I respond by believing, in faith, what God says:
Hebrews 11:3 It is by faith that we understand that the universe was created by God's word, so that what can be seen was made out of what cannot be seen.
The teachings of modern science do not consider a spiritual world view in their answers.
To this day we could not respond to this better than did the early Christian Church Father, Origen. In On First Principles, he said:
Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day if we may so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, "planted a paradise eastward in Eden", and set in it a visible and palpable "tree of life", of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life: and again that one could partake of "good and evil" by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And when God is said to "walk in the paradise in the cool of the day" and Adam to hide himself behind a tree, I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history and not through actual events.
For more information on special creation vs science , please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
There's plenty of evidence for Creation and against Evolution, but that isn't what the scientists and schools choose to publicize. See: Is there evidence for Creation?
The disagreement only occurs if you take Genesis 1 as a literal roadmap for how God created the world. If you see the phrasing in Genesis 1 as figurative and embedded with a deeper spiritual meaning about how to create order from chaos or the method of testing and analysis or of God's love for humanity, then there is no contradiction. The science explains the "how", but can never explain the "why". The Bible explains the "why".
In science
No, almost every basic tenant of genesis has been disproven by even basic science and has been for years. Genesis is a lovely story and myth, but as a historic record its purely nonsense.
It's called Genesis by an electro house band called Justice, therefore the song is Justice - Genesis.
He inspired it to involve science in their teachings
Yes you can. If the Dean of Admissions disagrees, you just tell him to come see me.
A:Genesis is neither history nor science. It contains a record of the traditions of the early Hebrew people and theology, much of it of later origin. History, as we understand it today, is what really did happen, but little of what is in the Book of Genesis corresponds to historical fact. Answer 2The main relationship between the book of Genesis and Science is an adversarial one. The account in Genesis as literally given is at strong odds with the Scientific Analysis. This confrontation is turning many schools into battlegrounds where religious individuals refuse to let the science be taught to their children and more liberal individuals are trying to remove religious teaching from science classrooms.
" Genesis theory!?!? " If you mean the Judeo-Christian creation myth then you are in the wrong section. This is a Western creation myth that has no basis in science and is certainly not a theory.
In my opinion, no, God does not hate science.
true
doctrine means the body of teachings of "belief system" Doctrine of signs is actually science of signs.
Its says that its a book of knowledge!! Quran is holy religious book of islam Bcoz it fits 100% with science more than 700 verses
The words biogenesis and abiogenesis are "science" words. The former means the creation of life from life, and the latter means the creation of life from non-life.