Scientifically speaking? Not if you believe in the Bible

Even though I spent 20 years in the Air Force as a meteorologist, I really don't consider myself a scientist. Predicting weather, is part science, part art, and heavy reliance on statistical probabilities. Back in the 1980's, weather heads didn't have the NEXRAD radar network, reliable satellite imagery feed, and the computers to generate numerical models, even though were among the most advanced computer arrays of the time, paled against the processing power of today's average laptop. After getting trained and some time under my belt, I became pretty good at it. The key to success in those days, was doing an excellent analysis, looking at as many variables as you can, assessing the accuracy of the prediction models, and knowing at what point you ride the models, or when to deviate because you identified a variable that indicates a distinct change.

I remember the first time I deviated from the models, and the previous shift's forecast. It was within my first month after getting my forecaster certification, and I remember the newbie paranoia of missing an event. It was a hot-hot late July afternoon on a swing-shift, when the temperatures were above 100 deg. F, with a massive high pressure center shifting from subsidence, to neutral flow, and isolated thunderstorms, unexpectedly, started popping up in southern Arkansas, of course, none within 25 miles of Little Rock Air Force base.

With the temperature getting within 5 degrees of what I calculated as the point where the low-level subsidence inversion cap would "pop", I panicked, amended the forecast, issued a base thunderstorm warning, only to re-amend, and cancel the warning 5 minutes later. I just learned my first lesson about believing in what was possible, versus sticking what was probable; while it was entirely possible that the temperature could reach another 5 degrees, popping the inversion, and allowing a random storm to develop, with max-heating two hours in the past, and with one hour before sunset, the probability and results were, evidence and historically based science trumped a fear-based speculative opinion.

As my analytical skills improved, I developed a greater appreciation for the differences between what is possible, versus probable, and proved to be a valuable team member regardless of what operation scenario I supported.

As I started to stray from faith, I started applying the approach of relying on evidence-based probabilities for most aspects of my life, how I would parent, how I would approach my relationship with my wife, and assessing the things I was not supposed to ever question.....

I will never say, that a god is impossible, or 100% improbable; I will even go so far as to state, that even the Christian god is remotely possible, but the probability of the Christian god, from what I see is less than 1%.

 It is possible for an amoral god like Yahweh to exist.

Even as a new non-believer, even if this possibility were true, I could not in good conscience worship, or pretend to admire, anything about the biblical god. If the only reason why I "should" abdicate my natural morality is because I feared the nonsensical eternal damnation, then what truth in love is there? If I love god, because I feared his wrath, then what is the real foundation of this 'love'? So how did I find the confidence to get the balls to say nonsense, if there is an underlying fear attribute resident in my then youthful consciousness?

My very basic understanding of science, at the time, compared to lack of science attributed to the bible.

If there is a god, it has to be a master-scientist, not a master magician.

It (god) would know and adhere to every laws of physics, every conceivable mathematical equation (known and unknown), It would understand the biological and physical nature of everything, it would love, and deeply appreciate an existence based on evidence, because it would know this is how all truths are established. Not on some random authors whim, or claims of divinity.  It would know that eventually, given the curiosity of the human mind, we would start asking critical questions to find better answers, to eventually achieve levels of scientific development that would be condemned as magic, if somehow, any of us took a time machine back to the time the Abrahamic faiths were being developed, and demonstrated even the most basic example of modern technology developed within the last 20 years.  While today's technologies are magical in the context of 2,000 years ago, it is still science, based purely on evidence and empirical data, as executed by raw human ambition.

The bible does not stack up to empirical data. This is where the bible absolutely fails, unarguably, and if you were to ask everyone who no longer believes, the long list of biblical science fallacies will be the number one response.

If I were to list all the scientific absurdities in the bible, this post would be infinite, and I could miss the long overdue return & armageddon. Therefore, I will list what I think are the top 5, without ever mentioning dinosaurs, (cheap tactic, I know) as the bible, never did.

 1. The Noah Story - A 600 year old guy builds a big boat, collects mating pairs of all 10 billion+ species of life on the planet, loads them up in 1 day, floats for one half of a year, boats stops on some mountain, all animals somehow survives (what did carnivores eat?) and get to their respective geographical points (I still cannot imagine a pair of kangaroos, and all the other marsupials swimming to Australia) and the earth is once again populated by incest for all species, and we rapidly revert back to humanity's 'wicked ways'.

