nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Science and God

CMpunked

I was curious to try and determine how many believers also believe science and scientific theories such as evolution or the age of the earth, etc.

Personally I think a lot of it holds water. When i was growing up and evolution was being thought to me i always remembered the scripture such as one day is like a thousand years to god. So the idea of evolution playing a part in the genesis story to me seems to work well.

But thats just what i think. I know others have a very rigid litteral bible view and would like to hear from them, also.

I really hope this doesnt turn into some science v religion topic, because it is in no way intended to. Its simply to gauge together what other believers views are.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Seaneh

I believe to think the world is 6000 years old you have to be willfully ignoring the facts or just totally ignorant and indoctrinated.

Every piece of physical evidence we have shows the world to be very, very old and the universe to be a lot older.
There is no evidence, outside of a literal interpuration of Genesis, for a young world.

Also, evolution, there is far too much evidence for it and none against it.

I believe the Bible should be interpurated literally a lot of the time and as analogy/methaphor some of the time.

Genesis, to me is analogy/methaphor.

Doc Farrell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric–scientists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

Myself and one billion Catholics have no problem with evolving scientific theories on evolution.

My bible, isbn 978006204835, has on the second page 'another account of the creation'.
When I say that I grew a tree and flowers in my garden I am not literally correct as the seeds, soil, water and sun grew the flowers.

This science versus religion debate is a very silly one which has grown from fundamentalist thinking on both sides.

I will have to vote other as the bible is not a scientific treatise or manual, nor is it meant to be.

philologos

I take parts which are intended to be taken literally literally. I take parts which are poetic poetically. I take parables as parables.

I believe the Bible is infallible and all true, but it does contain differing genres.

Ken bryan

My belive in God is based on evolution .
God Is a designer of Life .
Is not Logical to suggest that Such an intellgent being would not create
a procces that would result in the creation of man .
The the Purpose of the Bible was to explain a complex mind to those who have a limited knowlege of science .
Most atheist use these messages as arguement against God .
Oh the bible. Says the world was created in 7 days etc
To weaken the true message of the bible .

mark renton

can we have some more options?

CMpunked

john47832 wrote: »

can we have some more options?

In hindsight I should've put more up. What would be the suggestions?

GarIT

CMpunked wrote: »

What would be the suggestions?

I don't believe the bible where science has proven different.

Manach

I'll use Science for my job and Religion for my morals.

mark renton

Manach wrote: »

I'll use Science for my job and Religion for my morals.

what happens if you do it the other way round?

Manach

Hard science per se does not reference to a moral universe, it involves dealing with the physical attributes of the world.

RichieC

Ken bryan wrote: »

My belive in God is based on evolution .
God Is a designer of Life .
Is not Logical to suggest that Such an intellgent being would not create
a procces that would result in the creation of man .
The the Purpose of the Bible was to explain a complex mind to those who have a limited knowlege of science .
Most atheist use these messages as arguement against God .
Oh the bible. Says the world was created in 7 days etc
To weaken the true message of the bible .

Are you suggesting that Young Earth creationists are deep cover atheists out to discredit the bible? It's not like a simple reading of Genesis gives you a six thousand year old planet.

Festus

Where does the Bible give the age of the Earth?

I've heard it's somewhere in Genesis 52 but I can't find it.

Manach

Offhand, the age of the Earth was calculated by Bishop Usser based on Biblical study. This was mentioned in the paleontologist Steven J. Gould in one of his book's "Rock of Ages"(?) as a excellent scholarship based on raw data, which just turned out to be wrong.

Festus

So apart from there being no Genesis 52, there is nothing, literal or otherwise, in the Bible that can be taken to mean that it has anything to say about the age of the world?

Penn

Festus wrote: »

So apart from there being no Genesis 52, there is nothing, literal or otherwise, in the Bible that can be taken to mean that it has anything to say about the age of the world?

