Can Science Ignore The Assumptions Within Genesis?

a reply to: Prezbo369

Yours is a faith statement without evidence
You fundys are so gullible to suggestion

a reply to: Raggedyman

Until you can demonstrate your wacky supernatural beliefs to be true, it belongs in the same wastebin as Twilight fan fiction......

a reply to: newnature1

The way I see it is there has to something above man. The universe is chaos, but yet everything is perfect, even mathematically, for life here. To say this is all random and for no reason is such a sad view and to me does not make sense. I think that it is impossible for this to be for no reason or without any intelligent design. Many science people like Einstein who did not believe at first changed his mind after studying the universe more.

That being said I do not believe in the Christian god, he sounds like a tyrant to me. god with a lower case g, just a pretender. If anything if you read the bible Satan sounds to me to be more of a good guy then god, just look at the kill count. I think that god is Satan and Satan is god, like isn't Satan supposed to pretend to be god? so it makes sense to me that he would just switch the name. Its like a psych-op. this is just my theory on that story

I do not believe ether entity is the true god, I like the Gnostic view of god as The ALL father. Similar to the teaching "all is one and one is all." we are the universe (God) and it is us. Makes sense if you think about it like this. Your made of cells, so all of those cells are still you. then you live in country, that makes up a planet, that makes up a solar system, that makes a galaxy, that make up the universe( im sure there are bigger sub units beyond a galaxy, i think a nebula) So everything in the universe really is it. The micro is the macro. hope this makes sense.

a reply to: Prezbo369

And I can say the same in relation to stardust and starwater being your mammy and pappy

You do know doctor who is not real

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Prezbo369

And I can say the same in relation to stardust and starwater being your mammy and pappy

No not even remotely close as the stardust theory has evidence and good reasons to believe it, whereas magic man and his magic powers should convince no-one not even children.

You do know doctor who is not real

Yes ive been able to tell fact from fiction ever since Sunday school, it's clear however that you still struggle with that...

originally posted by: Thundersmurf

originally posted by: newnature1

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: newnature1
The bible never sets out to prove there is a God. It assumes that God exists and never questions that assumption. Can science ignore the assumptions within Genesis?

Um, yes?

Science doesn't assume anything, it observes and reports verifiable facts.

So science can observe all verifiable fasts about life during that fifth 'a day'. Science can also observe verifiable facts about life being destroyed over and over again during that fifth 'a day'. Should science ask why that life kept being destroyed?

Look at this this way - had the bible never existed, we would still have scientists running around analyzing things, and coming to conclusions. The bible in no way whatsoever explains how the universe was created

The mystery of the Sphinx shows one reason why their is universe.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
Why would "science" assume God exists?

Because it says so in a book?

The bible does shows where the ark of God is right now, but a person has to understand something first to prove it.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Heresiarch

What's so ridiculous about the big bang theory?

When you look at the night sky you see that everything, is floating away from each other. It only makes sense that if you reverse time it would all reverse course and go back towards each other.

Would you like to elaborate on what you find so ridiculous about the big bang theory?

There could be an explanation for the universe expanding. It seems if someone can count the number of the stars, that person can have their own kingdom or something like that. What if someone made a lucky guess. So the universe is expanding as new stars are being made, it would be hard to make a lucky guess?

technically speaking, science is a compilation of techniques and tools. it has no consciousness.

and yes, humans have proven again and again that they are willing to ignore the results of scientific inquiry.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Scientists both ignore and embrace assumption as they see fit, both for larger grants and personal glory

Ignore what puts their pet projects in jeopardy, ignore what may cause them to lose grant monies and embrace what guarantees them fame

It's not science that is questionable, it's those who undertake it
Just like it's not Christianity that's questionable, it's the christian

Yes. Im glad you pointed out that it's not science itself that is flawed but rather some individual scientists. So the question is "can science ignore the assumptions from the bible?"

The truth is that science must ignore any assumption that is not supported by clear and direct evidence. When you can provide said evidence, then the existence of god will be a part of a scientific theory. As it stands, the current evidence supports the theory that the bible is a collection of allegorical stories from all around the middle east, spanning several cultures over hundreds of years. What we call the "bible" was systematically pieced together by roman politicians. They picked and chose the books that supported the story they wanted to portray. The great majority of books that did not convey the narrative they wanted, were destroyed and are now lost to us forever. There is no reason to believe any of the extraordinary claims made by any story, when they are not supported by scientific scrutiny.


Science does not deal with unfounded assumptions. Period. So of course science can ignore the assumption that god exists. It has too. Now when you bring god forth for inspection. Science will not ignore that. Until then, you are basing your life on something which has zero evidence to support it.

