Examples of science proving the Bible pls?

Question

Brethens, i had read many accords of science proving the bible on many issues but off hand cannot remember them. Please feel free to add to the list and lets discover how the good old faith is true to the end of days...

Answer 1

Your answer is below

Answer 2

Here are three good ones

This is a neat fact that NON Christian scientist have come up with.........
Measuring the amount of decay in the magnetic field of the earth and going backwards increasing the amount of intensity as per the same rate of decay, they have found that just a mere 1 million years ago that because of the intensity of the magnetic field, earth could not have supported life......

aint that cool?

Also, again by non christian scientists, they can measure the rate gases are given off by certain rocks that were carbon dated to 45 million years old and found that, again by going backwards at the rate of gas dispersment, that these rocks could be no more than 5 or 6 thousand years old

ain't that cool too?!.......

one more.........this is my theory not the scientists.....

In the few million years that evolutionists claim that we have been on earth, why is that the vast majority of all the people were congregated in the Middle East area for 100,000 of thousands of years and we didn't populate the entire earth until about 4 or 5 hundred years ago........Yes there are a few exceptions such as the Native American, but my point is ALL that time, the entire earth should have been populated as heavily as the Middle east area...........unless we ARE only about 6000 years old

Answer 3

How about Job 26:7, where it testifies that the "Earth hangs on nothing". This was centuries before Greek (or was it Roman) mythology invented the concept of the strong man, Atlas, holding up the earth. Science now knows that nothing is holding the earth in place. It is suspended by nothing but the laws of nature that its creator has put into place.

Here's another: Isa. 40:22--God presides over "the circle of the earth". Written hundreds of years before Christopher Columbus set out to prove to everyone that the world was not flat but round.

And, Job 26:8 and Job 38:34 told us that rain is held in and released from clouds, long before meteorologists could definitively find proof thereof.

Answer 4

That was probably me. Sorry for being so vague. But here's some evidence that has been found: They have found old papyrus in which Scriptures were found. There is evidence that a flood occured, plus there is speculation about Noah's ark. It is amazing how the Bible, before scientists knew it, had actually stated that the Earth was, in fact, not squared but round. >>"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in" (Isaiah 40:22, NIV). << Scientists have had to admit this to be true. >>An inscription at a Roman theater in Caesarea Martima reading, "Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea". Which proves that Pilatus did exist and Jesus was indeed crucified. >>An inscription found in Northern Israel mentioning King David's dynasty. The inscription is the oldest reference to any Biblical figure outside the Bible. >>Israeli archeologists have uncovered a 1st century cave, in a suburb south of Jerusalem, which served as a tomb to a family of disciples of Jesus Christ. >>The burial cave, carved in the mountainside, off the Kidron Valley, contained several coffins, with names engraved on their sides, as well as signs of the cross. These inscriptions identified the cave as the burial vault of the Barsabas family. This family is well known to us, since several of its members are mentioned in the book of Acts. The tomb remained hidden for nearly 2000 years. There's so much evidence out there. You can look it up if you want.

Answer 5

One would be that the flood actually happened. Fossels of sea creatures were found on a higher elevation. Mountains. Water levels would have had to rise to an unnatural level to produce these findings. Not to mention them finding lime scales from the salt water in lines around those mountains, indicating water rising. The bible says that a dove brought back an olive branch. The only tree that grows in high elevations.
Another would be that they can't find Jesus'bones anywhere on earth. They CAN find the bones of others in that time period. Proving the resurrection.

Answer 6

Read the book "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" by Frank Turek and Norman Geisler if you really need "proof" and are truly interested. He started college doubting the existence of God and through much research arrived at some very scientific and very sound evidence that proves the Bible's true and that God does indeed exist. It's quite ironic that the more science has advanced, the more science is now being used to prove the existence of God... ...quite funny considering where the origins of Humanism started (i.e. science, Darwin, etc.). I was a believer when I read it; but am even more convinced I am right after reading this wonderful book.

Answer 7

Dr. Charles McCombs is a Ph.D. Organic Chemist trained in the methods of scientific
investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents.

"Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community became very
excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific
proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance natural
processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey combined a mixture of
methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture through an
electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment, the products
were found to contain a few amino acids. Since amino acids are the individual links
of long chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in our bodies,
newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that now proved life came
from chemicals.

As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the formation of amino acids under
these conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was never
formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are normal everyday
chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day, there is no known process that
has ever converted amino acids into a life form.

Ever since 1953, scientists have been asking if the formation of amino acids in
those experiments proves the claim that life came from chemicals? Then I realized
that a discussion of the facts would inevitably lead to a discussion of the subject
of chirality. Chirality totally destroys the claim that life came from chemicals.

Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar
properties, they can still have different structures. When two molecules appear
identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other,
those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands illustrate
chirality. Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they are only
mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this reason, chirality
can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each individual molecule
is called an optical isomer.

When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality,
there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the
right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance
process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two
optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few
scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing
in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a
catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes.

Let's look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids
and each one of the component amino acids exists as the "L" or left-handed optical
isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed optical isomers can be synthesized in
the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA molecule is made
up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides, and these
nucleotide molecules exist as the "R" or right-handed optical isomer. The "L"
isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural
DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins
and DNA with their unique chirality.

If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components
would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in
natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create
proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of
"R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Even if
there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer.
If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work.
If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if
there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which
process was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process?
The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control
is not possible in a random chance natural process.

However, the problem with chirality goes even deeper. As nucleotide molecules come
together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double
helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component
contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral
shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong
chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not
function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed like a train
on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules
within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the
same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with
chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come
together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same
chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with
chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality?

Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to
evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time.
However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science
in any amount of time.


Thank you Jim B

Answer 8

I like watching the History, Discovery channel's like "the Real Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat"(?) , Evidence of Jesus' tomb, and last Monday's about the real "Garden of Eden",and the "Holy Grail", etc.

Answer 9

The Bible contains metaphor, poetry and allegory. It addresses spiritual issues not really amenable to scientific investigation. While God reveals some aspects of him/her self to us, much of God is a mystery and not knowable by us, at least in this life.

I have a science background and I use scientific method professionally. But I don't think it is all that important to "prove the Bible is correct." Faith is a different type of knowledge.

Answer 10

You would enjoy the DVD The Signature Of God. Theres also a book if you'd rather read. God bless!!

Answer 11

The proof is overwhelming....

that the Bible and all Judeo-Christian mythology are derivative of previous cultures mythos, in particular Egyptian Mythology and Sumerian Mythology. Furhtermore the evidence is overwhelming that Christianity is nothing more than astrology allusions and Sun worship.