BREAKING NEWS: Carbon Dated Camel Bones Aren't the Only Facts that Refute the Bible

Apparently the discovery that ancient Camel bones have disproved the official narrative of the bible is big news. Here are 7 other scientific facts that disprove the biblical version of human history.
Avatar:
Ben Cohen
Author:
Publish date:
Social count:
420
Apparently the discovery that ancient Camel bones have disproved the official narrative of the bible is big news. Here are 7 other scientific facts that disprove the biblical version of human history.
sepia camel skeleton bones

News that camel bones have now disproved the official narrative of the Bible has been swirling the internet for the past 48 hours, going up on the front page of sites like Fox NewsRaw Story and the Huffington Post.

Some background to the story: domesticated camels were mentioned in the biblical stories of Old Testament stories that historians believe to be between 2000 - 1500 BC. But researchers from Tel Aviv University's Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures say camels weren’t domesticated in Israel until many centuries later (around 900 BC).  According to the Huffington Post:

Researchers Lidar Sapir-Hen and Erez Ben-Yosef from Tel Aviv University have discovered what may be a discrepancy in the history laid out in the Bible.

Using carbon-dating to determine the age of the oldest-known camel bones, the researchers determined that camels were first introduced to Israel around the 9th century BCE.

The Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament refers to camels as pack animals as early as the story of Abraham. Though there is no archaeological evidence of Abraham's life, many in the religious and scientific communities, including Chabad and the Associates For Biblical Research, cite the 20th century BCE as his time of birth. If the new evidence is correct, however, this suggests discrepancies between the Bible and human history as explained by science.

Let's repeat that: evidence suggests that there are "discrepancies between the Bible and human history as explained by science".

Holy shit! All this time I thought everything in the Holy Bible was the unvarnished, scientific truth!!

Joking aside, why on earth are major news sites running with headlines like this:

Archaeologists: Carbon-dated camel bones contradict biblical accounts

Something like "Carbon-dated camel bones lead archeologists to believe domesticated camels came to Middle East later that previously thought" would be a more appropriate headline. But then you wouldn't get the clicks of all the religious nut jobs and militant atheists desperate to have a row about something.

Doing barely any internet research whatsoever, here are 7 other scientific discoveries that contradict the biblical account of human history:

1. Jesus supposedly walked on water.

It is scientifically impossible to walk on water, as Jesus would have had to have reached speeds of about 67 mph, or about as fast as a cheetah, according to a 2006 paper in the Annual Review of Fluid Dynamics.

2. Jesus turned water into wine.

Water cannot turn into wine. Not really necessary to source this one.

3. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah

There is no serious archeological evidence that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah ever existed, so it's unlikely an angry sky God destroyed them.

4.The universe is 6,000 years old

Science dates the universe to be around 13.82 billion years old. That's a miscalculation of around 1,319,999,4000 years.

5. Seth lived to be 912 years (5:8).

The oldest verified human being to have ever lived was Jeanne Calment who lived to be 122 years old. Given life expectancy was far shorter in biblical times than it is now, it stands to reason that no one has lived over 9 centuries.

6. Every animals species now on earth boarded Noah's Ark "in the selfsame day." (7:13-14)

Where to begin....firstly, the boat would have had to have been able to handle roughly 8.7 million species x 2, so around 17.4 million separate creatures. Have you ever seen a  boat that big? Secondly, there wouldn't be enough genetic variation amongst the animals to keep the species going. Thirdly, it's f**king ridiculous.

7. Plants were made on the third day of creation (1:14-19). 1:11

This is scientifically impossible as plants need sun to drive their photosynthetic processes, and the sun wasn't created until the 4th day. Whoops.

Was this really necessary to write?