I know Science and Bible are two really different things.But I'm just wondering what people think about Bible's and Science's theories on how thing are formed(like rocks, trees,earth,humans etc.)and which one is more accurate and worthier to believe.

Please explain why you pick Bible or why you pick Science.

I'm assuming this is a creationism vs evolution debate..... which we've had before and it usually gets pretty heated

I'm going to edit your poll and add a third choice which is a somwhere in between sort of option. Maybe some people believe the world was created by a higher power of some sort but it used evolution to populate it with all the life we see.

Well, I believe in the Big Bang theory, but I believe that a higher power very well could be responsible for the primeval atom.

I personally believe in creationism type theory.... I don't know all the details of how it was done but I believe that a higher power did create the Earth and the universe around it.

[edit] Oh, I picked Bible just because that better represents what I believe about the origin of the world than the current scientific theory. [/edit]

Well, Science and the Bible both have their ups and downs.

For example, Science doesn't hold answers to everything, the Bible does hold answers to everything though.

But Science on the other hand has more intricate explanations for the things they answer, whilst the Bible has less intricate explanations.

So it's a matter of having vague answers for everything or specific answers for some things.

And personally, I'd rather have specifics.

Well stated, DM.

Science relies chiefly on verifiable facts and testable hypotheses, whereas the Bible gives mostly ambiguous and occasionally unreliable ideas. I chose science for that reason.

The Bible is morally didactic, and the stories in it are pretty cool, so I think its chief purpose is and always will be spiritual guidance. If God (from Judeo-Christian belief) created the Earth, I don't think he would have told us every little thing about the world he put us in. He would have left that up to us, (in science maybe?).

Also, just wondering- Why did you put the science bar as black?

Would that be a problem, black is an awesome color?

Anyway, facts and hypotheses proven to be true are pretty solid grounds. Also, why did you italicize "occasionally?"

Didn't want any die-hard Bible thumpers to kill me. So I wanted to acknowledge that it is often more accurate than people give it credit for.

I like black too, but in religious matters (especially those involving the Bible), black is typically seen as a color representing evil or sin. So if there was any correlation, I wanted to unmask the bias and hypocrisy that is juliet!!!!
Muhahahahahaha!

Don't worry, I chose black for science not because of any religious matters. I just picked black randomly.

I feel like Morsalbus will gonna kill me..... creepy laugh...

*sweat*I better confess to God right now....*confess... *confess.

I chose science. While I do admit that it is possible that a higher power could have triggered the Big Bang and then stepped aside, I think that it is more probably that the higher power was more likely the result of the Big Bang. It may not make much sense to those that follow religions such as Christianity but if you think about it it could be possible... a collection of energy coming together to form a being of pure cosmic energy?

*shrug*

The Bible and Science are not two different things, the Bible does contain alot of science. This thread contradicts itself. Christianity is scientific. See my thread called The Bible: guide to science. Right now I'm tired for some reason, so tomorrow I will get more in depth on this post and create a new thread about old earth dating methods and why God created the earth mature.

edit: I chose Bible obviously

IN MY OWN POINT OF VIEW:

I admit, I shouldn't put the word "really" in my first sentence, after reading your thread. But they are still different things. Even though Bible have connections or related with Science or vice versa, you can't still change the fact that Bible lives in the religious world and Science lives in the physical world.Meaning, Bible was meant for our soul and Science was meant for our body and mind. Bible contains God's discoveries, while Science contains human's discoveries. That's why they're different... for me.

well that's not completely true. The Bible also teaches us how to be happy and what to do in situations in life. It is not only meant to save our soul.

I choose science, for science is a self correcting methodology for the observation and understanding of the world around it. It reacts and adapts to new data, unlike the bible, which is a book of bronze age mythology, contradicts itself on several occasions, and gets a number of basic facts quite ineptly incorrect.

It is, like most other tribal 'histories' from its period, largely made up of mythology and attempts to explain the present day- beginning with the Persian conquest- rather than an accurate record of the past.

The lack of a worldwide flood layer in the last several thousand years alone is a massive blow to what is supposed to be divinely inspired wisdom.

I recieved a book today about how science and the Bible mix. As I read it I will post a summary to show why they do have correlation.

I'm of the opinion that true religion and true science will eventually mix.

I do believe in a creation by a higher power. I also believe that many of the things that science tells us about the creation of the earth are also very true.

I think the labels used in the poll are misleading. Adherants to the Bible don't all hold the same view on how the earth was created. Some are young earth creationists (6000-13000 year old earth) others are old earth creasionists (2 billion+ years old).

And even among the science option there is disagreement. To what extent is science accurate in its findings? Ryu points out that science is self-correcting and to a degree I agree with him. However, I've come across several quotes from scientific journals that have taken scientific evidence and have thrown it away because it didn't fit with the currently accepted theory. It'll take me some time to actually find the referece I'm thinking of but there are cases of this on a regular basis. Many scientists are not interested in scientific fact but in proving their theory in order to get recognition even if it is only going to be temporary.

Anyway... long rant... basically I think that science and religion are indivisible and human knowledge about the 2 subjects will eventually coincide.

As a graduate student in a science field, we are taught many fundamentals about how to approach research and deal with scrutiny from other scientists. With this said, the bible can not stand up to any sort of scrutiny because there is no way one can determine if any of the stories are true.

Unlike in science where published results of research are always being questioned, there is really no authority to question what is actually true in the bible (besides the church which is obviously biased). I use the term "true" loosely because truths are usually considered to be absolute. Theories, much like the "theory of evolution" have undergone years of academic scrutiny and become generally accepted when a vast majority of researchers and reviewers believe it to be "true" due to the mass of evidence believed to be supporting the hypothesis.

So, bible or science? Definitely science because there are set protocols of how to publish, review, and scrutinize evidence brought before us.

I think that it is funny how some things are marked as being wrong in the Bible so it is untrue

Yet many things in science have been marked as being wrong yet it is the more logical choice. Yes once something in science is proved wrong that means they have found another correct answer (sometimes not, i'm sure)

But, what the Bible has instore for its truths are yet, in what it says, to be hard evidence to believe because the only way to fully believe to be apart of the spiritual world, a place unseen by many believers of the bible and many nonbelievers of the bible. To disprove something that is suppose to be revealed later on is illogical.

It's a confusing concept that I probably failed at portraying from my mind onto this thread. But I'll stand by what I said and defend it.

As you can see I am for creationism.

My belief is a mixture of both science and religion, they both have areas that they can explain better than the others although I prefer science because it's based on cold hard evidence. I could go deeper into this subject... so I will.

(Please don't criticize me for what I believe, it's just who I am)
I believe that while most religion is fake, there are parts that explains things that science has not, and therefore, is the only logical explanation (of course that's just because it's unopposed.) One area that science never explains is what happens to us when we die? Sure our bodies are powered by electrical pulses but what started them? Religions answer to this is the soul. I believe that when we die our soul lives on, although what happens to our soul at that point is still up for question. Science however DOES explain almost every other natural phenomena around us with physical proof. You see what I'm trying to get at here is that science explains rules, while religion simply makes them up with no evidence or explanation.