ANSWERS: 35
  • Science has evidence and covers mainly tangible things that can be proven or disproven. Religion and the bible involve belief systems, and cover mainly intangible things that cannot be proven or disproven. Apply the "right" area to the right topic, depending on what you are talking about. If you're talking about how planets are created, stick with science. If you're talking about what is morally wrong or right, stick with your belief system.
  • Science. Why? Because snakes don't talk, and people aren't born from virgins. Nobody comes back to life. Oh, and bushes don't talk either.
  • The Bible is in harmony with Science: http://www.icr.org/ Much of was is considered "science" is not. Origin of species and how the Earth began is a history question, not a science question. No scientists were there. It comes down to the Word of God vs. conjecture by "scientists" that were not there and have no idae how long ago it all happened.
  • Science is not the absolute truth and it may change over the years. eg.In the past, the scientists told us to take vitamin supplements, and recently the scientists told us to get vitamins from food and not to take vitamin supplements. The Bible/God/Jesus is always true and will never change.+3
  • I believe in Quran. So far, I haven't come across anything in it that contradicts science and rationality except of course the unseen which science cannot disprove yet.
  • When the Bible speaks of scientific things, it is accurate.
  • So what do you think is contradictory about science and the Bible?
  • Science. The Bible - where it differers from science or accepted history - has zero basis in fact. +5
  • Over time science agrees with the Bible more and more. Examples: 1) Science said the earth was flat. ("Columbus sailed the ocean blue. . ." 3,000 years ago the Bible called it a sphere. 2) The Bible, 3,500 years ago said: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Science now believes that the universe was created in a "big bang." 3) 3,000 years ago, the Bible warned about burying dead bodies and defacating away from civilization, long before science knew about germs and harmful bio agents. 4) 3,500 years ago the Bible recorded the order of events that preceded human habitation on the earth. The earth covered by water, then land appears, then plants, then fish, then land animals, and finally man. Science discovered That order of events only in the last 150 years.
  • Science. I can test Science, see it's effects, it's measurable results and outcomes, I can see it's application and the outcome of it's application...religion on the otherhand expects me to take something totally unbelievable and without proof or evidence accept it without a speck of doubt.
  • God talks to man in a way the recipient can understand. As an example, the Bible classifies a bat as a bird. To ancient man, a bird was something that flew, so bats fit that criteria. God let 21st century scientific accuracy suffer a bit in order for the ancients to grasp the theological important facts.
  • Science is one thing that evolves with time. Take the nuclear structure of the atom. 100 years ago it was completely different. Look at the idea that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. the bible is similar. People were preaching to people who didn't know as much as we do now. As a result now all the statements may not apply. That's why faith is partially based on interpretation. You have to keep in mind the time period in which it was written and the audience.
  • The Bible is the truth to me as science is usually wrong anyway, but they let years go by before the admit it and God is always there without fail and never fails at anything and is always right.
  • If you take out the supposed actions of God (parting of the Red Sea, the Great Flood etc). Then there really isn't much in the Bible that refers to anything scientific. It doesn't make any scientific claims. It's only religious humans that make scientific claims about the Bible. . The Bible is a mixture of history, myth, religion, poetry and law/behavior codes. It isn't a science book.
  • must of the little Science in the Bible isn't contradictory to the Bible.
  • Science describes reality. If reality and religion differ, it's not reality that is wrong.
  • I'm not a believer in science or jesus, I just know facts is all. I don't put my trust/hopes/dreams into science or god, so there isn't any worry here about which is true.
  • Both, the Bible agrees with proven science. When the Bible is using metaphors, such as four corners of the earth, I don't think one should take that as the earth being square though.
  • science
  • Science.
  • Why are people always comparing a book that isn't a science book with science? Isn't that like comparing the theory of relativity with the Constitution? They are 2 different things. They can both be true.
  • Science. Anyone who thinks the bible is true or real is a fool, I'm sorry they just are, that's my opinion though. Seriously.....Do you know how many people literally believe in the fairytales of that book? It's so disheartening.....
  • Much of science is true and has done much good for the world but in regards to creation, I go with the Bible. Also, if you take a long close look at what the various fields in science have discovered in the last 50 years, they all point to intelligent design. Much to the dismay of many naturalistic scientists. For me personally, Cosmology is very fascinating. The atheist Quentin Smith made this claim about where the universe came from.---"The most reasonable belief is is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing." That has to be a very unsatisfying and in some ways a very sad way to live ones life. To think that we have absolutely no purpose for existence. I'll stick with God, Jesus, and the Bible.
  • I usually trust the one willing to make a firm, written, permanent commitment. Science can always say, "oops, we had it wrong." Whereas the Bible made a written commitment 3,500 years ago. In some cases, it took science 1000s of years to figure out that he Bible was right all along.
  • Depending on the subject. Science or neither. Maybe some philosophical sentences from the Bible are useful too.
  • Many of us nonbelievers have in fact read the bible. I have found very little in the Bible that conforms to reality. Science is true. Your God, fails. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm
  • Science
  • Science evolves and changes. It corrects and updates itself. The Bible does not. Science is learning that what the Bible said thousands of years ago is correct.
  • Science, because it has the proof to back it up.
  • Give us an example.
  • What, the ongoing confusion between metaphor and metaphysics?
  • "Science" ATTEMPTS to describe normative PHYSICAL phenomena and processes. Current scientific descriptions/models of any such physical processes - which you arrogantly pronounce "reality" - can and almost certainly will be found to differ with the reality they attempt to model, requiring substantial refinement and possibly even a complete abandonment of the old model for one that fits the data better. Case in point, the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics can't both be true, at least in the same universe (ask any PhD in Physics); each one is simply a model - a tool - that attempts to describe and predict (but not explain) different classes of physical phenomena, one cosmic in scale and the other sub-atomic, but they're still just tools that will one day be replace by more precise tools, but they are not "Truth". If the Bible actually did contradict “Science” on any given point, the disagreement would not be between an erroneous fiction (as if there could be such a thing) and “truth”, but between one interpretation of the data and another. Fortunately, the Bible particularly interested in physics and rather asks and answers deeper questions in matters of ETHICS, AESTHETICS, and METAPHYSICS. While scientific disciplines attempt to describe and understand biological and mere material processes, the Bible asks and answers different questions: WHY do we exist? How should we live? What is beauty? What is truth? What is right? These are not scientific questions. So if there is a conflict between the two, it’s because one is making pronouncements about matters outside of its field. When pseudo-scientists and hacks pronounce that Science proves God does not exist, or that He has no effect on physical phenomena, or that man is just a cosmic accident with no intrinsic dignity or worth, the product of blind, random, and indifferent processes that did not have him in mind, or that God could not have parted the Red Sea or raised a man from the dead if He so chose, they are not speaking as scientists but as priests, and they are the ones who are trespassing. Also, before you and others go on about the first 11 chapters of Genesis (and try to remember that Genesis has 39 more chapters after that, and that there are another 65 books in the Bible after Genesis - Why don't you try reading them all?) you need to understand this (and so do 6-day Young Earth Creationists): Genesis along with the rest of the Pentateuch (Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, & Deuteronomy) form a literary whole. The centerpiece of the Pentateuch is "The Covenant" (Gen 12:1-4; 17:1-27; Deut 6:1-25 - especially 20-23). All the statutes, rites, and feasts of the Pentateuch are there to testify to that covenant, to give it form, and to impart its implications: what it means to be the chosen people of God, raised up to be a nation of priests and a blessing to all nations. The Covenant is the Jewel and the statutes are a ring of pearls around it. The narrative portions of the Pentateuch - which may well have been composed later - are the setting: they exist to explain and expound on the law and the covenant. In essence, they are a kind of legal commentary by illustration. The narrative sections include history, legend, family anecdotes, fiction, myth, and even what the writer probably regarded to be false myths of neighboring pagan peoples which he re-worked completely for his own themes and purposes. In terms of history, the only parts of the narrative that must be historic for the covenant to be valid is that Abraham really did live, really did leave Ur for Canaan, really did get the pledge from God Genesis says he did, really did have descendants, those descendants really did go into Egypt where they were enslaved, that God really did deliver them from Egypt "with a mighty hand", and they really did conquer Canaan. (The historicity of the last point, no one disputes.) Skeptic to Rabbi: "You really believe your God parted the Red Sea so your people could escape Egypt?" Rabbi to Skeptic: "We escaped, didn't we? We're here, aren't we? Is that so much harder to believe than that even after a 4000 years of exiles, expulsions, persecutions, the destruction of our temple and priesthood, the pogroms, the holocaust, antisemmitism, Arab armies, and suicide bombers, that we're still here?"
  • Both as we know them are incomplete. Science told me in middle school that Pluto was a planet. Now they are telling my kids it is not. Jesus was still fustrated with his disciples at the end of his ministry. He would seem marveled that they still have not caught on to some of the things he was trying to teach them. I look at them as answering different aspects of the same issue. Science tries to answer the "How". Religion tries to answer the "Who". We need both. They are not in opposition. We just have to elevate our level of understanding to see this.
  • The results of scientific investigations are true, in so far as they go. Twenty or thirty years ago the age of the Universe was being calculated as between 12 and 20 billion years, depending on what evidence was the basis of the calculation. More recently it is thought to be 13.7 billion years and while there might be some change in the future, it probably will not be much different. 12.5 or 14.2, 11.8 or 16.0, does not really matter, the point is that all the estimates are far older than the ages claimed by some people who say the Bible tells them that. The same sort of thing can be said about the estimated age of the Earth, while 4.54 billion years might not be the estimate in the near future, you can be certain it will be more than claimed by some people based on the Bible. Likewise, there is no evidence of a global flood in the past umpty thousand years, the evidence is all the other way. This sort of thing is the result of millions of man and woman hours examining bore cores, digging mines, looking at road cuttings, cliffs, canyons etc all over the world over the past 200 years. This conclusion is not likely to change. Therefore any claim of a global flood in late prehistoric times can be dismissed. There is no particular reason to doubt that King Whosamajig in Jerusalem existed and was succeeded by King Wothsisname though. But that sort of thing is a different issue.
  • I think life Is a paradox. yin yang.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy