More on the Bible’s Confused Relationship with Science (2 of 2)

More on the Bible’s Confused Relationship with Science (2 of 2) February 14, 2020

This post wraps up our look at science in the Bible. It’s the conclusion of an analysis of Bible verses that contradict modern science (read part 1). Another recent post looked at Christian claims that the Bible actually anticipated modern science with correct statements about the world that were otherwise unknown during that time.

Let’s continue enumerating scientific errors in the Bible, moving on to cosmology and earth science.

7. The moon creates light rather than reflecting it

God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night (Genesis 1:16).

The sun and moon are said to be greater and lesser versions of the same thing with no acknowledgement that one creates light while the other only reflects it. We see the confusion more clearly in this verse:

The moon shall not cause her light to shine (Isaiah 13:10).

No, the moon doesn’t make its own light.

8. The stars are teeny light sources

The Bible dismisses the stars by imagining their creation this way:

[God] also made the stars (Genesis 1:16).

That’s it. 200 billion galaxies, each with 200 billion stars, are only worth a single Hebrew word in the original (a more literal reading is “[and] the stars”).

We see the stars according to the Sumerian cosmological model here:

God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth (Gen. 1:17).

They’re dismissed as tiny when they’re imagined to fall to earth:

The stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind (Revelation 6:13).

 9. The earth was flooded

The Bible claims that the entire earth was flooded, but the fossil evidence disagrees (long-extinct dinosaurs and modern animals living in the same habitats aren’t fossilized in the same strata).

The geological evidence also disagrees (the oceans have created many rock layers, but nothing points to a global flood).

The DNA evidence also disagrees (clues to a DNA choke point 4000 years ago when there were just two of each “kind” would be obvious in all living land animals).

More about Noah’s flood here and here.

Let’s move on to biology and health.

10. Germs? What germs?

The Bible isn’t a reliable source of health information. When the Pharisees scold Jesus for not following Jewish hand washing rules, Jesus focuses on spiritual defilement and dismisses sanitary defilement.

It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth (Matthew 15:11).

I’ll grant that washing your hands with soap (the simple recipe for which was not included in the Bible) doesn’t touch on spiritual purity, but physical health and basic hygienic precautions are not obvious and are worth a mention somewhere. How about telling us that boiling water minimizes disease? Or how to site latrines to safeguard the water supply?

Apologists have pointed to ritual washing in the Bible, but that counts for little when Jesus rejects it here. (More.)

According to the Bible, evil spirits cause disease. In the story of the exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac, what sounds like mental illness is actually caused by demons.

[Jesus said to the sick man], “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” (Mark 5:8)

And physical infirmity can also be caused by demons:

There was a woman who for eighteen years had had a sickness caused by a spirit; and she was bent double, and could not straighten up at all (Luke 13:11).

Are some categories of illness caused by demon possession? That modern medicine finds no value in this hypothesis makes clear that they aren’t.

Jesus also thinks disease can be caused by sin:

You are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you. (John 5:14)

For more on the pre-scientific approach to disease given in the New Testament, see this post. For Jesus vs. disease caused by sin and demons, go here.

11. Animals’ offspring change based on what the mother was looking at during conception

Jacob made a deal with his father-in-law Laban. Jacob promised to tend his flocks, but the spotted or black animals would be taken by Jacob as wages. The larger story of Jacob is full of tricks, and he employs one here to tip the balance in his favor.

Jacob took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. (Genesis 30:37–9)

This superstition that what a woman sees during pregnancy can affect the baby continues as a myth today.

12. Miscellaneous errors

The Bible betrays its uninformed roots when it says that a bat is a bird (Deuteronomy 14:11–18), insects have four feet (Leviticus 11:20–23), rabbits chew their cud (Lev. 11:6), camels have hooves (Lev. 11:4), and the mustard seed is the smallest seed on earth (Matt. 13:31-32). None of that is true.

Concluding thoughts

The problem with science for many Christians is that a belief built on science must change as the science changes. This won’t satisfy someone determined to create an unchanging worldview. The result is a childish and even fearful relationship to science, embracing it when it appears to support the Christian conclusion and denigrating or ignoring it when it becomes a problem.

To illustrate the tension between religion and science, here’s what Pat Robertson observed about Christians in developing countries. They experience healing miracles far more often than Christians in the West, he says, not because they’re ignorant but because they haven’t been corrupted by education and science.

Overseas, they’re simple, humble. You tell them God loves ’em, and they say, okay, he loves me, and you say God’ll do miracles, and they say, okay, we believe him. That’s what God’s looking for; that’s why they have miracles.

