# Science vs. the Bible **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 13, 2006, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579 "2006-09-13T18:34:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Nature\_s\_Call](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nature_s_call/32/19006_2.png) [@Nature\_s\_Call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nature_s_Call)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579/1 "2006-09-13T18:34:20Z")
I’m interested in compiling a list of conflicts between the Bible and science, i.e. (book chapter:verse) says “this” therefore “that” scientific assertion must be incorrect. At first I was going to post this in General Questions because I’m really after a factual list. Debate is likely unavoidable. To start off: Genesis 1:1 (and verses following) narrates God’s actions in creating the heavens and earth. Therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect. One cannot reconcile the two by saying “evolution is God’s way of creating and the story is not literal” because Genesis 1:12, 21, 24, 25 say that things reproduce according to its kind - no speciation allowed. Psalms 93:1, Psalms 104:5, and Ecclesiastes 1:5 say the earth is fixed and the sun moves. Therefore the heliocentric model of the solar system is incorrect. What is the direct biblical support for a young earth? I know it has something to do with the genealogies (sp?) - can one by strictly reading the bible come to the 6000 year conclusion or does one need extra-biblical material? There are others just outside of my recollection: rabbits chewing their cud (or something like this). Is there biblical support for a flat-earth? ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579/2 "2006-09-13T18:37:33Z")
Hmmm…I seem to recall a chapter, I couldn’t say which, but it **is** Old Testament, that defines the value of pi as 3. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579/3 "2006-09-13T18:40:57Z")
You may wish to consult the [Skeptic’s Annotated Bible](http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/), which has a very extensive compilation. ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579/4 "2006-09-13T18:43:05Z")
[QUOTE=Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor] Hmmm…I seem to recall a chapter, I couldn’t say which, but it **is** Old Testament, that defines the value of pi as 3. [/QUOTE] There is a passage describing a bowl 30 cubits around and 10 cubits across that in my opinion is not defining pi to be 3. If we use the ideas of significant figures that I was taught in grade school We can only get one digit of accuracy from so 3 is decently accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579/5 "2006-09-13T18:51:37Z")
No, I think it was when God cast Adam and Eve out of the garden he said, “When come back, bring pi.” ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579/6 "2006-09-13T18:53:19Z")
There doesn’t need to be any conflict between science and the Bible. The conflict is between science and fundamentalists, or Biblical literalists. Finding that a Bronze age civilization was in error about a lot of facts shouldn’t be that surprising. Even a genius like Aristotle believed in Heliocentrism. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579/7 "2006-09-13T19:31:06Z")
Geocentrism, that is. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579/8 "2006-09-13T19:33:48Z")
[QUOTE=Dinsdale] No, I think it was when God cast Adam and Eve out of the garden he said, “When come back, bring pi.” [/QUOTE] Apple? ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579/9 "2006-09-13T19:46:50Z")
[QUOTE=Nature’s Call] What is the direct biblical support for a young earth? I know it has something to do with the genealogies (sp?) - can one by strictly reading the bible come to the 6000 year conclusion or does one need extra-biblical material?.. [/QUOTE] Give me some… time… and I can come up with the reasoning that some undies use for the dates (approxiamte) for the Creation of Adam and the Deluge. Yes, it can be narrowed down. The key is not so much genealogies, as the spans of time “recorded” about them and other spans of time related to secific events other than the birth of a child. Just briefly, for now, there were supposed to be so many years back from the fourth year of Solomon’s reign to the Exodus, and back from the Exodus to the Promise to Abraham, which happened at a certain age for Abraham, that is of course, a certain number of years after his birth. From Abraham’s birth, the genealogies in the Bible are continuous back to Noah through his son, Shem. Earlier genealogies extend from Noah back through to Adam. Based on what Solomon’s probable date of first reigning, we can definitely establish the probable date of the “Deluge” within a few years; there is little variation among the literalists. Or for that matter, skeptics who work out their own “what if” chronologies. * * * Not all creationists are Young Earth, and even some of those who are believe either in Day/Age for the days of Creation, or that there is an enormous time-gap (“Gap Theory”) between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 That said, the lieralists would tend to be just as bound about Adam’s creation as the Deluge. It’s mostly about whether the Earth and Universe are shown to be young as well that one mght be surprised by certain fundamentalist answers. * * * True Blue Jack ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579/10 "2006-09-13T19:48:25Z")
