• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science In The Bible

tosca1

Member
"The Bible called the earth ‘the round world,’ yet for ages it was the most damnable heresy for Christian men to say that the world is round; and, finally, sailors circumnavigated the globe, and proved the Bible to be right, and saved Christian men of science from the stake."
-
Matthew Maury | Survivor Library
‘Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!’



Since this was brought up in the previous post about Matthew Maury (post #161), let's add it to the evidence being given:



The Earth is Round



Isaiah 40

22*It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,

*Pictures taken from space show the earth appears as a circle since it is round.



Job 26
10*He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters,
At the boundary of light and darkness.


1.
the line or circle that forms the apparent boundary between earth and sky.
2.
Astronomy.
1. the small circle of the celestial sphere whose plane is tangent to the earth at the position of a given observer, or the plane of such a circle (sensible horizon)

2. Also called rational horizon. the great circle of the celestial sphere whose plane passes through the center of the earth and is parallel to the sensible horizon of a given position, or the plane of such a circle (celestial horizon)
Horizon | Define Horizon at Dictionary.com


"......for ages it was the most damnable heresy for Christian men to say that the world is round;"

How many people died at the stake for saying that?


Thanks to science.
It gave evidence that to say, the world is round, is a statement of a fact!
 
Last edited:

tosca1

Member
In anticipation of someone here challenging the statement that the earth is round.....by talking about the "sphere," let me save you the trouble:


What is a sphere? A three-dimensional round thingy!


Here's Merriam's definition:

a : a globular body : ball


....and to back that up, here's wiki:

A sphere (from Greek σφαῖρα — sphaira, "globe, ball"[1]) is a perfectly round geometrical object in three-dimensional space that is the surface of a completely round ball, (viz., analogous to a circular object in two dimensions).[2]
Sphere - Wikipedia



 

tosca1

Member
The Creator indeed, has intimate knowledge of His creation! Evidences which have been given here - list of other evidences on post #191 - are descriptions of creation written long before modern science (with all their modern gadgets), discovered them.......descriptions, which only the CREATOR would know about!



Air Has Weight



Job 28

24 For He looks to the ends of the earth,
And sees under the whole heavens,

25 To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.




The Discovery of the Weight of the Air
THE discovery, in the first half of the seventeenth century, that the air has weight is associated with things of immense importance, for instance, the invention of the barometer and the refutation of the dogma—dear to the false science and the false philosophy of the day—that “Nature abhors a vacuum”.
The Discovery of the Weight of the Air


 

tosca1

Member
Believe it or not, this one was unwittingly contributed by an atheist in another forum. He was questioning something - can't recall - and we ended up with this:


AXIAL TILT


1 Chron 16
30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.



Psalm 93
1 The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.




Psalm 96
10 Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.





What I'm bringing up here may not be within the context of the actual message with those verses - but, the highlighted parts can be taken literally, if we refer to science for physical explanations!



Isn't the earth stable in its course? Isn't it on its axis?

Are we ricocheting all over the universe like a pinball?


Needless to say, Earth’s rotation and orbit around the Sun are not as simple we once though. During the Scientific Revolution, it was a huge revelation to learn that the Earth was not a fixed point in the Universe, and that the “celestial spheres” were planets like Earth. But even then, astronomers like Copernicus and Galileo still believed that the Earth’s orbit was a perfect circle, and could not imagine that its rotation was subject to imperfections.


It’s only been with time that the true nature of our planet’s inclination and movements have come to be understood. And what we know is that they lead to some serious variations over time – both in the short run (i.e. seasonal change), and in the long-run.

What is Earth's Axial Tilt? - Universe Today


Earth has a set course, and even its so-called "imperfection" - the serious variations over time is also set (seasonal changes)!


Axis Tilt is Critical for Life
Not only is the Earth's angle of tilt close to the optimum value, it also seems to have been essentially constant.
That is crucial for the development of advanced life.
Since there are torques which could have caused the axis direction to change, it appears to have been the stabilizing effect of the Moon that has kept the spin axis in a stable direction to provide a stable climate for life.
Axis Tilt is Critical for Life
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
About 13.5 billions years ago!


