Which side are you in?

[Maddie Atkinson]

I am on the side of creation. Scientifically, the earth may be billions of years old, but it was only 6,000 years ago that life began on earth. God took a planet "without form and void" and created day, night, plants, rivers, oceans, animals, and man-kind. If there was a 'big bang' it was when God separated the waters from the land, or put the sun and moon in the heavens, etc!

When you say life began on earth, do you mean human life? Or life in general? Because civilisation began 6000 years ago, yes, but there has been life on earth for around 3.5 billion years, our ancestors, like neanderthals, were around 6 million years ago, and modern humans (homo sapiens) for 200,000 years! I am not trying to change your views in any way! But as an ancient history student at uni, it is difficult to me to believe the creationist theory when it clashes so much with actual historical evidence, let alone the scientific evidence!

It is a valuable point. It is true that science has not been able to solidly prove the big bang theory or whatever other concepts regarding the beginning of the universe. But there are archeological evidence regarding humans that were predecessors of Homo Sapiens. So, with all due respect for the believers, I am left with the question: Did god created Adam as a Homo Sapiens? Or di He created him as some other species related to humans and let humankind to be evolved over the past thousands of years? On the other hand, what is the need for evolution if creation really happened?

Personally, I don't believe in the story of Adam and Eve. If they were the first humans, how was it possible that there were other people once they left the Garden? I believe it is more a moral story of 'don't trust the devil', there has never been any proof of them at all. Out of the options you gave, I believe He just left life to slowly evolve. I just don't see how the original creation story is compatible with all the evidence found. Which is why I lean more towards God being the reason for the Big Bang and letting the Universe develop from there.

Side note: as a personal opinion, I think Adam was a whiney little b***h. He couldn't deal with his first wife wanting to be independent so complained to God until He gave in and made Eve to be subservient and made Lilith into a demon. If the creationist theory is true then toxic masculinity has been here since the dawn of time lol (#notallmen )

[Maddie Atkinson]

Well, I won't say science has proven biblical teachings. Some preacher has gone to the extent of comparing science with biblical teachings and had claimed that bible is scientifically true (as this book does). And those who wanted to believe that, believed that. But I have never seen a scientist actually proving biblical content in the scientific manner.

I feel like you have to reconsider the group you feel like you belongs to

All you have to do is look it up. Scientists (and historians) have constantly proved and disproved the content of the Bible. They have explained the roots of the story of Sodom and Gamorrah, they have explained how the story of the parting of the Red Sea could have been inspired. They have disproved the story of the Tower of Babylon. All it takes is a little research to show the scientists and historians have worked hand in hand and have proved and disproved all kinds of things in the Bible.

What group do you belong to then?

For the note, I believe that I belong to first group, as I trust the obvious sscientific theories and evidence, and see that there are many incongruous situations between science and bible (Well, I do not believe biblical stories).

And as you have said, scientists have given various explanations with nature of 'could have been' quality. As far as I know, scientifically accurate and acceptable concepts should have the ability to be reproduced. The explanation regarding Red Sea, for an example, has not been reproduced in the scale that it is explained in the bible, so that makes it only a scientific explanation, but not a theory or a law.

So, yes, throughout the years scientists have supported biblical stories through various explanations, but in most occasions, none have been either approved or disapproved, not because of anything, but because they are difficult to be experimented or researched

Ah yes sorry, I think I originally misread what you said! There have been solid theories, but never actual 100% accurate proof! I think it is easier to disprove than prove. I definitely trust the things they've disproved, more than what has been proved. Like I agree that the Tower of Babylon didn't happen!

[Brenda Creech]

How interesting, I think you are the first person I read that is on the side of creation. Most Christians nowadays believe that both science and religion go hand in hand (I'm one of them). Personally, in regards to the creation of the world, I don't think we can really know how long it took God to create the Earth, animals, etc. In 2 Peter 3:8, it says "that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So, it's clear that God doesn't measure time the same as humans measure time. Also, note that the Bible uses the word "as", which can be taken as "like", so it is not saying that 1000 years IS one day to God, but that 1000 years is LIKE one day to God, so it doesn't really give us a clear reference as to how God measures time. If we don't know how God measures time, how can we know how long creation actually took according to the Bible?

