Can Science Ignore The Assumptions Within Genesis?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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.

Well said, we can learn a lot from that fifth 'a day' about what you just said.

originally posted by: Tucket

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..

Scientific evidence about Genesis would blow away religions faith about the afterlife. That is why religion takes it by faith, it was only a 24 hour time period during those days in Genesis.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Tucket

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..

maybe they should do a trust fall off a tall building and see which wins, faith or science.

People do put their faith in the wrong thing. What is interesting, God was on the earth before he flood this out
www.youtube.com... God told Noah to build a boat. But Noah took God at his word and for the next 300 years he was building a boat.

originally posted by: newnature1

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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.

Well said, we can learn a lot from that fifth 'a day' about what you just said.

many parallels may be drawn, but the fact remains that metaphysical texts are not a basis for scientific procedure.

originally posted by: newnature1

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Tucket

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..

maybe they should do a trust fall off a tall building and see which wins, faith or science.

People do put their faith in the wrong thing. What is interesting, God was on the earth before he flood this out
www.youtube.com... God told Noah to build a boat. But Noah took God at his word and for the next 300 years he was building a boat.

the noah myth has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: newnature1

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'.

So the giant fossils you speak of, are you talking about dinosaur fossils or giant human fossils?

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Tucket

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Tucket

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..

maybe they should do a trust fall off a tall building and see which wins, faith or science.

That sounds perfectly logical.

Not sure if Jesus will let me, though.. he's pretty protective.

Every temptation is first a thought introduced to our mind by our own carnality or the tempters themselves. If we ruminate on that thought and consider it an option, we will eventually act on it.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
One thing I'm %100 sure of, Jesus will let you DIE if you jump from a high enough building.

Today, religion can only led to one thing, left behind? People will have to wash their own robes.

a reply to: newnature1

That's a hoax video.

You need some serious work.

I've wasted enough time here.

a reply to: TzarChasm

It was a myth anyway, based off reality or not it doesn't and is too old to be debunked. If you care that much about a myth that you try and scientifically dismiss it then you have too much time.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: newnature1

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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.

Well said, we can learn a lot from that fifth 'a day' about what you just said.

many parallels may be drawn, but the fact remains that metaphysical texts are not a basis for scientific procedure.

originally posted by: newnature1

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Tucket

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..

maybe they should do a trust fall off a tall building and see which wins, faith or science.

People do put their faith in the wrong thing. What is interesting, God was on the earth before he flood this out
www.youtube.com... God told Noah to build a boat. But Noah took God at his word and for the next 300 years he was building a boat.

the noah myth has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

Figures of speech in the bible shows the bible is true and there is a God. A figure of speech is never used except for the purpose of calling attention to, emphasizing and intensifying, the reality of the literal sense, and the truth of the historical facts; so that, while the words employed may not be so strictly true to the letter, they are all the more true to the truth conveyed by them, and to the historical events connected with them. Science grew up and should use figures of speech as proof about the history of the bible.

But Noah, we would not be here. The fact that we are here today, is proof enough about that flood and Noah.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: newnature1

That's a hoax video.

You need some serious work.

I've wasted enough time here.

What's your religion?

a reply to: newnature1

Im non religious

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: newnature1

Im non religious

I don't see how someone could make that video up. There was a second irruption of these fallen angels, smaller in number and more limited in area, for they were for the most part confined to Canaan “the nations of Canaan.” These abnormal beings is what Yahweh was getting rid of. But this second irruption took place on Yahweh’s land, the land he promised to Abraham. 


These abnormal beings were to be cut off, and driven out, and utterly destroyed (Deut. 20:17; Josh. 3:10) but Israel failed. We do not know how many got away to other countries to escape the general destruction. If this were recognized, it would go far to solve many problems connected with Anthropology?

It is quiet amusing that people still believe Lucifer is an angel or the devil. Lucifer is a nobody, its a title description.

The last Lucifer to exist was Yeshua.

Also the devil did not cause the flood, that was the other psychopath call Yahweh.

originally posted by: newnature1

originally posted by: Tucket

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Tucket

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..

maybe they should do a trust fall off a tall building and see which wins, faith or science.

That sounds perfectly logical.

Not sure if Jesus will let me, though.. he's pretty protective.

Every temptation is first a thought introduced to our mind by our own carnality or the tempters themselves. If we ruminate on that thought and consider it an option, we will eventually act on it.

No worries, if it comes to me to me jumping off a building....I'll bring a parachute.

a reply to: newnature1

Can science ignore the assumptions within Genesis?

Yes.

Science has already attempted to answer the God hypothesis and there's nothing there to quantify.
It's just hopes and faith something scientist whom deal in the empirical want no part in.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Yes scientist's embrace assumptions, they embrace them so as to find evidence to support said assumptions.
The only assumptions that are ignored are ones that have been disproven through evidence of the contrary or lack their of.

a reply to: newnature1

Read this...

Your giant human skeletons are a hoax

Don't be so brainwashed. Heaven is a lie.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: newnature1

Read this...

Your giant human skeletons are a hoax

Don't be so brainwashed. Heaven is a lie.

I would bet that the National Geographic News is funded by the people behind this money maker. www.youtube.com... The Nephilim, maybe one of these Nephilim will be the Anti-Christ. One of these Nephilim might be the false prophet. Maybe 666 is a blood type. We can see why people want to cover up this Nephilim.

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: newnature1

Can science ignore the assumptions within Genesis?

Yes.

Science has already attempted to answer the God hypothesis and there's nothing there to quantify.
It's just hopes and faith something scientist whom deal in the empirical want no part in.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Yes scientist's embrace assumptions, they embrace them so as to find evidence to support said assumptions.
The only assumptions that are ignored are ones that have been disproven through evidence of the contrary or lack their of.

But Cain is culpable, and for someone to be culpable of something, we have to assume some principle that they have violated. There seems to be in existence from the beginning of creation this universal moral law, and that is: Yahweh-endowed sanctity of human life. The fact that Yahweh has created humans in his own image, but Yahweh-endowed sanctity of human life is an assumption, and it’s the violation of the assumption which makes Cain culpable.

a reply to: newnature1

I missed the last part of your post that read /sarc