Here, this might help you:


https://quatr.us/physics/stars-made-astronomy-physics.htm


Now you understand why I'm ignoring most of your posts.

small-laughing-smiley-emoticon.gif



(For any other readers wondering what this exchange is about, stars consist almost entirely of fully ionised plasma, a state of matter in which all the atoms have been converted to ions and free electrons.)
 
Last edited:

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Yes. Consilience. Thanks for bringing that up. here is the defnition from Wikipedia:



And? Lol. It's not the Bible who provides it - it's science!

The Bible simply makes a declaration! Science is the one that provides the evidence!





You folks still don't get it.
Kindly read the following carefully and contemplate on it:


The Bible is not meant to be a science book.

The Bible makes declaration, gives statements and makes claims without meaning for it to be proven true by science or anyone.

That's where FAITH comes in!

It's either "take it or leave it."
Examples of a declaration: " I AM GOD!" "IN THE BEGINNING..."


BUT........BUT........


......It just so happens that science had proven, or confirmed some of the statements/claims in the Bible to be true or compatible with science!





I'm using the right word with CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE for what claims/statements in the Bible have been proven/confirmed by science..........

.................because that's what they are: evidence reinforcing each other, showing the credibility of the Bible.

Even when it's not even meant to be proven - the Bible is racking points, science-wise!

But I'd take consiliience, too. It further supports my point.
It's a "back-up" for cumulative evidence. Thank you.

Someone who finally gets it!! So why do so many Christians try to validate the Bible with science?
 

tosca1

Member
Someone who finally gets it!! So why do so many Christians try to validate the Bible with science?

Evolutionist scientists (Abrahamic religion) are simply reconciling science with their religion - since there is the misconception that science and religion are opposed to one another.

I think the issue has become more prominent now since Richard Dawkins (and the other 3 "horsemen" promoted that misconception) - and also preached that religious people cannot deal with what they call as so-called "reason."



.......and his followers are parroting his opinion, repeating the same "soundbytes."
Too sad....Richard Dawkins merely fed them fluff, so they can't keep up with real RATIONAL discussion about science and religion! A lot of new atheists - you can't miss them by their posturing - are merely doing just that: posturing.

New Atheism
New Atheism - Wikipedia


Here is Richard Dawkins tellling atheists what to do:



We see that in forums.


Of course, his comment about science, and reason as alien with religion would raise up the backs of religious scientists! :) Not to mention, religious philosophers like......William Lane Craig, who really went gunning for Dawkins!

So, I'm assuming what we see is a push back from other scientists to that misguided idea by Richard Dawkins (who abuses science for his own agenda).
And from Philosophers, too! And, now it's become prevalent!



I can only speak for myself.
If I'm going to discuss/debate with non-believers, surely it will be irrational to try to discuss with them with nothing more than simply spouting off verses from the Bible - which they consider a book of myths to begin with.


I consider myself an amateur Christian apologist.
It's not a matter of trying to validate the Bible - but, simply to meet non-believers on a ground that they claim to take as an authority: science.

Which is only rational. :)
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
there is the misconception that science and religion are opposed to one another.

and his followers are parroting his opinion, repeating the same "soundbytes."
Too sad....Richard Dawkins merely fed them fluff, so they can't keep up with real RATIONAL discussion about science and religion!

Here is Richard Dawkins tellling atheists what to do:

.