So God is scared of science? He won’t answer our prayers because we’re using the brains he gave us to learn about nature?

There’s no scientific skepticism in these model Christians with their childlike faith, though why that’s a plus, I don’t know. I wonder if Robertson wrestles with the irony that the technology in his worldwide CBN television network was built exclusively on the teachings of science, not God. Be careful, Pat—God is afraid of that science-y stuff.

Let me close with a paraphrase of an idea from AronRa: When the answer is known, science knows it. But when science doesn’t know it, neither does religion.

Since the Bible and the church are obviously mistaken
in telling us where we came from,
how can we trust them to tell us where we are going?
— Anonymous

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 12/2/15.)

Image from Angel Visha, CC license
.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Jim Mallett

    It’s almost as if the bible writers were clueless as to how the universe actually functions. Apologists will remind us that the bible is not a science book,(maybe sometimes). It’s meant to have a deeper meaning,(all the time). It’s literal history,(sometimes).

    • Raging Bee

      (*Subject to change without notice)

      • Michael Neville

        Cherry picking is allowed.

        • Susan

          Cherry picking is allowed mandatory.

          Just doing some tweaking.

          😉

    • Brian Shanahan

      And then on other occasions the same apologgist will claim the bible is the source of all science and predicted major scientific ideas and theories.

      • epeeist

        *Cough* Don Camp *cough*

        • Jim Mallett

          Yes, Don is the top authority on all areas biblical, scientific, philosophical, and language related.He has several peer reviewed papers and books highly regarded in the academic world. ( /s)

        • epeeist

          Yes, Don is the top authority on all areas biblical, scientific, philosophical, and language related.

          Don is just one in a long line, other recent visitors who are “top authorities” would include Ed and Jesse H.

          Strangely enough when you present them with one of the classic examples in the philosophy of causality, namely the collision of two moving balls, they don’t seem to recognise it, nor the person who came up with the example. It’s almost as though (shock, horror) that don’t know anything about the subject.

          Similarly, presenting them with a simple example at a quantum scale completely flummoxes them. This would be despite Ed, for example, saying that he had “studied the subject” for years.

        • Jim Mallett

          Yeah, if I’m not mistaken Don is a high school literature teacher. I had know idea he was an authority on quantum mechanics! I think it’s physically impossible for someone like him to concede.

        • NSAlito

          Don is just one in a long line, other recent visitors who are “top authorities” would include Ed and Jesse H.

          Top. Men.

  • eric

    You tell them God loves ’em, and they say, okay, he loves me, and you say God’ll do miracles, and they say, okay, we believe him. That’s what God’s looking for; that’s why they have miracles.

    Ignoring the implied (but still raging) racism for a moment, if this were truly the case, then miracles would be observably happening in the homes of every religious family with young children.

    • the implied (but still raging) racism

      Brown people “overseas” don’t have all that book learnin’ to get in the way, doncha know.

    • Ignorant Amos

      But they claim these miracles are happening….just look at Don Camp’s “evidences” ffs.

  • kaydenpat

    The Bible isn’t 100% accurate and therefore creationism is a farce? Ken Ham and his Creation Museum need to digest this information. I’d love to see a debate where these facts were brought to his attention.

    • Michael Neville

      Google “Ham on Nye”.

      • kaydenpat

        I’ve seen that debate. Nye was good but too polite and Ham gish galloped his way through the debate.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Dammit, now I want a ham on rye…with a good brown mustard.

  • RichardSRussell

    Religion’s unbroken record of failure

    Name one scientific principle revealed thru prayer.

    Name one medical cure discovered by reading the Bible.

    Name one work of literature translated from tongue-speakers.

    Name one catastrophe averted by a holy amulet.

    Name one amputee healed by a miracle.

    Name one supernatural event from the Bible accepted as such by historians.

    Name one flood or lava flow held back by the literal, visible hand of God.

    Name one mountain — or even one grain of sand — moved by faith.

    All these claims of religion — all of them, 100% — have been failures.

    Each time. Every time. All the time.

    Those who made the claims were either deluded fools or outright liars.

    Religion is beyond worthless and well into outright harmful.

    If you knew of a horse which had lost its previous 999 races, would you still bet on it for #1000?

    • NSAlito

      Name one amputee healed by a miracle.

      Rupert, my salamander!