I am very familiar with that scripture, and I agree with you that we cannot know for sure how long it took God to create the world. I don't believe it was even close to what we consider 6 twenty-four-hour days! I do believe there are answers to some questions we will never know until we stand before God. I also believe there is a correlation between science and creation—meaning science has yet to have solid proof that there is no God and that everything just evolved from nothing. I actually find scientific research fascinating, but I find the concept of creation more fascinating and more believable. That's just my opinion!

I see your point, and I agree that people have different things that they find more easy to believe in than something else. And I agree that science has not proven with solid evidence that there is no God. And also regarding the beginnings of the universe, scientists have only theories and assumptions that are supported by various observations and experiments. Yet they do not have a solid, finalized theory. Even scientists have various thoughts among them. So in that context, I do believe that there is space for various beliefs and ideas regarding beginning of the universe and life

I agree with that. I believe there is a place and a purpose for scientific study. When I think about it, God is the greatest scientist of all, in my view!

[Mariana Figueira]

I think this division is pretty decent, even if it's an oversimplification. I definitely fit in the first category, I firmly believe in the scientific approach and pretty much refuse everything the Bible says. I think a category that is missing is the people who are mostly uncertain about it, something like none of the above.

Thank you for the suggestion, and thank you for backing me in believing science and scientific evidence and theories.

Your suggestion for a fourth group is really appreciated. But if I have included such a group, most of the fellow members of OBC will go into that category. That is because, though most are not willing to accept, many have their doubts in either science, or religion. Many of my Catholic friends talk how they started doubting the creation and all other related stories, that they were taught when they were young, with the gaining of new knowledge regarding science and human history. So I believe that the uncertainty is more, though many do not show it

Maybe there are just too many shades in religion, and even in science. I sometimes think my mind is quite boxy because I find it so difficult to understand how people become fanatics and believe in things that are impossible...but to each their own, right?

[Sushan Ekanayake]

When you say life began on earth, do you mean human life? Or life in general? Because civilisation began 6000 years ago, yes, but there has been life on earth for around 3.5 billion years, our ancestors, like neanderthals, were around 6 million years ago, and modern humans (homo sapiens) for 200,000 years! I am not trying to change your views in any way! But as an ancient history student at uni, it is difficult to me to believe the creationist theory when it clashes so much with actual historical evidence, let alone the scientific evidence!

It is a valuable point. It is true that science has not been able to solidly prove the big bang theory or whatever other concepts regarding the beginning of the universe. But there are archeological evidence regarding humans that were predecessors of Homo Sapiens. So, with all due respect for the believers, I am left with the question: Did god created Adam as a Homo Sapiens? Or di He created him as some other species related to humans and let humankind to be evolved over the past thousands of years? On the other hand, what is the need for evolution if creation really happened?

Personally, I don't believe in the story of Adam and Eve. If they were the first humans, how was it possible that there were other people once they left the Garden? I believe it is more a moral story of 'don't trust the devil', there has never been any proof of them at all. Out of the options you gave, I believe He just left life to slowly evolve. I just don't see how the original creation story is compatible with all the evidence found. Which is why I lean more towards God being the reason for the Big Bang and letting the Universe develop from there.

Side note: as a personal opinion, I think Adam was a whiney little b***h. He couldn't deal with his first wife wanting to be independent so complained to God until He gave in and made Eve to be subservient and made Lilith into a demon. If the creationist theory is true then toxic masculinity has been here since the dawn of time lol (#notallmen )

Yes, there are occasions that biblical stories contradict each other, and also there are many gaps that have to be filled by referring to other related scriptures. So these stories have a big issue related to their validity, and they can never be taken as historical data.

And, yes, maybe He let the big bang to happen and let the things to be slowly evolved. Then that means He is not interrupting or involving in the human lives. So, does that mean the Noah's ship and other stories related to catastrophes are also mere creations? Have they actually happened, or are they mere lies?