We don't take our orders or ideas from Dawkins. Ridicule is a legitimate response to ridiculous claims. If your ideas are sound, the ridicule will be ineffective. The fact that Christianity attracts so much ridicule is not due to Dawkins, but due to the religion. Dawkins didn't have to convince these people:
  • "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus." -Thomas Jefferson
  • "If religion contained any truth, it could be ridiculed, insulted, even defiled, without being diminished in any way. Its truth would shine through: undimmed, unblemished, shaming those who abused it into silence." - Pat Condell
  • "An infinite God ought to be able to protect himself without going in partnership with state legislatures. Certainly he ought not so to act that laws become necessary to keep him from being laughed at. No one thinks of protecting Shakespeare from ridicule, by the threat of fine and imprisonment." - Robert Green Ingersoll
  • "Ridicule is the great equalizer against the angry, harsh judgment coming from the pulpit. It is much kinder, because it doesn't ask you to hurt the target like the angry scapegoating from the church, just laugh at it. We can offer reasoned argument to those that can care about such things, and appeal to the consciences of those that have them. But ridicule is useful to intimidate those not amenable to either." - anon
  • "Religions' entire authority and real-world power are undergirded by their abilities to command reverence and deference and create the illusion that they are sacred, sacrosanct, and immune from fundamental criticism or ridicule." - Dan Fincke
  • “The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” - Brian Cox
  • "No idea should be above ridicule. Ridicule is a very important tool. And why should religion not be subject to ridicule? If politics, if science, if sex, if everything is subject to ridicule, as a way of illuminating reality, why shouldn't religion?" - Prof. Lawrence Krauss
  • "I give your religion as much respect as your religion gives me. There's nothing complicated about it, and I have every right to insult a religion that goes out of its way to insult, to judge, and to condemn me as an inadequate human being, which your religion does with self righteous gusto. When it comes to insults your religion started this, not me. If your religion kept its big mouth shut so would I. But given that it doesn't, and given the enormous harm that your religion has done in this world. I'd say that not only do I have a right, but a duty to insult it, as does every rationale thinking person on this planet." – Pat Condell
  • "I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religion. I think it should be treated with ridicule, hatred, and contempt, and I claim that right". - Christopher Hitchens
You have a PR problem, and you can't blame it on Dawkins. Blame the church for it being so disrespected. Presently, the American church is trying to impose its backward values regarding women's reproductive rights onto a nation that wants the option to obtain safe, legal abortions, the loss of which would be a threat to women.

Expect a lot of hatred, contempt and ridicule for that.

It's not a matter of trying to validate the Bible - but, simply to meet non-believers on a ground that they claim to take as an authority: science.

Yes, you are here trying to validate the Bible. What else can we call it when someone who wants to show us how much science is in his Bible?

But citing a handful of coincidences as if they were meaningful is doing the opposite. You think that you are showing how close science and the Bible correlate, but with so few examples, each requiring a stretch of the imagination, the case you are actually making is how little they resemble one another.

This same phenomenon arises when somebody wants to claim that America was founded on Christian principle. It's rather easy to demonstrate that there is almost no overlap between the two, which makes the opposite case.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus." -Thomas Jefferson

I have a distinct idea about the "trinity". It is a confusion of ancient ideas created to preserve them.

The Father > the Son > and the Holy Ghost are representative of Knowledge > Creation (its son) > and Understanding (which is proven by creation). Yet still it is almost impossible to argue against it and the amount of support is very limited since the ideas pre-date modern religion and are better represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls. God (gods) is (are) the logic of nature (specific natural laws) and the trinity is ancient perspective of human relationship to this logic (law) expressed in our languages.

How much real science is in everyday expressions like "the sun comes up at 7 AM"? How much science does it take for half of aviation engineers to believe a plane can't take off from a conveyor belt moving in the opposite direction? Why should scientific knowledge exist in the Bible when we know the writers existed centuries before the invention of science?
 

tosca1

Member
The Creator indeed, has intimate knowledge of His creation! Evidences which have been given here - list of other evidences on post #191 - are descriptions of creation written long before modern science (with all their modern gadgets), discovered them.......descriptions, which only the CREATOR would know!


The First Law of Thermodynamics


Genesis 2
*Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished.

2*And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3*Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.


As far as the laws or processes of the physical universe are concerned, these all devolve upon two extremely broad and powerful principles, the so-called first and second Laws of thermodynamics. Let it be emphasized that, if there is really such a thing as a law of science, these two principles meet that definition. There is no other scientific law supported more fully and certainly by more numerous and meaningful lines of evidence than are these two laws.

All physical processes (and all biologic processes, for that matter) involve the interplay of two basic entities called energy and entropy.

One could say that any event occurring in space and time is a manifestation of some form of exchange of energy. The particular event or process basically is just this transformation of one or more forms of energy (kinetic or motion energy, electrical, chemical, light, heat, sound, electromagnetic, nuclear, or other forms of energy) into one or more other forms.