These verses don’t exactly say what you claim. Psalm 93:1 > [@](#): > > The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; > the LORD is robed in majesty > and is armed with strength. > The world is firmly established; > it cannot be moved. Nothing about the sun there. Psalm 104:5 > [@](#): > > He set the earth on its foundations; > it can never be moved. Ditto. Ecclesiastes 1:5 > [@](#): > > The sun rises and the sun sets, > and hurries back to where it rises. Nothing about the earth there. The first two verses could be narrowly construed to be claiming that the earth as a planet is an unmoving object in the heavens, but given that all of these verses are part of praises of God’s might, a more simple interpretation might be that the verses are trying to say that God is great and his creation is immense. I don’t have time to look at the rest of your verses, but you should read verses before you cite them to make sure that they say what you claim they say. These three don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Nature\_s\_Call](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nature_s_call/32/19006_2.png) [@Nature\_s\_Call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nature_s_Call)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579/11 "2006-09-13T20:00:17Z")
[QUOTE=Crotalus] I don’t have time to look at the rest of your verses, but you should read verses before you cite them to make sure that they say what you claim they say. These three don’t. [/QUOTE] I did read them - my error was in not typing “respectively” The first two say the earth is fixed, the last one says the sun moves. I didn’t mean to suggest each verse mentions both the earth and the sun. My apologies. The point remains, though, that these verses bolstered the resistence to heliocentricity, much to Galileo’s chagrin. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579/12 "2006-09-13T20:19:02Z")
[QUOTE=gazpacho] There is a passage describing a bowl 30 cubits around and 10 cubits across that in my opinion is not defining pi to be 3. If we use the ideas of significant figures that I was taught in grade school We can only get one digit of accuracy from so 3 is decently accurate. [/QUOTE] In that case the bowl would have been 31 cubits around and 10 across. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579/13 "2006-09-13T20:20:51Z")
[QUOTE=DanBlather] In that case the bowl would have been 31 cubits around and 10 across. [/QUOTE] Sorry, that probably wasn’t clear. The bible does not mention 3, they mention 30 and 10. ---
**Author:** ![Nature\_s\_Call](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nature_s_call/32/19006_2.png) [@Nature\_s\_Call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nature_s_Call)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579/14 "2006-09-13T20:33:12Z")
[QUOTE=Colibri] You may wish to consult the [Skeptic’s Annotated Bible](http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/), which has a very extensive compilation. [/QUOTE] Jackpot! Kinda makes this thread unnecessary, though… I’m curious if someone can find that 30 x 10 bowl though… Only the most anal would demand the bible report it as 3.00x10[sup]2[/sup] x 9.50 (or 31.4 x 10.0) - esp. given that the bowl was not likely a perfect circle. But I’d still like to add it to the list. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579/15 "2006-09-13T20:39:08Z")
[QUOTE=Nature’s Call] Jackpot! Kinda makes this thread unnecessary, though… I’m curious if someone can find that 30 x 10 bowl though… Only the most anal would demand the bible report it as 3.00x10[sup]2[/sup] x 9.50 (or 31.4 x 10.0) - esp. given that the bowl was not likely a perfect circle. But I’d still like to add it to the list. [/QUOTE] **1 Kings 7:23** And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: [it was] round all about, and his height [was] five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579/16 "2006-09-13T20:44:56Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] **1 Kings 7:23** And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: [it was] round all about, and his height [was] five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. [/QUOTE] Never mind. I see now you were talking about literally finding the artifact. I thought you were asking for chapter and verse. I think that’s one of the weaker Biblical “errors,” though. There are some much more significant examples. For instance, there was not and could not have been a global flood, and it is not possible that all people and animals on earth could have descended in a few thousand years from the population of Noah’s Ark. ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579/17 "2006-09-13T20:45:53Z")
[QUOTE=DanBlather] In that case the bowl would have been 31 cubits around and 10 across. [/QUOTE] Why do you say that? 10 has one significant figure and 30 has one significant figure therefore when you divide one by the other your result should have 1 significant figure. 3 in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579/18 "2006-09-13T20:47:33Z")
Psalm 98:8: “Let the rivers clap their hands, Let the mountains sing together for joy” Therefore, science’s assertion that rivers do not have hands must be incorrect. Also, according to the latest theories of modern science, mountains do not have lungs, mouths, or vocal cords, and thus cannot sing. ---
**Author:** ![Nature\_s\_Call](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nature_s_call/32/19006_2.png) [@Nature\_s\_Call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nature_s_Call)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579/19 "2006-09-13T20:49:25Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Never mind. I see now you were talking about literally finding the artifact. I thought you were asking for chapter and verse. [/QUOTE] No, you were right (although, now that you mention it I’d LOVE to see that bowl!) Thanks for c&v. And yeah, as far as rebutting a literalist it’s pretty lame. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579/20 "2006-09-13T20:51:45Z")
Yeah, just to be clear, the Bible doesn’t say “Pi =3,” but in order for a circle to match the dimensions it gives for the bowl in 1 Kings, pi would _have_ to be three. In other words, it describes a figure which would be geometrically impossible. Of course, it’s pretty easy just to dismiss it as a bit of rounding and poetic gloss. I don’t think it’s that significant. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-vs-the-bible/372579.md?page=2)