[Sushan Ekanayake]

All you have to do is look it up. Scientists (and historians) have constantly proved and disproved the content of the Bible. They have explained the roots of the story of Sodom and Gamorrah, they have explained how the story of the parting of the Red Sea could have been inspired. They have disproved the story of the Tower of Babylon. All it takes is a little research to show the scientists and historians have worked hand in hand and have proved and disproved all kinds of things in the Bible.

What group do you belong to then?

For the note, I believe that I belong to first group, as I trust the obvious sscientific theories and evidence, and see that there are many incongruous situations between science and bible (Well, I do not believe biblical stories).

And as you have said, scientists have given various explanations with nature of 'could have been' quality. As far as I know, scientifically accurate and acceptable concepts should have the ability to be reproduced. The explanation regarding Red Sea, for an example, has not been reproduced in the scale that it is explained in the bible, so that makes it only a scientific explanation, but not a theory or a law.

So, yes, throughout the years scientists have supported biblical stories through various explanations, but in most occasions, none have been either approved or disapproved, not because of anything, but because they are difficult to be experimented or researched

Ah yes sorry, I think I originally misread what you said! There have been solid theories, but never actual 100% accurate proof! I think it is easier to disprove than prove. I definitely trust the things they've disproved, more than what has been proved. Like I agree that the Tower of Babylon didn't happen!

I agree. Disproving is rather easy. All you have to do is prove that either something was not there, or something did never happen. But to prove things, you need positive evidence, which can be hard to find even those things have truly occurred. The hard part is to convince people. There are flexible ones who are willing to accept or deny things depending on the available details. But there are few who are very adamant, that do not accept the evidence presented to their hands, but go on with what they believe, though it is already proven wrong

[Theresa Stewart]

I think there's a fourth group: people who are on both sides and believe that there is just more to it than we can possibly know as humans.

I agree with you on this. I never wholeheartedly believed in the Bible's version of how our existence came into being, but there is always a wandering thought of the what if. I used to tell myself that it was created for us to have hope in something after death. But now I mostly just think there is something else that we just don't know or haven't yet figured out.

[Liveforchrist51]

I wholeheartedly believe in God. I have seen so many miraculous things happen to say He isn’t real. I do however, also believe in science. I believe God created life and earth, but I believe science allows life to evolve into what it is now.

[63tty]

I don't think that the list is exhaustive, consider for example the people who believe in horoscopes and the crystals (they are neither science nor religion) where do they fall.
Also, I don't see where I fit in, I would say 3 because I'm open-minded but I do believe in God strongly. And if I say 2, I don't dispute science or compare it with my religion, so I'm not sure where I fit in.

[Kirsi Cultrera]

I definitely belong to the group number 3. I believe that science is not completely wrong (probably not completely right either), but the problem is that we are humans and God is God. We don't have all the knowledge, and even if we are improving our knowledge levels all the time, I doubt we will ever have all the knowledge. The truth is, the more I study my Bible, the more I realize how little I actually know. And scientists face the same problem. The more they discover, the more there is to discover. I do not see why science and the Bible could not go hand in hand.

[Esther11]

I am definitely on the first side. I became an atheist not too long ago. Being my father a Christian and my mother a Buddhist, religion has always been vague and confusing to me. Science offered me a clear yet reasonable explanation of the origin of humanity.

[Nicholus Schroeder]

I fall under the first group because science is more accurate as scientists are working with raw data such as the age of a fossil whilst religious texts were compiled by people a very long time ago, there is no form of data to look at other than words on a page which could have been misinterpreted or forged for personal benefit over the years.

[Maddie Atkinson]

It is a valuable point. It is true that science has not been able to solidly prove the big bang theory or whatever other concepts regarding the beginning of the universe. But there are archeological evidence regarding humans that were predecessors of Homo Sapiens. So, with all due respect for the believers, I am left with the question: Did god created Adam as a Homo Sapiens? Or di He created him as some other species related to humans and let humankind to be evolved over the past thousands of years? On the other hand, what is the need for evolution if creation really happened?

