Which side are you in?

[Ari Martinez]

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!

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?

[Dzejn_Crvena]

I am probably in group three. I used to listen to biblical stories with some historical records it them. I listened to religious debates on Creation as well as scientific theories. While I grew up in a religious community, I still have my doubts about the supporting evidence they presented. Overall, I just don't think that everything happens by chance.

[Trustedbook]

I agree to a reasonable extent, that science and religion, are inter related, owing to the fact that most of the things religious event was proven by scientific research and evidence.

[Brenda Creech]

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!

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!

[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!

[Maddie Atkinson]

As much as I would love to be in the second group, I think I will side with the third group. This is because, over the years, science has been able to prove that most of the events in the Bible can be scientifically proven. Even the creation story now has a scientific theory attached to it.

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?

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I would be in group four, that the Bible and science can go hand in hand. I would believe the Bible over science.

Actually this going hand in hand concept is given for group three people. Yet, to be in that, you cannot take the side of either science or religion. On the other hand you cannot believe the bible over science and think that they both go hand in hand. Because scientists never wanted bible to go along with their research and findings, but the believers wanted their beliefs to be scientifically proven (which, in my opinion, a totally unnecessary thing).

So if you believe bible over science, I think group two is more suitable for you

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I will be in group two because I believe in God but do not hold a grudge against scientific findings, neither will I discard the biblical teachings due to some findings.

Well, I see. So you are a believer and you want to believe God and the bible with your own heart. Yet you see that there are occasions that science does not agree with the bible. So, please don't get this as disrespect, when you see that some of the biblical teachings are scientifically disproved or simply do not go along with the known physics or other practical sciences, how do you think about them? Do you just ignore the scientific theories, or do you think that bible has some meaning beyond what its words imply?

[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

[Sushan Ekanayake]

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!

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?

That is a quite decent argument. And I cannot either agree or disagree with your point.

I would like to mention some additional point that one my psychiatry teachers mentioned. For the note, he was an atheist who only believed in physical things. He even disregarded the concept of mind, and he said it is only a chemical activity in the brain.

Once he explained that, many religions and religious writings use evasive and quite tricky ways to defend what they say. He did not say this in relation to Christianity. But when I see this 'as thousand years' statement, I got reminded of that. So, even the author of the bible has written that as an assumption. So no one can actually happen, or correctly guess what did happen and when did happen certain things
(Please be noted that I mean no disrespect to any religious beliefs)

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I am probably in group three. I used to listen to biblical stories with some historical records it them. I listened to religious debates on Creation as well as scientific theories. While I grew up in a religious community, I still have my doubts about the supporting evidence they presented. Overall, I just don't think that everything happens by chance.

I agree. Everything does not happen by chance. And even science does not say so. We have to plant a seed to have a tree. A tree won't occur by itself, or by chance. There is always a relationship in between cause and the result. What we see through the evolution of human knowledge as well as science is, people have seen the result and tried to find the cause. In the occasions when they could not see the cause, they developed mythical stories. That is what I see as the origin of various religions. But when gradually people gained knowledge, many of these mythical beliefs are rejected. Yet some have chosen to cling to them for various personal reasons

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I agree to a reasonable extent, that science and religion, are inter related, owing to the fact that most of the things religious event was proven by scientific research and evidence.

Well, I like to clarify this. What are actually the religious things that we talk about here that are inter-related with science. The ancient wars, or forming of Israel or such things that are mentioned in the bible (though I have read it, I am not very much familiar) are historical things (if they actually happened), but not religious things. The concept of creation is a belief. I don't see anything religious in that. Just because it was done by God does not make it religious. What I see as religious stuff is the metaphysical things that are beyond human understanding, such as spiritual development, what might happen after death, etc. And those things cannot be explained by science, and hence, I don't see any inter-relationship

[Sushan Ekanayake]

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!

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

[Sushan Ekanayake]

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?

[Sushan Ekanayake]

As much as I would love to be in the second group, I think I will side with the third group. This is because, over the years, science has been able to prove that most of the events in the Bible can be scientifically proven. Even the creation story now has a scientific theory attached to it.

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