Science teachs us that earth was created over billions of years, yet religion tell us that God created earth is Six days. Does that mean holy books are simply made up by men. They could not even tell that earth moves, and they claim that earth is flat....
2006-11-07 02:35:44 · 35 answers · asked by M 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
How long was the day in which God preformed His acts of creation? Why did it have to be a 24 hour day. Couldn't it have been a period of time.. "The old timer sat back and smiled, In my day we didn't have computers we have to actually talk to each other" Did that man only have one day? The bible claims that God sat on the Great Circle of the earth. That claim was long before anyone thought the earth was round. So with that why can't I have science and faith in my life, why must I choose either or...Jim
2006-11-07 03:06:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe God. When dealing with our origins, there are always assumptions involved bc no person was there. God was there, however, and we have an account of his creation.
The age of the earth has had a habit of increasing as time went on, I thought that if science were rock-solid, it wouldn't need refinement. Why should I rely on something that will eventually change when I have God's Word, which is always right.
Ppl use the assumption of uniformitarianism, the idea that the processes occurring now have occurred at the same rate since their inception, to date the Earth. They measure the process now, and extrapolate backwards. However, if the rate changed at any point, or if the material being measured was present at the beginning, this throws off the calculation.
In radioisotope dating, they assume that no daughter element was present at the beginning, assume that the decay rate hasn't changed (in labs they've increased it by several hundred times) and assume that no material has been added or removed.
Doesn't sound that rock-solid when it's based on three unprovable assumptions. I've only got one assumption, the Bible is true. Hmmm, one assumption or three, which should I go with?
2006-11-07 02:45:54 · answer #2 · answered by STEPHEN J 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you do a little investigating, you'll find that the original scriptures (written in Aramaic or Hebrew) use a word that doesn't actually mean 24 hour day. The original word means time period, unspecified. There is no scripture that indicates that the world is flat. Even if there were, the Bible isn't about the earth's history, it is about the history of men interacting with God. If you get bogged down by a few details you can't reconcile, you're missing out on the overall message.
God created everthing, including all the things that make science what it is. Logically God would win out over science.
2006-11-07 02:40:17 · answer #3 · answered by luvwinz 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Only some religions speak of the earth being created in 6 days.
I believe the 6 day story was how ancient man came to grips with something they did not understand, some still don't.
Belief in the creation of the world does not have to be an either or.
It is my belief that the Divine places mysteries for us to solve, like a parent dumping a bunch of toys in front of a baby to see what they will do with them
2006-11-07 02:53:16 · answer #4 · answered by Black Dragon 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only Christianity tells you that the earth was created in 6 days and is only 6000 yrs old. Most Jews don't even believe it and it's their book!
So this is not a question that can be answered really. Because there is no competition between the 2 outside of Christianity.
2006-11-07 02:43:12 · answer #5 · answered by riverstorm13 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe in God.
The Bible says that the earth is only about 6,000 yrs old.
If the Grand Canyon is very old and took a long time to be made, how can it have steep walls? (a river erodes the banks where it turns. as the river keeps doing this it would make a valley!)
The oceans are know to be getting saltier. If you take the current rate of salt change in the ocean and work it backward, the oceans would be fresh water in only several thousand years (about the time of the flood in Noah's day).
Evolution says that millions of years separated men from dinosaurs. There are places were there are human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock. Also there are mammal foot prints in rocks that are supposed to be before the dinosaurs. (The Bible talks about men and dinosaurs (they are called dragons, Leviathan, Behemoth and unicorns) living together.
The moon is moving away from the earth. It would have been touching the earth's surface only about 25,000 years ago (imagine the high tides that would create!).
2006-11-07 02:59:52 · answer #6 · answered by tim 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your conjunctive 'or' makes Christian scientists an extremely strange breed. Many scientists have a Christian worldview and do not teach 'billions of years'. Science is observational. There are problems with evolutionary viewpoints, and I admit there are problems with creationist viewpoints as well.
How we interpret the data that is given us is dependent on our worldview.
Your statements criticizing the bible, celestial movement, and spacial geography is not accurate at all. The scientists during the 'dark ages' were all Christians who had a better grasp of the heavens than the masses of the times.
It is amazing how much of your bias shows up in such a few short sentences.
2006-11-07 02:56:22 · answer #7 · answered by Jay Z 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Holy books are written by humans. Whether you believe that the men who wrote them were divinely inspired, is entirely up to you.
There should be no doubt though, that science and the Bible are in conflict about many aspects of the natural sciences.
Because I can test some of these scientific laws myself, and read peer reviewed scientific papers proving the some of these things, I have to go with science.
2006-11-07 02:42:41 · answer #8 · answered by poecile 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
All books, whether they are scientific or religious are written by men and women. The difference between the two types is that religious books still say the same things they did when they were first written, and as such are now hopelessly out of date. Science books, on the other hand are updated every few years to include new data and hypotheses and reflect the changing nature of our understanding of the world.
2006-11-07 02:42:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Technically, the question should be "Do you believe the literal interpretation of the Bible or science?"
There are many people out there who do not equate God with the Bible or who do not take a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Nevertheless, if you're asking which one actually happened -- it's the formation over billions of years.
2006-11-07 02:41:08 · answer #10 · answered by Michael 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