The morality of this yarn, is scary; god kills what would be more than 99% of all terrestrial life, because humans were wicked? He then has remorse later on, only to follow with other atrocious acts. Funny, Genesis never stated exactly what wicked shit humans were doing, just this arbitrary wicked, that the all knowing loving and caring god could solve only by massive genocide, even Hitler, Saddam and all other human assholes combined, would be incapable of.

I digressed. What would help this impossible story, as detailed in the bible (it is based on a true story of a localized Euphrates river flood) if something in the geological tables appeared to indicate a global flood, this would help immensely, and consistent with most absurd stories in the bible, what we have is....nothing.




2. The sun orbiting the fixed earth (Ecclesiastes 1:5; Joshua 10:12-14; Psalm 104:5) As a weather geek, this scientific fallacy is beyond reason, if the the bible is the inerrant word of god.

The earth is not fixed, and boy does it move, something to the tune of greater than 1,000 miles per hour at the equator. It also in a constant state of shifting on it's axis, and we pay attention to the 21st of March, June, September, and Decembers, as those days mark the near equilibrium in March & September as well as the Max & Min days in December and June, depending on in which hemisphere you live. So the earth, like a perpetual top, is always moving, spinning, turning, and shifting. Here is something most never consider: in a similar pattern to how the planets orbits the sun, our sun, with the planets in tow, orbits the Milky Way Galaxy, so even the conventional solar system models need adjusting.  Science is always learning and improving on information.



As such, if the account in Joshua 10 were to occur, the instant deceleration would have been noted by every race of humanity on this planet, assuming anything survived, and again, absolutely nothing to confirm. Also, the rules of physics would send most life flying to their death. Think of a moving car decelerating from 50 MPH to 0, instantly.



But wait, it wasn't the earth that was stopped.....it was the sun..... meaning the the sun is orbiting the fixed unmovable earth... double-u-t-eeefff!?!!???!  So, what type of 'divine guidance' would lead an author, speaking on behalf of god to reach this idiotic conclusion?

I don't care how powerful you think the god of the bible is, every single known examples of dominant mass structures, in the natural world demonstrate the probability of a geocentric concept - small mass dominating large mass, as impossible bullshit!  This includes atoms which form matter, that are a part of everything we know.  Imagine if each atoms' nuclei orbited the electrons, or if Jupiter orbited its moons, or if the Milky Way orbited our sun? There would be no accretion of matter, or mass, and nothing that would be inherently stable, meaning no life, no gravity, nothing. Maybe this is why this god is made of nothing, and heaven and hell exist only in matter-less environments, and your god is psychologically unstable, that's why we have earthquakes!

3. Earthquakes = Your god is angry, again (Job 9:5, 28:9, Ps 18:7, 77:16-18, 97:3-5, Isa 2:19, 24:20, 29:6, Jer 10:10, Nahum 1:5, Heb 12:26)
A consequence of the not-so "FIXED" earth in a constant state of motion, and the tectonic plates floating on molten magma, is there are thousands of collisions between the plates daily.  Most are never felt by humans, and the average number felt is just shy of 300. Invariably, whenever an earthquake reaches catastrophic magnitudes,  you will have some religious 'genius' claiming 'god's wrath'.  The science is clear, there is no evidence of any divine involvement, just simple floating tectonic physics, which from a religious perspective, absolves your god of responsibility.  To reiterate, science absolves god.....and......



Every time Pat speaks, a 100 new skeptics are created.

Earthquakes demonstrate, perfectly, the superstitious nature of the time the books in the bible were written.  Thunder was gods angry voice, and earthquakes and volcano eruptions, are probably the reasons why humans felt compelled to create a gods.  Our predecessors, who wrote the religious texts, did not know.  We went from human sacrifices, to animal sacrifices, to believing the sacrifice of one human deemed divine, absolved the need to sacrifice anything any longer - in one god-definition case, all with the intent to appease the angry god.  How does any believer conclude 'loving god', while simultaneously believing angry god when ever disasters strike?  What is weird, is when disasters occur, if 99 out of 100 die, god gets the thanks for the one survivor.