I'm pretty sure it's calculated by the age of descendants of Adam through to Abraham:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth

Of course, the Bible doesn’t say explicitly anywhere, “the earth is 6,000 years old.” Good thing it doesn’t; otherwise it would be out of date the following year. But we wouldn’t expect an all-knowing God to make that kind of a mistake.
God gave us something better. In essence, He gave us a “birth certificate.” For example, using my personal birth certificate, I can calculate how old I am at any point. It is similar with the earth. Genesis 1 says that the earth was created on the first day of creation (Genesis 1:1–5). From there, we can begin calculations of the age of the earth.
Let’s do a rough calculation to show how this works. The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first 5 days of creation (from earth’s creation to Adam), then following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to today.
Adam was created on Day 6, so there were 5 days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).
So a simple calculation is:
5 days
+ ~2000 years
+ ~4000 years
______________
~6000 years
At this point, the first 5 days are negligible. Quite a few people have done this calculation using the Masoretic text (which is what most English translations are based on) and, with careful attention to the biblical details, have arrived at the same time-frame of about 6,000 years, or about 4,000 B.C.

Festus

CMpunked wrote: »

In hindsight I should've put more up. What would be the suggestions?

Believe the Bible is the word of God, contains the Truth and is complimentary to science.

or

Believe there is no such thing as mutual exclusivity between the Bible (Word of God) and Science.

I really do not understand why this comes up again and again and again and again. While there may be some religion or cult out there that puts itself into opposition with science that is not the case with the majority of Christianity. The only time there is friction is when scientists want to "play God" or want to present theory as fact without sufficient supporting evidence.

Festus

Penn wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it's calculated by the age of descendants of Adam through to Abraham:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth

So you would agree that the Bible says that God created the universe a long long time ago, then formed the earth later and then after than humans.

Festus

Nearly forgot, for the record I voted Other because I can see no conflict between the Bible and science, nor as a Catholic can I see any conflict between the teachings of the Church and science save where previously mentioned man decides he has the right to play God and get involved in areas he should not for moral reasons.

dlofnep

philologos wrote: »

I believe the Bible is infallible and all true, but it does contain differing genres.

So you believe that the Noah's Ark tale is a historical fact?

Penn

Festus wrote: »

So you would agree that the Bible says that God created the universe a long long time ago, then formed the earth later and then after than humans.

Universe, maybe. Earth, no. Genesis says that the Earth was "without form and void", so what "the earth" actually was before he made the land (which is the earth) is unclear.

First Day - Light
Second Day - Water/Heaven
Third Day - Land/Trees
Fourth Day - Sun/Stars
Fifth Day - Birds/Fish
Sixth Day - Animals/Man

http://kingjbible.com/genesis/1.htm

So, if the earth was "without form" and neither land nor water were created until after the first day, and humans weren't created until the sixth day (and each day was not a few thousand years because to God, thousands of years are like a day, each day was a day as the Bible says "evening and morning"), then to me the Bible says that the earth (as we know it) and humans were created pretty much within a few days of each other. As for the Universe, the Universe as we know it couldn't have been created until the sun and stars were. It doesn't say if God created the darkness and void which was there before, nor does it say what created God or where he came from.

RichieC

At what point did incest become bad? since we all originate from Adam and eve then surely their children must have procreated with each other. And how many kids disd they have since it was only 6000 years ago and there's 7 billion of us now?

Festus

Penn wrote: »

Universe, maybe. Earth, no. Genesis says that the Earth was "without form and void", so what "the earth" actually was before he made the land (which is the earth) is unclear.

First Day - Light
Second Day - Water/Heaven
Third Day - Land/Trees
Fourth Day - Sun/Stars
Fifth Day - Birds/Fish
Sixth Day - Animals/Man

http://kingjbible.com/genesis/1.htm

So, if the earth was "without form" and neither land nor water were created until after the first day, and humans weren't created until the sixth day (and each day was not a few thousand years because to God, thousands of years are like a day, each day was a day as the Bible says "evening and morning"), then to me the Bible says that the earth (as we know it) and humans were created pretty much within a few days of each other. As for the Universe, the Universe as we know it couldn't have been created until the sun and stars were. It doesn't say if God created the darkness and void which was there before, nor does it say what created God or where he came from.

