Do you tend to believe the Biblical account of creation, or the Scientific account?

Question

Do you think the universe is 6,000 years old as a literal reading of the Bible states, or closer to the 18 billion years old that science says. Do you think disease is better explained as God's vengeance or the influence of Satan as religion states, or germs, virusses, or genetics, as science says. Which does a better job of accounting for natural events like rain and storms and earthquakes and volcanos--the Bible, or Science?

Answer 1

Scientific account because it bases it on fact not a story about a man up high judging us. I mean, come on. From just finding fossils we know that the world is well(by that i mean over 60/70 million years) older then 6000 years! Also i didn't hear the Bible predicting that Hurricane in New Orleans.

We all know that it is germs and viruses. It has been proved. If it wasn't then how could they have vaccines? They need the germ to be able to kill it. I am not saying worshiping is wrong or anything but one can't take any literal meaning from it. Yes it helps people live their lives better but don't go around saying God is high and mighty and tell me I am going to Hell. I haven't seen there is any proof of hell(nor hav i seen there is proof that there isn't) But i will believe things that have proof not stories.

God isn't a man, God is energy, without energy there would be nothing.

Answer 2

People wanted answers and wise men had to provide them. This was done thousands of years ago, to the best of the knowledge there was at the time. The scientific view about creation is still a theory remember. Certainly science has found that the biblical writings had errors, that is to be expected. No one should use the bible as a scientific text book. It would be rather silly to do so. It is no more than a collection of beliefs and details handed down by word of mouth until paper and ink was invented so that the information could be recorded. The human brain can only hold a certain quantity of knowlege. By the time information had been passed down from one to another over time it would be wrong to imagine that the origional to the recorded would be perfect in every detail. If the bible was accurate, it would be fantastic. Accuracies which exist are simple to prove in a life time. I have yet to hear that the bible has been shown to record anything discovered by science which was previously unknown.

Answer 3

i believe the bible is a story. i think it was given to man by God and then it kinda got mixed up in a few parts (like the old game telephone). and i think many stories in the bible are not supposed to be the literal explanation of what happened. some are metaphors and loose explanations. for example, was 7 days really 7 days? (in the story of creation). i think that's a metaphor and that it represented a long time... or a short time, either way, there was only God and it states that a second could be 1000 years. i think the bible and science go hand in hand. if i believe one, i'm inclined to believe the other. i can even accept the big bang theory... but what set it off? my answer can only be: God.

Answer 4

According to a careful study of the Bible over a period of 40+ years, I have concluded that the universe is 10,000 years old or less. The Jewish people are currently celebrating the year 5768, which began at sundown, Sept. 12, 2007.

The *junk* science of evolution, which I, at one time believed, is more a religious belief than science! The theory claims billions and billions of years of age for the universe. But many of the methods of determining the age of fossils and of the strata in which they are found are flawed. For example, a fossil is determined to be of a certain, extremely old age, thus the stratum in which it is found os considered to *also* be of that same age. Thereafter, any additional fossils found in that same stratum *must* be of that same age! In logic and reasoning, that type of deductive reasoning is called a "circular argumnt"! Foe example, Carbon-14 dating does not take into account the previous existence of the "firmament", or mantle over the earth, which protected the nitrogen in the atmosphere from being bombarded by cosmic rays to form the C-14 isotope *nearly* as much as it happen today, since Noah's Flood! Earth and its inhabitants were protected from much of the harmful radiation from the sun (UVB, etc.) and this not only gave longer life to reptiles, who continue to grow in size as long as they are alive, and longer life to *all* other living plants and animals and humans, some of whom lived to be almost 1000 years old; but also prevented the radioactive isotope, C-14 from being so abundant as it is today, to be oxidized to CO2 and taken up by plants which, in turn, are ingested by animals. Thus the equilibrium between the intake of C-14 and the decay of the isotope, which exists in the living organism, which radioactivity more slowly decreases after the death of the organism is skewed when compared to living organisms since the extra protection of living organisms who lived before the Flood is not taken into account. There are instances where fossils of organisms, known to be dead only a few years, were judged to be *much* older by C-14 dating - sometimes many thousands of years older!

Again, it all goes back to First Cause. In order for something to exist, it had to be created. If there is an omnipotent entity able to create a universe, why would it take that entity several millennia to create it? And if this entity is able to create life, why would he bother with a wasteful process like evolution to create it?

According to the Bible, "God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds." (Gen.1:25) The Bible goes on to say, "God saw all that he had made and it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning - the sixth day." Gen.1:31) Why would God call the results of his creation on the sixth day, "good" and "very good" if disease, death, harmful radiation from the sun and devastating natural disasters were all present in abundance?

Disease is not so much God's vengeance as it is the result of mankind choosing to disobey God's clear, unequivocal commandments and thereby turning the "keys to the kingdom" of earth over to the former Archangel, Lucifer, now known as Satan, who is the god of this present age. Before that disobedience happened, all animals ate only plants for nourishment, there was no death, no disease, no famine, no devastating earthqakes, no tornadoes, no cyclones, no hurricanes, no tsunamies, no volcanos, no thunderstorms, no devastating floods or tidal waves, no blizzards, no strife, no war, no murder, etc.

Edit: A God omnipotent and omniscient enough to create all that we see and know about is certainly able to create parts of that universe with the *appearance* of billions and billions of years of age! I believe He *did* do this to confound the self-proclaimed "wise" among us - those who profess to know so much, yet are unmwilling to accept the plain truth of God's Word!

Answer 5

The Islamic…where science meets faith…

Answer 6

I believe the Bible. Science keeps changing its story every few decades.

Answer 7

How can I believe science when it is constantly changing its version of the truth?

Answer 8

There is scientific evidence for a young earth, AND there is scientific evidence for an old earth. Science has not proved anything about the age of the earth beyond a shadow of doubt.

I believe the Biblical account of my salvation... nothing else matters as much as that.

Answer 9

Well first science says 13-16 billion years. But that is the only one that is reasonable.

Answer 10

I believe the Quranic account.