So prove the assumptions before calling the unfounded assumptions, assumptions. Let's try to prove two assumptions. The first mention of the heavenly bodies that can be seen from earth. The groupings of the stars, there is no articulate speech or voice, and no words are heard, but their sayings have gone out into all the world (Ps. 19:1-6). So God has something to say, but that something wasn't reveal until Genesis 3:15. Genesis 3:15 clearly shows that someone is attacking God's goal.

a reply to: newnature1

If I understand correctly, space is a vacuum. That individual galaxies are moving further away from each other seems to fit with this vacuum idea. I don't think it is proven fact yet, but it makes sense.

I don't see this still theoretical idea as appropriate to explain another theory, guessing of guesses doesn't sound scientific to me.

But I have to laugh at science for saying that the Universe, which is infinite, is expanding because it makes people think that the infinite universe is growing in size which is impossible and not what "the universe is expanding" actually means. They should re-word it.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Heresiarch

Its a fact that star systems, globular clusters, galaxies and the like are all spreading apart and moving away from each other.

If this is true(which it is because you can see it with your own two eyes) then what would happen if you reverse time?

What is your explanation for how the universe came about?

I don't have an explanation. Nobody does. All we have are theories.

Personally, I think that infinity applies to the size AND age of the Universe. It has always been here. It's structure and contents change, but if there was nothing at one point, there would be nothing now. There has always been something, not always someone to observe it though.

It's a mystery.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: newnature1
The bible never sets out to prove there is a God. It assumes that God exists and never questions that assumption. Can science ignore the assumptions within Genesis?

The real question is why do christians ignore the fact that they believe in a being that has zero evidence to support it?

Paul was never about starting a new religion. There’s no “Christianity” in Paul’s letters. There are no “Christians” in Paul’s letters. You can’t find the word. You can’t find the concept. So with all this new religion after Paul, science should dismiss that zero evidence.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: newnature1

originally posted by: ms898
Science would look at the evidence. Evidence is lacking.... it very well to assume something, but science then has to prove it to get acceptance from the scientific community.

My belief is that they wouldn’t assume it because there is very little evidence that there is a god.

There is fossil evidence of those giants on the earth before the flood. These abnormal beings, their destruction was necessary for the preservation of the human race, and for the faithfulness of Yahweh’s Word (Gen. 3:15). Wouldn't science want to know who was behind breeding these beings?

Where are these giant fossils and where is the evidence for a world wide flood?

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: newnature1

originally posted by: ms898
Science would look at the evidence. Evidence is lacking.... it very well to assume something, but science then has to prove it to get acceptance from the scientific community.

My belief is that they wouldn’t assume it because there is very little evidence that there is a god.

There is fossil evidence of those giants on the earth before the flood. These abnormal beings, their destruction was necessary for the preservation of the human race, and for the faithfulness of Yahweh’s Word (Gen. 3:15). Wouldn't science want to know who was behind breeding these beings?

Do you mean the dinosaurs?

The dinosaurs were before the sixth 'a day'.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: newnature1

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: newnature1

Science and the bible have nothing to do with each other...

There would be no science without the bible?

Why does science need the bible?

The bible clearly shows that Genesis should not have happened.

originally posted by: newnature1

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: newnature1

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: newnature1

Science and the bible have nothing to do with each other...

There would be no science without the bible?

Why does science need the bible?

The bible clearly shows that Genesis should not have happened.

why are you using the bible to disprove the bible?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Woodcarver

So woody
I am guessing you believe we evolved from space dust and spacewater

That makes a great deal of sense, ha ha ha

You win the internet

evolution doesnt apply until life has already generated. before that, its sheer physics and chemistry, no biology.

and everything - literally everything around you - is comprised of matter forged in the hearts of stars that died long ago. this is fact.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Thundersmurf

The bible does explain Gods creation, you may not believe it, but it does explain creation. Go read Genesis
Now as for your assumption that if the bible never existed, then probably theWestern nations would not exist.
It was Luther and his desire to educate people that brought science from the dark ages
You have no idea what you are talking about

Because of Genesis 1:1, could God be setting the ground rules for Lucifer. God is being fair to Lucifer when he planted the tree of good and bad in that garden. Lucifer is going to think twice about his attacks, instead of just flooding the earth out again.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: newnature1
The bible never sets out to prove there is a God. It assumes that God exists and never questions that assumption. Can science ignore the assumptions within Genesis?

The real question is why do christians ignore the fact that they believe in a being that has zero evidence to support it?

I think it's about the idea of having faith.. and so, scientific evidence wouldn't matter..