  • Lex Lata

    And let’s not forget the Bible’s account of the Tower of Babel being the cause of human geographic dispersion and linguistic diversity, which is wildly inconsistent with the archaeological, genetic, and philological evidence. According to the Ussher/AIG timeline, the Tower event occurred ca. 2200 BCE. Yet there are, of course, copious examples of human burials, art, toolmaking, pottery, hunting, etc. on every habitable continent going back thousands–in some cases, tens of thousands–of years earlier. We also have original examples of written languages going back to at least the 4th millennium BCE (and every reason to think unwritten languages are countless centuries older than that).

    We don’t have a perfect, comprehensive understanding of humanity’s complicated migration from Africa to the rest of the world. Nor do we know exactly when and how the first languages emerged. But we know enough to conclude that the Tower of Babel narrative is ahistorical and unscientific mythology.

    • eric

      Love the tower of Babel story. It combines the coolness of an ancient ‘just so’ story with loads of inexplicable, contradictory material for anyone attempting to defend it as the actual actions of a tri-omni God.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Göbekli Tepe

      Location: Turkey. Built: 10,000 B.C. It is believed that 6,000 years before Stonehenge was built, a remarkable stone temple was erected on a hilltop in southeastern Turkey by prehistoric people. Known as Göbekli Tepe, the site was previously dismissed by anthropologists, who believed it to be a medieval grave. In 2008, however, the German archaeologist Klaus Schmidt determined that Göbekli Tepe is, in fact, the oldest known temple in the world. The site was purposefully buried around 8,000 B.C. for unknown reasons, although this allowed the structures to be preserved for future discovery and study.

      A temple, millennia before YahwehJesus was invented…there’s a miracle.

      • Steven Watson

        Precedes farming, settlements, towns and what we used to see as civilisation. We seem to have a whole lot of things backwards and only 5% of the site has been excavated! Much more interesting than the Tower of Babel. 🙂

      • NSAlito

        Ehh, I’m always dubious about the assignment of religious meaning to old structures. I’d just as soon declare them sporting arenas, marketplaces, food storage, housing for the elite, etc.

        • Ignorant Amos

          While those things are a more prefered thought, sacred ritual is an idea that dominates such places, because nothing else requires so much effort. such as woo-woo rituals.

          The evidence just doesn’t point to other uses.

          There are lots of ancient sites around the world that we can’t be sure the purpose of, such as Stonehenge, or the Newgrange here in Ireland, that predates the former by half a millennia. But the effort required for such structures suggests that a mundane purpose was not the case.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newgrange

          There is no evidence of settlement living at, or near the site at Göbekli Tepe. All the evidence points toward a woo-woo purpose of some sort.

          https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-temple-83613665/

          Though I like sporting arena. If anything comes near our fucked up penchant for religious fuckwittery, it’s our fanaticism for sports. Other forms of entertainment not withstanding of course.

        • NSAlito

          I don’t remember the specific site, but I recall one structural system being hypothesized as religious when it ended up being part of the sewage/drainage system. Also, I think there is an structure near Chichen Itza that consensus ended up concluding as an arena.

          Though I like sporting arena. If anything comes near our fucked up
          penchant for religious fuckwittery, it’s our fanaticism for sports.

          Trade and mercantilism tends to pop up anywhere there is a navigable river/sea or road. The way some people view capitalism seems to be reverential, too.

  • Castilliano

    Your quote…
    Since the Bible and the church are obviously mistaken
    in telling us where we came from,
    how can we trust them to tell us where we are going?
    — Anonymous
    …reminds me of something I’d like to say more often:
    If your Bible (et al) cannot get the natural right, why would I trust it to get the supernatural right?

    Rephrased: Most of its facts we can check are wrong, so why trust it on the facts we can’t check?

    • Greg G.

      That is the thinking that got me out of religion but I like your wording of it.

      • TheNuszAbides

        Indeed, “Even our precious leaders are wretched sinners” only goes so far … or at least it SHOULD only go so far …

    • Pofarmer

      This same argument is good against “metaphysics” as well.

  • Revelation 12:4 has also a red dragon that casts with his tail one third of the stars to Earth, with nothing happening, plus the sky being rolled up like a scroll earlier on (Revelation 6:14). Some Fundies who have at least some common sense interpret it as one third of the angels switching sides and allying with Satan, not literally. Of course why that has to be interpreted that way and other parts of the sourcebook are considered to be taken literally is not touched upon by them.

    In #8 is really quite telling how “someone” forgot to mention the Andromeda Galaxy, that can be seen with the naked eye, not to mention the actual size of just the observable Universe.

    • Michael Neville

      In a mere four billion years the Andromeda Galaxy will collide with our Milky Way Galaxy. It’ll be quite spectacular when it happens.

      • Greg G.

        Oh, I can’t wait!

      • RichardSRussell

        Actually, it’ll be pretty much unnoticeable, as the gargantuanly vast, overwhelming volume of each of those galaxies is simply empty space, and there will be almost no collisions of stars whatsoever. There will be a lot of swirling due to gravitational interactions, spread out over a million years, but that’ll be about all.

        • Michael Neville

          This artist’s conception of the approaching Andromeda Galaxy about 200 million years before impact shows that the night sky will be pretty awesome.

          https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/654242main_p1220b3k.jpg

        • RichardSRussell

          Well, yes, the artist’s conception is pretty impressive, but that vertical streak on the right is supposed to be how our own Milky Way galaxy looks as currently seen from Earth, except with massive photo enhancement. Go outside on any clear night and see if it really looks that way to the naked eye, and you’ll have some sense of the exaggeration being depicted here.

        • Michael Murray

          Looks pretty bonzer in the outback cobber.

          https://emurun.com.au/blog/australian-outback-stars/

          Of course I’ve no idea what they did after they took the photo. I’ve seen the occasional really impressive night sky in the bush. But it’s been awhile so I’m no sure how it compares to those photos. It is supposed to be a better view of the milky way in the south.

        • Greg G.

          Why is the Milky Way upside-down?

        • epeeist

          Go outside on any clear night and see if it really looks that way to the naked eye

          To get the Milky Way like that you are talking about 30s exposures, or multiple exposures and image stacking.

          Some nice images, with technical details here – https://www.rmg.co.uk/whats-on/astronomy-photographer-year/galleries/2019/skyscapes

      • Jim Jones

        This planet will be toast (literally) in 1 billion.

        • Bob Jase

          And if Toast Earth has an image of Jesus in it that will convert me, got that Don?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yer easy swayed…how would anyone know it was the image of Jesus?

          Now, if it was a galloping herd of universe creating Space Ponies…that would be impressive.

      • So no rush to buy the popcorn, then?

  • NSAlito

    They’re dismissed as tiny when they’re imagined to fall to earth:

    The stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind (Revelation 6:13).

    Reminds me of the star that fell to the ground during The Truman Show.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhBi1hJ9Okg#t=25s

  • Steven Watson

    (This is an update of a post that originally appeared 12/2/15.)

    Wouldn’t it be easier to just post a hyperlink? I prefer quality over quantity, at the moment you are just cheapening your brand.

    • Pofarmer

      Whole. New. Comment thread!!!!!

      • Zeta

        Yeah, with new commenters, probably new ideas, new points of view and new readers too.

        • Bob Jase

          Bet the apologetics will be the same old.

      • Steven Watson

        True. But that wasn’t the point I was making.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Am struggling to see any point your making…elaborate?

        • Steven Watson

          I’d prefer a Whole. New. OP!!!!! 🙂 Sorry, the number of times I’ve come back from Waterstones and found I’ve been misled by a new cover.

    • Michael Neville
    • LastManOnEarth

      Concern Troll has concern.

      • Steven Watson

        You seem mistaken in what “troll” means in this context. I’ve made that comment exactly once; where you see it above.

  • Cozmo the Magician

    pi=3

    • Bob Jase

      No recipe for any pie in the bible – how can that count as a good book?

      • Michael Neville

        You’ll get pie in the sky when you die.

        • epeeist

          Pie? “My idea of heaven is, eating pate de foie gras to the sound of trumpets.”

        • Michael Neville

          I would agree with you about the foie gras but trumpets are a bit vulgar for pate. A string quartet would be more appropriate.

        • epeeist

          A string quartet would be more appropriate.

          This might be an appropriate piece

        • Ignorant Amos

          On some of that fresh homemade bread you knock out. Hmmmmmm! Yum-yum!

        • TheNuszAbides
      • Greg G.

        The Bible is not a cookbook! At least not one someone should use:

        Ezekiel 4:12 KJV
        And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

        • Ignorant Amos

          No wonder Christers full of shite.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Hey, at least THE LORD retracted the dung requirement when Zeke whined about it. (Price calls it ‘hazing” in Holy Fable vol. 1)

        • Greg G.

          Wasn’t it changed to cow dung instead of human dung?

  • SkyknightXi

    Well, technically insects have four legs. They just have a fifth and sixth leg, as well. (In other words, are we sure this particular one isn’t a matter of how Hebrew idiom worked?)

    • Lord Backwater

      … are we sure this particular one isn’t a matter of how Hebrew idiom worked?

      What, Mr. Omniscient couldn’t foresee that His big book-o-laws would be translated into other languages?