In this process, the total energy remains unchanged; no energy is either created or destroyed, although its form may and does change. This is the first law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy.



This law has been validated on both the cosmic and sub-nuclear scales and is a truly universal law, if there is such a thing.
And, since energy really includes everything, even matter, in the physical universe, it is as certain as anything can possibly be, scientifically, that no creation of anything is now taking place in the universe, under the normal conditions which science is able to study.
The Bible Is a Textbook of Science


The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy, and thermodynamic processes are therefore subject to the principle of conservation of energy. This means that heat energy cannot be created or destroyed.
It can, however, be transferred from one location to another and converted to and from other forms of energy.*

What Is the First Law of Thermodynamics?
 

tosca1

Member
Earth was covered with water


Genesis 1

2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.



From that passage, the Bible clearly describes earth as being covered by a global sea. That description is supported by science.



The global ocean that covered the Earth 3.4 billion years ago was far cooler than has been thought, according to Stanford researchers who analyzed isotope ratios in rocks formed on that ancient ocean floor.

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/november9/ancient-sea-temperature-111109.html
 

tosca1

Member
THE PHYSICAL LAWS ARE CONSTANT


Jeremiah 31
35 Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name:

36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.




The most effective and unambiguous way to test the biblical claim about the physical laws’ constancy is to take advantage of the look-back times in astronomy.

In astronomy it takes time for light to travel from the stars, galaxies, and quasars to telescopes. Simply by observing galaxies and quasars at varying distances researchers can directly measure the values of several fundamental constants of physics at distant times in the past history of the universe.

The one constant of physics most amenable to this testing technique is the fine structure constant, which characterizes the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. Astronomers can determine this constant’s past values by measuring the relative separation of absorption and emission lines in the spectra of galaxies and quasars. Systematic effects and assumptions about the physical mechanisms that generate the spectral lines can pose challenges to the interpretation of their results. However, astronomers can eliminate this problem by using the same set of spectral lines in a large sample of galaxies and quasars at widely varying distances.

The fine structure constant has the additional advantage of being directly related to several other physical constants.

For example, it is the ratio of the elementary electron charge to the Planck charge;
the ratio of the velocity of the electron in the Bohr model of the atom to the velocity of light;
the ratio of the energy needed to overcome the electrostatic repulsion between two electrons separated by distance D to the energy of a single photon at wavelength = 2πD.

Consequently, testing the constancy of the fine structure constant enables astronomers to also test the constancy of several other physical constants.



The bottom line is that the fine structure constant unquestionably joins the growing list of fundamental constants in physics demonstrated to be exceptionally constant over the history of the universe.

This confirmation has important implications for the Christian faith. First, it affirms the Bible’s capacity to accurately predict future scientific discoveries far into the future.

Of all the holy books that undergird the world’s religions, the Bible stands alone in predicting that the laws governing the universe are fixed or constant.

more.....
Testing the Biblical Claim of Constant Physics




Have physical constants changed with time?
The fundamental laws of physics, as we presently understand them, depend on about 25 parameters, such as Planck's constant h, the gravitational constant G, and the mass and charge of the electron. It is natural to ask whether these parameters are really constants, or whether they vary in space or time


So far, these investigations have found no evidence of variation of fundamental "constants."
Have physical constants changed with time?
 

tosca1

Member
THE SINGING STARS


Job 38

4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?


Stars singing? Really?

NASA Finds Singing Stars
NASA has discovered a group of massive red stars that are actually humming to themselves.

The planet-hunting Kepler space telescope recently spotted sound waves emanating from the stars, the Wall Street Journal reports.
NASA recorded the tune, and played it recently at a press conference in Denmark. “It is a giant red concert,” says the astronomer who made the recording. “They have many different frequencies and overtones.”
NASA Finds Singing Stars





And to think that they called them "singing stars!" It went well with Job 38! :)
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
Anybody else get the feeling he's here to preach and not interested in discussion?
 

tosca1

Member
The latest 3-part additions to the growing list of evidences of the Bible revealing detailed knowledge of the physical world that was not understood by ‘science’ until many centuries, if not millennia, later.



