Kinsa jud imo gituohan kung diin jud tah gikan, ang Bible or Science?

[Bears Grill]

---

It's just not the same to go from uncertainty (due to gaps in our understanding of the universe from the scientific point of view) to religious absolutes.

It's like the scientist going "before the big bang? I don't have an answer to that or whether that question means anything." And the religious who say "God made Adam and Eve, prohibited them from eating a fruit, and then a talking snake came along and tricked Eve into eating it who likewise made Adam eat the same thing. And that made God angry, so we're banished from paradise with the stamp of original Sin. And to save mankind, God had to impregnate a virgin, so he can have a son who will save us from this original sin...yada yada yada". Or another religious man from Africa who'll say that whole universe was "vomitted into existence". Or another religous man from India who'll say that the creation and destruction of the universe is the inhale and exhale of the God, Maha Vishnu.

It's just not the same.

[Bhoj747]

God Created everyTHING on earth AND science made studies of man and earth... First man on earth dont know how to read and write then who created science? if science created us why scientists today dont know how to made man through formula?

[SioDenz]

In the Bible side the Explanation is complete, The Bible have answers on the question of Origin, Purpose, Morality, Destiny... - Which the Atheist Disagree Based on a Belief that is founded on a concept that they themselves will Accept that is Limited and cannot explain Everything.

How can you claim that your belief is correct if you yourself will say such things as I dont know? How can you claim absolution of Non existence if you can only explain (Not even Proven) as small percentage of the totally of the whole thing?

[slabdans]

Romans 1:20

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

-makita ug masabtan daw diha pina-agi sa iyang mga nabuhat.

[Bears Grill]

In the Bible side the Explanation is complete, The Bible have answers on the question of Origin, Purpose, Morality, Destiny...- Which the Atheist Disagree Based on a Belief that is founded on a concept that they themselves will Accept that is Limited and cannot explain Everything.

Actually, if we talk about completeness, you have to hand that to the Koran, since it extends beyond origin, purpose, morality and destiny and into prescriptions for day-to-day living, etiquettes, and the management of societies.

Yes, the Bible has explanations and answers, just like the Torah and the Koran. A lot of useful things can be derived from them as well, if one is want for purpose and meaning in life. But on the question of origins, which is the subject of this thread and the subject I've focused on, I believe the explanations provided in these ancient texts are meant to be metaphorical, instead of scientific. In this sense, my point is that science doesn't know and religion creates a meaningful worldview out of this question. If the fundamentalists will claim that the biblical account of creation is literally true, then they get themselves into trouble since that account can be subject to empirical scrutiny. How can you prove a talking snake? Is that literal or metaphorical?

How can you claim that your belief is correct if you yourself will say such things as I dont know? How can you claim absolution of Non existence if you can only explain (Not even Proven) as small percentage of the totally of the whole thing?

As you've read my statements so far, I've not made a claim about the non-existence of anything. I'm comparing two approaches to the same question of origin. The answer religion should provide has to be in terms of meaning and values and human aspirations, expressed in a story that captures this essence. If it states this story as historical fact, then you can easily get caricatured. Science, on the other hand, will attempt to understand how things have unfolded since the "beginning of the universe". If you read Hawking, you'll get the sense that the phrase "beginning of the universe" is a misnomer. The singularity derived from the Classical Big Bang is not necessarily the beginning, but the point where our understanding of it stops.

So, the question of this thread asks not which worldview (science versus the Bible) is true, but one's preference. I'd say if you want an approximate account based on an incomplete but scientifically-tested theories, then science's Big Bang Cosmology (or maybe Inflation or multiverse or what-nots), Nebular Hypothesis, Plate Tectonics, the Theory of Natural Selection, etc. will give an account of how we got here (albeit in probabilistic, not absolute, terms)...nonetheless scientifically testable and meaningful as well. If you want an expression of humanity's common aspirations as captured in a creation story, then religion will do a better job.

[ronnelanthony]

ari nga thread nato mahibaw-an kung asa jud ang mas gi tuohan nato ning nag gama sa atong kinabuhi diri sa kalibutan...



explain well why did u bliv in Bible or Science. . .




plss. reply in this thread. . .

Bible gyud ko to-o.. asa man diay gusto nimo, gikan ka sa unggoy or gikan ka sa Ginoo..

[hunt99]

Bible jud oi pero kung ath**sta ka aw mo to-o raka sa science

[noy]

unsa namay balita ngari? natubag na ug asa ta gikan? LOL

[Peenut]

Dili paman gyud ni certain ang Creation ug Evolution.

Pero ang side nga mas mu prefer ko, ari ko sa evolution.
Dili ingon gikan ta sa primates, but yeah, the world is evolving lng until now, dynamic kaayo ang process form BC to AD dates.

[Lord Alethia]

SCIENCE!!!!

There's a lot of evidence from the large variety fields in Zoology, Geology, Paleontology, and Anthropology that Evolution exists. Fossils alone are firm enough to be a good evidence that Evolution is right, not Creationism. I believe that there is a god but I don't believe the concept of Creationism in the Bible. If Creationism exists, can you explain the existence of dinosaurs? Clearly, there were no dinosaurs boarded on Noah's Ark.

why did you base creationism after the event of Noah's ark?
obviously creationism already started during that time...
creationism did not start after the great flood...before that event there were already people, animals, and other beings existed.... i think your pointless...