Can Science Ignore The Assumptions Within Genesis?

Why would "science" assume God exists?

Because it says so in a book?

originally posted by: Kandinsky

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?

It can, it does and it ought to.

Why?

There's nothing to be gained from the narrative of Genesis. Not for science, plenty there for comparative mythology, social dynamics and cultural psychology; even literary analysis.

If you spend a little time looking at the religious cosmologies, origin myths and creation myths, you'll see a few similarities and a lot of differences. They came about through human imagination and experience seeking to explain the world around, and above, them. You'll probably enjoy reading them as much as I have because it's as close to speaking to our ancestors as we can get.

Genesis has some beautiful passages, really evocative, but what can science do with any of them?

But science grew up, it must take it's knowledge and take another look at Genesis.

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

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?

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.

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?

a reply to: Raggedyman

I can assuredly say %99.9 of scientists don't do their work for fame.

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?

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?

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?

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

a reply to: Alien Abduct


Yes. I find it ridiculous because it is ridiculous. To say that the Universe, empty space and all, was at one time condensed into a single small point that for no apparent reason decided to go bang and then over billions of "years" of chaos everything settled so perfectly that it could support life, and this supportive climate produced life, again for no explainable reason, is unprovable to say the least.

But to take it as fact, is ridiculous. It doesn't make sense.

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

A quote from martin luther.

Come, my princes, strike! To arms! Thrust! The times have come, blessed times where with blood a prince can win heaven more easily that we can with our prayers; I, Martin Luther, I myself ordered their tortures, impalement, beheading, bludgeoning.

Luther was an ultra violent murderer who saw god in everything. If you want to bring him into this then at least be honest about him.

He believed in god because.....trees.
" " because......music
". " because......babies

He used his interpretations of the bible to gain power over people and force a brutal swell of acquiescence. Or you died in his wake. Why not just quote Ggengis Khan? Oh, he wasn't a christian.

originally posted by: Heresiarch
a reply to: Alien Abduct


Yes. I find it ridiculous because it is ridiculous. To say that the Universe, empty space and all, was at one time condensed into a single small point that for no apparent reason decided to go bang and then over billions of "years" of chaos everything settled so perfectly that it could support life, and this supportive climate produced life, again for no explainable reason, is unprovable to say the least.

But to take it as fact, is ridiculous. It doesn't make sense.

It makes a great deal of sense actually. A lot more detail and evidence than goditit.

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?

originally posted by: Heresiarch
a reply to: Alien Abduct


Yes. I find it ridiculous because it is ridiculous. To say that the Universe, empty space and all, was at one time condensed into a single small point that for no apparent reason decided to go bang and then over billions of "years" of chaos everything settled so perfectly that it could support life, and this supportive climate produced life, again for no explainable reason, is unprovable to say the least.

But to take it as fact, is ridiculous. It doesn't make sense.

Its pretty simple:

- there is some strong evidence that points to the big bang. Notably bangdround radiation and the expanding universe.

- the big bang is no worse than an invisible god did it. Who created god? Just as many questions.

See? One has at least some evidence pointing towards it. The other raises more questions and answers none.

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.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Oh yawn wood carver so what
Luther was a corrupt man who caused a peasant revolt blah blah blah blah

You said science this and science that

Read my comment about Luther bringing education to the forefront, that's what brought about the great leaps forward in science
Luther and education reform, that's the issue

I know luthers faults, he was a man and a sinner

You can thank Luther for your education

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

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

It makes more sense than 'a magic man did it with magical superpowers'