Pleiades, Orion and Arcturus (PART 1)


Job 38
31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?


In the verse, God seems to challenge Job's ability to “bind the sweet influences of Pleiades” - as if saying, “Job, do you think you can keep Pleiades together?”
Pleiades (aka Seven Sisters), is an open star cluster in the constellation of Taurus.


It is classified as an open cluster because it is a group of hundreds of stars formed from the same cosmic cloud. They are approximately the same age and have roughly the same chemical composition. Most importantly, they are bound to one another by mutual gravitational attraction.

Isabel Lewis of the United States Naval Observatory (quoted by Phillip L. Knox in Wonder Worlds) said, “Astronomers have identified 250 stars as actual members of this group, all sharing in a common motion and drifting through space in the same direction.”


The Pleiades stars may thus be compared to a swarm of birds, flying together to a distant goal.
This leaves no doubt that the Pleiades are not a temporary or accidental agglomeration of stars, but a system in which the stars are bound together by a close kinship.

From our perspective on Earth, the Pleiades will not change in appearance; these stars are marching together in formation toward the same destination, bound in unison, just as God described them. ”
Is the Astronomy in the Book of Job Scientifically Consistent? | Cold Case Christianity


Galileo Galilei was the first astronomer to view the Pleiades through a telescope. He thereby discovered that the cluster contains many stars too dim to be seen with the naked eye. He published his observations, including a sketch of the Pleiades showing 36 stars, in his treatise Sidereus Nuncius in March 1610.

The Pleiades have long been known to be a physically related group of stars rather than any chance alignment. John Michell calculated in 1767 that the probability of a chance alignment of so many bright stars was only 1 in 500,000, and so surmised that the Pleiades and many other clusters of stars must be physically related.[26]

When studies were first made of the stars' proper motions, it was found that they are all moving in the same direction across the sky, at the same rate, further demonstrating that they were related.
Pleiades - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

tosca1

Member
This is a continuation: Orion


Pleiades, Orion and Arcturus (PART 2)


Job 38

31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?



In the verse, God seems to challenge if Job can “loose the bands of Orion.” This refers to the “belt” of Orion.



Orion’s belt is formed by two stars (Alnilam, and Mintaka) and one star cluster (Alnitak). Alnitak is actually a triple star system at the eastern edge of Orion’s belt. These stars (along with all the other stars forming Orion) are not gravitationally bound like those in Pleiades. Instead, the stars of Orion’s belt are heading in different directions.

Unlike the Pleaides clusters, the stars in the band of Orion do not share a common trajectory. In the course of time, Orion’s belt will be loosened just as God told Job.
Is the Astronomy in the Book of Job Scientifically Consistent? | Cold Case Christianity



The great figure of Orion appears to be more lasting, not because its stars are physically connected, but because of their great distance, which renders their movements too deliberate to be exactly ascertained. Two of the greatest of its stars, Betelgeuse and Rigel, possess, as far as has been ascertained, no perceptible motion across the line of sight, but there is a little movement perceptible in the ''Belt.'' At the present time this consists of an almost perfect straight line, a row of second-magnitude stars about equally spaced and of the most striking beauty.
In the course of time, however, the two right-hand stars, Mintaka and Alnilam (how fine are these Arabic star names!) will approach each other and form a naked-eye double, but the third, Alnita, will drift away eastward, so that the ''Belt'' will no longer exist.

Curiosities Of The Sky Part 2 Online | NovelOnlineFull.com
 
Last edited:

tosca1

Member
Continuation: Arcturus



Pleiades, Orion and Arcturus (PART 3)


Job 38
31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?



In the verse, God seems to challenge Job if he can direct Arcturus (and his sons), anywhere he wants.


