Scientits belive in creation but is genisis scientific?

Question

could genisis be used as an early scientific document

the seven days and nights could meen
that when it was creating heaven and earth the days were billions of years long?
how could we define a day before earth was all joined together
are there any other things in genisis that could be scientificly justified?

Answer 1

The day and night ,what we know is based on our knowledge of rotation of earth at current speed.It may be possible that initially the rotation might have been slower and there might have been only single planet,which subsequently broken into several with more speed.The seven days meant might have been of much longer duration,perhaps of many current several years.The concept of day/night at North And soth Poles are different.So relgious belief cannot be proved or disproved by science.Belief does not require proof.If it has proof it is TRUTH.

Answer 2

The statements in "Genesis" cannot be proved or disproved so they are not scientific. However the six days of creation are in the right order. This is not so hard to work out, by the way.

A bit of clever observation by intelligent people 3000 or so years ago would show that sheep eat grass, so there was probably grass before there were sheep. Grass needs light, so there was probably light before there was grass. And there has to be a world for grass to grow on, so there was probably a world before there was grass. So you get a few things in the right order - light/world then grass then sheep (and other animals).

A lot of that is common sense. There has been argument about the precise meaning of the words translated into English as "day" for many years. We might say "In Napoleon's Day" meaning an unspecified length of time when Napoleon Bonaparte was active. So might the writers of Genesis have meant an unspecified length of time they had no means of measuring.

Answer 3

Good morning.
Science and religion have both become very much part of my life. I always had faith but have no scientific background whats so ever so what I share is only one persons beliefs.
I share what I see in my sleep via astral journey. Started as a time machine with images full of information. As I create what I see I see more information to what I see and that gives me more images. It has started a chain reaction really and at the present time I see no end to what I do.

The chart I am sharing here has been a slow development shared on the internet so few has seen these charts as they've been created piece by piece. The background numbers filling the chart are of Christ from being conceived until the chart was filled. If I had done the numbers any different I wouldn't have been continously surprised by my findings.
This chart is the birth charts for every single living human being. It shows your birth month in the month you were conceived but also shows from when your heart began to beat.

Everybody is in this chart:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a47/WwendyW/WWbirthcharts2007GENESIS.jpg

This chart also shows amazing relevance's to mythology and much more
science
This chart=my 52 week chart (same chart but highlighting something different) shows how the 9 o'clock point=West holds gold with the week 39 and 40=gold with 79. East point=3 o'clock holds week 13 and 14 making cobalt with 27
The diameter of the Earth (equatorial) is 7927 miles

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a47/WwendyW/HomeworkW.jpg

I'm sharing the Visual Theory of Everything; a gift from God.

Genesis scientifically justified. YES, I even wrote a blog called 'genesis' and it is the name of the first chart I uploaded.

Answer 4

What scientists believe or not is beside the point, really.
People often forget that what matters in the school of thought called "science" is not what you believe in, or what would you like others to believe in, but rather, what can you prove.
Sure, cosmology issues are very difficult to prove, because of their distant origin in time (even 5,000 and so are long ago...) and we may rely on guesses, educated or not. Nevertheless, scientists would always prefer theories of which at least a small part could be put to test.
This does not mean that there even are agreed upon cosmological theory, but it directs the discussion to "constructive" tracks - either an experiment could be successful, or not.
I will let more knowledgeable viewers to name such experiments.

Answer 5

You'll never get to the bottom of that one, because with every scientific discovery, the religious types either claim that some vague link in the bible is an allegory for that very phenomenon, or just dismiss it outright saying that the scientists just make this stuff up and it can't be proved, whereas the bible is real - and who can argue with that sort of logic?

The main problem you have is that the old testement is getting on for 6000years old, so you can't just ask one of the authors if that's what they meant when they said...

Answer 6

Yeah, I know what you mean. Sometimes I wonder if Science and Religion are two ways of explaining the same thing and they are both right in their way. Maybe it's something we just couldn't get our heads around, so Religion explains it with abstract and symbolism, while Science explains it with the most likely assumptions based on physical evidence.

Answer 7

A day can be as a thousand years with God. It takes faith to believe in the bible, and faith is a gift from God, not every one has it. To believe does not require so much logic, as science depends upon. Though it can take a lot of faith to believe in science.

Answer 8

Learn to spell... and it'll answer your question.

Answer 9

That s just about people s believes ...... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .