Can Science Ignore The Assumptions Within Genesis?

originally posted by: coomba98
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.

Genesis shouldn’t have happened. The bible assumes that an attacker exits and never questions that assumption.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: newnature1

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

The Nephilim, these mighty men, the men of renown. The explanation of the origin of the Greek mythology, that mythology was no mere invention of the human brain. But it grew out of the traditions, and memories, and legends of the doings of that mighty race of beings, and was gradually evolved out of the ‘heroes’ of Gen. 6:4. There are huge building under water off the coast of Japan.

originally posted by: Tucket

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.

Satan and his forces can try to influence us by planting thoughts in our mind, but they cannot read our thoughts. If we are going to resist Satan and his forces, we must do so outwardly, so they can understand us and be put to flight. We cannot expect God to protect us from Satan and his forces influences if we do not take an active part in God’s prepared strategy.

Science can and will ignore genesis because it was written by archaic men to explain origin of life WITHOUT scientific evidence to support it because it was before any scientific achievement they still believed water was under earth.. Two things wrong with that 1 earth is not flat(if you have ever been on an airplane you can see the curvature of the earth) and 2 magma is under water in the ocean.. But those archaic men didn't know that.. Imagine if somehow a person from the era of when the scriptures we're written came into your house, he would claim that your fridge and oven are sorcery and your tv was a Satan trapping victims and your car is a dragon but yet you will believe him in explaing why and how earth exists??? Newnature1 can have a field day explaining how MAN was their to witness the beginning of time even before man existed and to write about it with an alphabet and linguistics. Maybe post a yt video explaining it with blurry photos and a synth playing noises. honestly I know it's hard to believe that people aren't immortal but if you live life in fear you will die knowing you have never really lived... Peace Out

Genesis 1:1 shouldn’t have happened. The bible assumes that the great usurper exits and never questions that assumption. The earth flooded out proves the great usurper is not an unfounded assumption. The beginning of the universe is in Genesis 1:1. Darkness was upon the earth, it appears the earth is in some kind of black substance. The great usurper and those who helped him out are on the earth, but would they be willing to explore this black substance? This black substance is so dark, the great usurper can’t see his hand in front of his face.

"People can't see facts in front of their face" reality: 101. So arrogant for humans to fathom such an idea of one all knowing being who we are closer to than any other living thing. Like we are so special out of an infinite number of galaxies. Nay we humans know ALL. Wow

originally posted by: factoverfiction
"People can't see facts in front of their face" reality: 101. So arrogant for humans to fathom such an idea of one all knowing being who we are closer to than any other living thing. Like we are so special out of an infinite number of galaxies. Nay we humans know ALL. Wow

It would be unfair to the great usurper if there was life on another planet. No, the great usurper started what he did on this planet, because he had a goal. If there was life on another planet, the great usurper would have to spit up his follow usurpers.

What I can conclude from this post is that facts, science does not apply to religion. Archeology is a form of a scientific study which has already PROVEN no flood, no exodus and therefore, no genesis as it was written. But you won't believe that even with undeniable proof and that's the point. You cannot mix the two because no matter what, you will have your beliefs so why even ask? If you wanted to convert someone ats is probably not the right place. Try a homeless person or a prisoner their minds are weak so they'll believe whatever you want, you'll get gratification and we on ats will continue to deny ignorance.

originally posted by: factoverfiction
What I can conclude from this post is that facts, science does not apply to religion. Archeology is a form of a scientific study which has already PROVEN no flood, no exodus and therefore, no genesis as it was written. But you won't believe that even with undeniable proof and that's the point. You cannot mix the two because no matter what, you will have your beliefs so why even ask? If you wanted to convert someone ats is probably not the right place. Try a homeless person or a prisoner their minds are weak so they'll believe whatever you want, you'll get gratification and we on ats will continue to deny ignorance.

Maybe someone from ATS knows a little about this Genesis. Thanks for throwing your eggs.

a reply to: Raggedyman

This presumes there vis a single deity and not many. I see more evidence of many than oif one.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

This presumes there vis a single deity and not many. I see more evidence of many than oif one.

But the great usurper was forced to stay on the earth in this black substance, seems he don't have that much power. The earth, the opposite of the created order is ‘nothing,’ but to the ancients, the opposite of the created order was something much worse than ‘nothing.’ Then all of a sudden, a wind (invisible force) from God sweeping over the water. That must have been an eye opener for the great usurper.

originally posted by: newnature1

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...

Dr kent hovind? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ooooohhhh....... Now i know your a fruit bat.

Kent hovind is so full of BS. I should have realised your a big fan of his. If you are citing his work, then you should really rethink your entire life. You believe in giants because kent hovind says there were giants? Where is his evidence? Did you even care enough to find these giant bones? Or do you always accept the claims made by apologists?

When people like you come to your conclusions without any evidence, then facts and evidence will not be enough to convince you. You are so convinced that the bible is gods word, that nothing else matters?


Kent hovind..... You couldn't fill a fleas ass with his credibility.

originally posted by: newnature1

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: newnature1

Science can easily ignore assumptions, even those made in Genesis, because science is based on evidence. The assumptions made in Genesis are just that, assumptions, and have no evidence. Did the Garden of Eden even exist, or was it a tale told?

In the end, Genesis is just a book.

Why couldn't God just start over. Because God is accountable to 24 other individuals, they can not be destroyed. That tree of good and bad is proof that God gave Lucifer a fair chance.

What?....What? ....... Which 24 individuals? Oh my, someone needs to break your computer.

a reply to: Woodcarver

How quaint
You attack the man not the evidence

Now what do we call that, oh yeah

Cmon woody, you are better than that, I hope

Hovinds hated because he makes those who believe in evolution look silly, that's why nobody has the courage to,argue with him

Of course if I was to dismiss your evolved monkeys you would label me, it's just hypocrisy

Fight the message not the man

newnature1

Why couldn't God just start over. Because God is accountable to 24 other individuals, they can not be destroyed. That tree of good and bad is proof that God gave Lucifer a fair chance.

What?....What? ....... Which 24 individuals? Oh my, someone needs to break your computer. Allegorical stories are not proof of anything. Otherwise we would have to believe in every mythological account. Including the tortoise and the hare.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Woodcarver

How quaint
You attack the man not the evidence

Now what do we call that, oh yeah

Cmon woody, you are better than that, I hope

Hovinds hated because he makes those who believe in evolution look silly, that's why nobody has the courage to,argue with him

Of course if I was to dismiss your evolved monkeys you would label me, it's just hypocrisy

Fight the message not the man

what evidence? There is no evidence, and that is the point. Show me the evidence already. Youtube videos of kent hovind are not evidence. He presents no evidence in his video. You never present any evidence, even though ive been asking you for years now. Kent hovind uses the bible as evidence and then people cite him as their source for the existence of giants. The msg is rediculous, it refutes itself. The man deserves to be attacked as he keeps on spilling this nonsense in peoples heads. I know you eat that stuff for breakfast, but that just puts you in the same category as him. You forsake any evidence that contradicts your faith. Your kind are few and growing fewer. I respect you as a human but your beliefs and your religion are laughable. You are just too ready to accept anything that matches your bias. I know there is nothing that will change your mind, and that should be the first sign that you are not willing to look at the actual facts. There is an entire world that you are ignoring in lieu of ancient writings made by ancient uneducated men. Words that refute themselves. I know it does no good to tell you these things and that is evidence of the sad state of affairs in this world. Education is a lost art.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: newnature1

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...

Dr kent hovind? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ooooohhhh....... Now i know your a fruit bat.

Kent hovind is so full of BS. I should have realised your a big fan of his. If you are citing his work, then you should really rethink your entire life. You believe in giants because kent hovind says there were giants? Where is his evidence? Did you even care enough to find these giant bones? Or do you always accept the claims made by apologists?

When people like you come to your conclusions without any evidence, then facts and evidence will not be enough to convince you. You are so convinced that the bible is gods word, that nothing else matters?


Kent hovind..... You couldn't fill a fleas ass with his credibility.

See, you are having fun. That is funny, I don't know Kent Hovind, I can careless who he is. I just picked a video, saw those pictures and thought, good enough. They say a picture is worth a thousand word. Maybe someone will find some more cooler pictures to share. 40 years ago, I knew about the Nephilim. Happy to be able to bring a smile to your face, thanks for this insight.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: newnature1

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: newnature1

Science can easily ignore assumptions, even those made in Genesis, because science is based on evidence. The assumptions made in Genesis are just that, assumptions, and have no evidence. Did the Garden of Eden even exist, or was it a tale told?

In the end, Genesis is just a book.

Why couldn't God just start over. Because God is accountable to 24 other individuals, they can not be destroyed. That tree of good and bad is proof that God gave Lucifer a fair chance.

What?....What? ....... Which 24 individuals? Oh my, someone needs to break your computer.

Revelations, the first vision 'in Heaven' chapter 4. But before you look there, I been trying to say that this earth was in that structure before it was in this black substance structure here in Genesis 1:1. God did NOT create those 24 Elders, they were with him before he built that structure, so were the 4 zoa. After God committed himself this structure, he went to the north side of that structure and added an addition that structure. In this north is where that throne is and its surroundings.

originally posted by: newnature1

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: newnature1

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: newnature1

Science can easily ignore assumptions, even those made in Genesis, because science is based on evidence. The assumptions made in Genesis are just that, assumptions, and have no evidence. Did the Garden of Eden even exist, or was it a tale told?

In the end, Genesis is just a book.

Why couldn't God just start over. Because God is accountable to 24 other individuals, they can not be destroyed. That tree of good and bad is proof that God gave Lucifer a fair chance.

What?....What? ....... Which 24 individuals? Oh my, someone needs to break your computer.

Revelations, the first vision 'in Heaven' chapter 4. But before you look there, I been trying to say that this earth was in that structure before it was in this black substance structure here in Genesis 1:1. God did NOT create those 24 Elders, they were with him before he built that structure they are in now, so were the 4 zoa. After God committed himself this structure, he went to the north side of that structure and added an addition to that structure. In this north is where that throne is and its surroundings.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Oh crikey
You didn't watch the tube clip

No surprise there

Talk talk

Sorry woody, all you did is bag the man and ignored the video
He has some great evidence, ignore it if you like but.. Please don't say there is no evidence, makes you look insincere