      • Bob Jase

        Nah, omnisicient god just didn’t realize that humans would one day learn to count past four.

        • Or that “forty” would be no more an uncountable number.

      • Steven Watson

        It’s the Christers who think it’s for them and anyone else who doesn’t speak/write Hebrew; the Tanakh itself is pretty clear it is only written to Jews.

      • Jim Jones

        That’s really interesting. I asked on a blog about translation if it is possible to write anything that always means the same in any translation.

        The answer is no.

  • Len

    To illustrate the tension between religion and science, here’s what Pat Robertson observed about Christians in developing countries. They experience healing miracles far more often than Christians in the West, he says, not because they’re ignorant but because they haven’t been corrupted by education and science.

    Or maybe it’s because they see things that science (medicine) does, don’t realise it’s medical science and think (or are persuaded by their preacher) that it’s a miracle.

    • Michael Neville

      Arthur C. Clarke’s Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

      • Bob Jase

        Ug’s Corolary: Any sufficiently primitive society thinks everything is magic.

  • Steven Watson

    Now that is interesting. There are apparently no replies to either of the original parts 1 & 2. What ddoes that say about the commentariat in 2020 as opposed to 2015?

    • Jim Jones

      It says the original posts are brilliant. No more need be said.

  • Jim Jones

    Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith


    Unfortunately, the scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, at least in the way they’re portrayed in the Bible. Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true. There may have been a couple of “bottlenecks” (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That’s as small a population as our ancestors had, and—note—it’s not two individuals.

    Further, looking at different genes, we find that they trace back to different times in our past. Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago. Further, the bulk of genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years. This shows not only that any “Adam” and “Eve” (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans. Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived.

    • Greg G.

      There may have been a couple of “bottlenecks” (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago.

      but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago.

      That means that Y-chromosome Adam lived around the time of the bottleneck while Mitochondrial Eve had multiple lines of successive daughters survive that bottleneck.

      • Steven Watson

        If I remember rightly we each have about twice as many female as male ancestors. Which I’m sure brings the patriarchal mysogynist types out in a sweat. 🙂 Your mileage may differ if you are a Hapsburg.

        • Greg G.

          I had never heard that but I found a few mentions of that on the first page of Google results plus 8,000 YEARS AGO, 17 WOMEN REPRODUCED FOR EVERY ONE MAN https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success

        • Steven Watson

          A feature of the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture (c. 5500 to 2750 BC) of Eastern Europe was large towns with little or no sign of social stratification. You see similar in the Indus Valley civilisation. This egalitarianism rather casts doubt on big men with harems as an explanation for the disparity. All very intriguing.

    • eric

      Bingo. IMO this error is much more powerful than the ones Bob cites above, because it’s still official Catholic doctrine. A sincere Catholic might chalk a lot of the errors Bob mentions up to human/writer error or misinterpretation. But the Adam and Eve error is clearly discussed by Pope Pius XII himself as a non-negotiable point of faith, upon which Catholicism itself stands or falls. If you’re Catholic, that makes it a much more psychologically uncomfortable thing to dismiss or ignore.

      I know I’m repeating myself from a previous thread, but here’s the encore presentation:

      37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

      -Pope Pius XII, ENCYCLICAL HUMANI GENERIS, August 1950.

      • Ignorant Amos

        It’s a problem for sure.

        No Adam and Eve, no Fall.

        No Fall, no original sin.

        No original sin, no need for the invention of Jesus yarn.

        No Jesus yarn, no Christianity woo-woo.

        Oh deary me!

        • TheNuszAbides

          No Adam and Eve, no Fall.

          You don’t think they’ll dig a rewrite out of the Secret Library?

    • Steven Watson

      Folk who take Adam and Eve as fact don’t seem to notice that when Cain toddled off to the land of Nod he found a wife, also it is alleged loads of people were out to kill him. Where did his wife and all these people spring from? True Biblical literalism has an annoying habit of bursting the fundie bubble. Another thing that goes un-noticed is God evolves over the course of the Bible from Genesis to Malachi to the Gospels. If evolution is good enough for God what’s with the Creationist’s pearl-clutching?

  • Bobbo,
    You are slaying Big Foot in your free time for sure. Check this out though…

    MODERN SCIENCE PROVED IT https://www.fi.edu/heart/its-alivehttps://www.fi.edu/heart/its-alive

    LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD!

  • Bobby,
    Science is when nothing blows up bang?
    3:09 in this video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OpbdMjvni0&t=55s

    • I will pray Ehlonna of the Forests for you