The overly religious see events like this as an opportunity, to scare the superstitiously inclined to conclude a supernatural agent, but the objective approach is better from my perspective: Figure out why, learn from it, and fix for future generations of humans.  We cannot stop disasters, the earth, and most planets are born out of insane violence of cosmic physics. We wouldn't have the diversity of topography, weather, and life were it not for earthquakes.  As someone who lives in Florida, where there is very little diversity of terrain, going to places with mountains, valleys and waterfalls, is always awe inspiring.  The only way to stop earthquakes would be to cool the magma, and this would eventually kill all life on the planet.



As much as I hate them, like most natural disasters, earthquakes are essential forces for the life creation processes on this planet; if there is any god involved, it would know that, and should have slapped the authors of the bible, silly, for false testimony. If religious leaders were not so intent of keeping power, by making sure people stay locked in their fear based mental prisons, they would welcome this opportunity to possibly redefine what they think god could be, versus this evil monster with anger issues.

4. No way in Heaven, is the earth flat.
Most believers claim the bible never specifically states, the earth is flat, and this is true.  But, there are so many verses that lead one to conclude, the belief was a flat earth.

For instance, on a spheroid planet, are any of the following, possible?
  • Can there be a mountain so high, that Jesus could see all the kingdoms of the world ? (Matthew 4:8)
  • Can a tree grow tall enough to reach heaven so all the 'ends' of the earth could see it? (Daniel 4:10-11)
  • Can you shake the wicked off the edges of the earth? (Job 38:13)
  • Deuteronomy 28:49
  • 1 Samuel 2:10
To demonstrate what adherence to antiquated texts can do to otherwise reasonable people, even when observation, modeling, and predictions presents a more accurate representation of reality - Let's flatten objectivity with the good book, shall we:


These believers at the very least, are being true to the word as written in the bible; how many Christians still support the flat earth assertion?  If you know the earth is round, you have been challenging the bible all along, but maybe you didn't realize it.  If you prefer to adhere to text, because it is in the bible, you should willingly join the Flat Earth Society.

In case you are, for whatever reasons, unsure:
Broadcast live streaming video on Ustream

Since this is a live feed from the International Space Station (ISS) 50% of the time, the vehicle is flying over the earth at night, and doesn't transmit the feed.  You can check the current location here.  If the map has the ISS in the areas currently experiencing night-time, check again in 30 minutes.  

5.  Well after the beginning, man Created this silly god.
The creation myth is so laughable, it is amazing that even with the evidence supporting the big bang, the age of the cosmos, the age of our solar system, the age of this planet, and evolution, religious people still think this story is the best representation of how humans came to be.
  1. Genesis 1:1:  God created the heaven and the earth.
    1. Not even the sun which sustains all life, nor the milky way with sustains our solar system, earth and heaven came first, as supported by Gen 1:2, the birth of geo-centricity.
  2. Gen 1:3-4 Let's light things just by speaking it.  What is the source of the light, its just light because god said so.
    1. But, how do you divide light from darkness?  
    2. If light is strong enough, the only options are to disable the power source, or create an obstruction large enough to block light to create a shadow.  Night-time is not a division of sunlight, but a result of the earth creating a shadow on itself, while the other half of the earth faces the sun.
  3. Gen 1:6-10 We are gonna make heaven..and what we are going to do is use heaven to separate the waters.., in doing so we can allow dry land to appear..., and all the waters will be in one place....
    1. The atmosphere (the accurate term for the heaven) does not retain water.  Depending on the temperature, the max water vapor (the gaseous result of the evaporation, and vertical lift transportation) the atmosphere can retain is 4%.  Rain is the result of water-vapor condensing on atmospheric particles (condensation nuclei) to the point of saturation, and falling when the atmospheric lift mechanisms (convection, terrain, low pressure systems & convergence zones) can no longer keep the droplets aloft. In a simpler context, once water droplets form they fall, when gravity is greater than various atmospheric lift forces.
    2. Again, another demonstration of the limited knowledge of the authors, and proves there was nothing divine here, unless god was equally ignorant as men were.
  4. Gen 1:15-17: The sun and the moon created on the same day....and the moon is a light source just like the sun, only less.  This statement is among the most remarkable demonstrations of an unwillingness to observe the natural world, by the biblical authors.  With the moon, if you pay close attention to the phases from full to new, you can still see the complete outline of it when it is not full.  It is clear when it isn't full, there is an object, known as the earth, blocking it.  If it can be blocked partially or wholly, while you are still looking at it directly, is it an independent source of light (like the sun)?  A example, is a mirror a source of light, by itself, or does it need other light sources to reflect light?  Since the sun wasn't created until day four, and god already created plant life on day three, was god farting on plant life to produce the carbon-dioxide the plants need to breathe, until god decided - Dude, I may need the sun?
  5. Gen 1:26-27.  "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." "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."  
    1. God is schizophrenic.
    2. Later in chapter 2, man is created from dust (Our bodily water content is between 60-70%) the woman from a rib, even though Chapter 1, humans were already created.  Why did god need to create woman differently than man, he already had a good baseline. (Rhetorical)
    3. Since the Christian creation myth is based on Jewish folklore, why wasn't the story of Lilith included?
I think the dead horse is whipped by reason. A lot of these examples, I know are allegorical, but there are literalists, like the Flat Earth Society, and Answers in Genesis who demand adherence to the words as written, and here is what will shock you, I agree with their perspectives.  If any Christian is going to profess the bible is the word of god, regardless of the myriad of of absurdities, and there is no guidance from the 'author', how can you effectively assess what god intends as mandates vs what 'could be' simple stories to convey an esoteric meaning?  Also, isn't god responsible for selecting who interprets and verifying to the rest of us - 'the dumb ones' that the selected were in fact, god's choices?