Arcturus (/ɑːrkˈtjʊərəs/), also designated Alpha Boötis (α Boötis, abbreviated Alpha Boo, α Boo), is the brightest star in the constellation of Boötes, the fourth-brightest in the night sky, and the brightest in the northern celestial hemisphere. Together with Spica and Denebola (or Regulus, depending on the source), Arcturus is part of the Spring Triangle asterism and, by extension, also of the Great Diamond along with the star Cor Caroli.
Arcturus - Wikipedia


While Arcturus certainly appeared in antiquity to be a single star, in 1971 astronomers discovered there were 52 additional stars connected directionally with Arcturus (known now as the Arcturus stream).


Interestingly, God described Arcturus as having “sons” and Charles Burckhalter, of the Chabot Observatory, (again quoted in Wonder Worlds) said “these stars are a law unto themselves.”
Serviss added, “Arcturus is one of the greatest suns in the universe, is a runaway whose speed of flight is 257 miles per second.

Newton gives the velocity of a star under control as not more than 25 miles a second, and Arcturus is going 257 miles a second.
Therefore, combined attraction of all the stars we know cannot stop him or even turn him in his path.”
Arcturus and “his sons” are on a course all their own. Only God has the power to guide them, just as described in the ancient book of Job.
Is the Astronomy in the Book of Job Scientifically Consistent? | Cold Case Christianity



Though astronomy dates back to antiquities, and is the oldest of natural sciences......

..............the Bible gives some information that are not observable without modern-day technology.
 

tosca1

Member
Even the science of mathematics has something to say about the Bible!



MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY: ORDER OF CREATION


The Book of Genesis had described the order of creation, accurately. There are 13 definite claims by Moses alone (author of Genesis), as having been accomplished in the order given:



1. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (v.1).

2. "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep" (v.2).

3. "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" (v.2).

4. "And God said, Let there be light ... and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night" (vv. 3-5).

5. "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament" (v. 7).

6. "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place" (v. 9).

7. "And let the dry land appear" (v.9).

8. "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind" (v. 11).

9. "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... " (vv. 14-18).

10. "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind" (v. 21).

11. "And every winged fowl after his kind" (v. 21).

12. "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" (v. 24).

13. "So God created man in his own image" (v. 27).



Take note: We're talking only of the claims made in the Book of Genesis here.

1. THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE
2. THE EARLY EARTH
3. THE EARLIEST LIFE
4. LIGHT
5. THE EARTH COOLS OFF
6. THE EARTH WAS COVERED WITH WATER
7. THE CONTINENTS WERE FORMED
8. VEGETATION
9. BREAKS APPEAR IN THE CLOUDED SKY
10. FISH WERE CREATED
11. BIRDS
12. MAMMALS
13. MAN WAS CREATED


Thus we find that the thirteen things named in Genesis are in the same order that geology finds them. We must therefore ask the question, from what source did Moses obtain this order? I think there are five possibilities: (1) The information came from the schools of Egypt where Moses was educated. (2) Moses did not write Genesis; it was written at a much later date, such at the Babylonian period of culture. (3) The information came from some other civilization (4) The writer of Genesis just made up the story or sat down and reasoned it out. (5) It came by inspiration of God.

If these are the only possibilities, one of these five must be correct; and if we can prove four to be impossible, we will then have established the fifth. Let us consider them in order.


Yes, we could say that Moses just guessed, and while he had only one chance in 311,351,040 he did get it right. But this position would be most unreasonable.


Now this number of 311,351,040 does not tell the whole story. This is only the number of ways in which the thirteen things can be satisfactorily arranged.


Where did Moses get the thirteen things to arrange? Did Moses know all about dark nebulas so he could write a perfect description of one in verse 2? That is absurd, for the greatest of the scientists, having many photographs of dark nebulas, never guessed one existed until about the 1920s.

What chance had Moses, as a man, of writing a discretion of an object to be discovered nearly four thousand years later?
Science Speaks, Peter W. Stoner, Chapter 1, Changes in Science


Peter Stoner (June 16, 1888 – March 21, 1980)[1][2] was Chairman of the Departments of Mathematics and Astronomy at Pasadena City College until 1953; Chairman of the science division, Westmont College, 1953–57; Professor Emeritus of Science, Westmont College; Professor Emeritus of Mathematics and Astronomy, Pasadena City College

Peter Stoner - Wikipedia
 
Top