
health laws and their death rate was just half, and in some areas possibly as
low as 5% of that of the general population. Because they were not getting sick,
people assumed the Jews caused the plague. The result was the massacre and persecution
of Jews (see chapter 44).
During the black plague non-Jews were doing what
the humanists today say we should do, follow human wisdom and ignore the Bible...
and they died.
Not Billions (book)
Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age
of the Earth
Evidence For A Recent Creation (video)
The Bible Contain Scientific Errors (video)
If you have a "But
what about...?" question please sent it to me. Use the contact
form to send me your comments, questions, accusations and corrections.
To order your copy
on Amazon, click here.