As I have already said, I do not take this literally. You may continue to do so if you wish.

A couple of points however.

the universe being created after the sun and stars? Very strange concept. Have you heard of the big bang theory and the order in which things happen: Universe created, stars form, planets form.
Creating darkness? even stranger. Darkness cannot be created. It is the absence of light. Have you ever seen the dark put out the light?
Similarly void. You cannot create nothing or empty out of something - its the other way around, something fills the void or occupies emptyiness.

As for God and where He came from? God knows.

Benny_Cake

RichieC wrote: »

At what point did incest become bad? since we all originate from Adam and eve then surely their children must have procreated with each other. And how many kids disd they have since it was only 6000 years ago and there's 7 billion of us now?

You'll have to find someone who believes that Genesis is a literal account of how it all happened in order to find an answer for that, and I'd doubt that there is anyone here who views it that way. Anyone who believes that the earth is 6000 years old after doing the slightest amount of study is really deluding themselves.

There is no conflict between faith and science for me, I'm happy to let science answer as to how we all came to be here,but faith is about finding meaning as to why we are here.

Festus

RichieC wrote: »

At what point did incest become bad? since we all originate from Adam and eve then surely their children must have procreated with each other. And how many kids disd they have since it was only 6000 years ago and there's 7 billion of us now?

Where does the Bible have anything to say about the age of the Earth?

RichieC

There are plenty YEC's on here.

Benny_Cake

RichieC wrote: »

There are plenty YEC's on here.

You could be right, they are probably all in the megathread which I steer well clear of!:D They're entitled to their views but it strikes me as a fundamentally dishonest position in the light of evidence and it is completely unnecessary to hold such views in order to be a Christian.

Festus

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There is no conflict between faith and science for me, I'm happy to let science answer as to how we all came to be here,but faith is about finding meaning as to why we are here.

+

Were we came from is of interest but it is where we are going to that is of importance

dlofnep

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There is no conflict between faith and science for me, I'm happy to let science answer as to how we all came to be here,but faith is about finding meaning as to why we are here.

Science can also answer that question. I don't see how faith could ever answer such a question. We know that homo sapiens being here is the result of eons of evolution. We know the earth is here as a direct result of the effect gravity has on dust and gas. As for the 'meaning' of life - Life is what you make it.

Benny_Cake

dlofnep wrote: »

Science can also answer that question. I don't see how faith could ever answer such a question. We know that homo sapiens being here is the result of eons of evolution. We know the earth is here as a direct result of the effect gravity has on dust and gas. As for the 'meaning' of life - Life is what you make it.

Let me rephrase it slightly - my faith helps me find meaning in why I am here. An atheist would obviously find meaning in a somewhat different way (but would hold much of the same outlook as to what is good and what is evil). Without wanting to get too much into the mechanics behind the creation of the universe, as a layman I accept the current scientific consensus. I don't think science can fully explain, in way that is satisfactory to me, why I love my family, why I find beauty in nature, and why a parent would sacrifice their life for their children. Now I'm sure there is a lot of chemistry going on in the brain in relation to this, but I think there is a little more to it as well!

mark renton

Penn wrote: »

Universe, maybe. Earth, no. Genesis says that the Earth was "without form and void", so what "the earth" actually was before he made the land (which is the earth) is unclear.

First Day - Light
Second Day - Water/Heaven
Third Day - Land/Trees
Fourth Day - Sun/Stars
Fifth Day - Birds/Fish
Sixth Day - Animals/Man

First Day - Light
Obviously - mans gotta be able to see what he's doing

Second Day - Water/Heaven
Gotta have somethin to quench the thirst and somewhere to rest over the next couple of days hard work

Third Day - Land/Trees
Makes sense, Foundation going down

Fourth Day - Sun/Stars
Seems like a day off here - got the papers in

Fifth Day - Birds/Fish
Ahh yes - it seems the Sun had an influence here

Sixth Day - Animals/Man
Must be finished with the birds at this point as the competition is allowed in