Every human who has ever claimed they had divine authorship, did so without any form of proof.

The creation myth, and Genesis accounts are a mixture of old stories originating from ancient middle eastern cultures.  Christianity modified some of the stories to create the structure for the intolerant god, that created the basis for original sin, to make a framework that justifies Jesus as the messiah, in their opinion.  You cannot design god to suit the needs of an institution, and then declare truth.  Of course the Jewish and Arabic people see this argument similarly as of us - who do not subscribe to their faith either, and their culture was there to witness and assess.  The Western Christian culture received their definition from Paul, who. as stated in previous posts, never physically witnessed Jesus, outside of his imagination.

The evidence we have now is the earth was not first in the pecking order of creation, and even though the bible establishes the basis that creation stopped with god, every day we have more examples of constant creation.  New land masses are forming, new life is constantly being discovered, evolution is the basis for perpetual life: life learns, life adapts, life advances - this is a universal constant.

Evolution on this planet, whether you accept it or not, has more evidence to validate it, than science has evidence to validate gravity.  It offers a more universal view of life, all terrestrial life originated from a common ancestry, versus the monolithic religious beliefs of god creating separate forms of all life, in less time than it takes for a Blastocyst to attach itself to the uterus, after the human egg is fertilized. Even with our ever improving advancement, the development of advanced life is not a trivial, spitting on dust process, that some magical being can do on a whim.

We are the by-product of all the small lessons, the big mistakes, the incremental processes all earlier versions of us developed, allowing us to enjoy this moment, now - if there is anything sublime, it is this tidbit of knowledge.  I find this more remarkable, and precious, than the notion of a big, invisible, non-evident sky master, supposedly pulling the strings, but angry when dogma is challenged by hard, cold, unemotional, non-judgmental physical evidence.  

Evolution, unfortunately, is this generations scientific equivalent of the Flat Earth approach to new facts.  It is an unwillingness to adapt to new information that invalidates old dogma, even if overwhelming evidence dictates otherwise.  

Of all the religious beliefs, evolution poses the greatest threat to Christianity.  Here is why; evolution destroys the creation myth, including the idea of original sin, proving the story of redemption of sin through Jesus as unnecessary, and as a lie that Paul invented. 

The beauty of modern humanity is, we all have the opportunity to share information, ideas, philosophies, beliefs and facts we learn.  There is nothing wrong with having beliefs, every human has many.  But beliefs, without facts, are merely unsubstantiated opinions.


Reality is based on reasonable facts, and what is demonstrably true.

This is the basis of what we humans call science, and the bible has no scientific basis.