Personally, I don't believe in the story of Adam and Eve. If they were the first humans, how was it possible that there were other people once they left the Garden? I believe it is more a moral story of 'don't trust the devil', there has never been any proof of them at all. Out of the options you gave, I believe He just left life to slowly evolve. I just don't see how the original creation story is compatible with all the evidence found. Which is why I lean more towards God being the reason for the Big Bang and letting the Universe develop from there.

Side note: as a personal opinion, I think Adam was a whiney little b***h. He couldn't deal with his first wife wanting to be independent so complained to God until He gave in and made Eve to be subservient and made Lilith into a demon. If the creationist theory is true then toxic masculinity has been here since the dawn of time lol (#notallmen )

Yes, there are occasions that biblical stories contradict each other, and also there are many gaps that have to be filled by referring to other related scriptures. So these stories have a big issue related to their validity, and they can never be taken as historical data.

And, yes, maybe He let the big bang to happen and let the things to be slowly evolved. Then that means He is not interrupting or involving in the human lives. So, does that mean the Noah's ship and other stories related to catastrophes are also mere creations? Have they actually happened, or are they mere lies?

I don't believe that they are lies. I think that a lot of the Old Testament stories, in Genesis at least, are fables, stories that have a moral message to show us the difference between right and wrong. I don't think that there was a global flood, scientifically that would have been impossible, at least for the era that it is supposed to have happened in. I think that the story of Noah's Ark is rather a moral message that humanity should not stray from the path of good and we should not do wicked things. I think that is the same with other catastrophes. They may have some sort of origin that inspired the story, but the actual story itself is unlikely to actually have taken place. So yeah, I don't believe they are lies, just moral stories.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I think this division is pretty decent, even if it's an oversimplification. I definitely fit in the first category, I firmly believe in the scientific approach and pretty much refuse everything the Bible says. I think a category that is missing is the people who are mostly uncertain about it, something like none of the above.

Thank you for the suggestion, and thank you for backing me in believing science and scientific evidence and theories.

Your suggestion for a fourth group is really appreciated. But if I have included such a group, most of the fellow members of OBC will go into that category. That is because, though most are not willing to accept, many have their doubts in either science, or religion. Many of my Catholic friends talk how they started doubting the creation and all other related stories, that they were taught when they were young, with the gaining of new knowledge regarding science and human history. So I believe that the uncertainty is more, though many do not show it

Maybe there are just too many shades in religion, and even in science. I sometimes think my mind is quite boxy because I find it so difficult to understand how people become fanatics and believe in things that are impossible...but to each their own, right?

I think that is the human nature. People are inquisitive, and they have been for past thousands of years. So they wanted answers. They found answers for many things, but there were things that an ordinary man could not understand. So there were few thinkers who had the ability to think marvellous things which were out of box. So they gave explanations to such metaphysical things, and people started to believe them. Hence they got followers and those beliefs were gifted from generation to generation. And I believe that is how these religions have originated.

This is a democratic world, and people can believe what they want. That is why we still see people who completely believe in things that others believe as superstitious matters

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I think there's a fourth group: people who are on both sides and believe that there is just more to it than we can possibly know as humans.

I agree with you on this. I never wholeheartedly believed in the Bible's version of how our existence came into being, but there is always a wandering thought of the what if. I used to tell myself that it was created for us to have hope in something after death. But now I mostly just think there is something else that we just don't know or haven't yet figured out.

There are many things that we haven't figured out yet, and some of them we will never figure out. What comes after death is such a concept. You have to die to see it, but then you cannot tell it to others. So people needed some reassurance in such issues, and some thinkers who could think in a extraordinary manner gave people a concept of God and a heaven. To make that a believable story, they had to create various stories. With that, people divided as believers and non-believers. So there will always be groups like I have mentioned and there will be additional groups as well. And all groups will have members all the time, because people need answers and they like to believe whatever is comfortable for them