Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
Sign in to follow this  
teachmevp

Can Science Ignore The Assumptions Within Genesis?

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by teachmevp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science can ignore any hypothesis for which there is no testable evidence. Genesis as science has not been ignored. It's been utterly refuted and discredited.

Edited by Raf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science can ignore any hypothesis for which there is no testable evidence. Genesis as science has not been ignored. It's been utterly refuted and discredited.

I'm starting to see that point of view, interesting. But on the other hand, Genesis shouldn't have happen. Here is a little more of what I'm trying to say.

Now the earth, the opposite of the created order is ‘nothing,’ (water). But to the ancients, the opposite of the created order was something much worse than ‘nothing’ (chaos). 
God just sat for awhile looking at this new black substance structure from his throne room, letting the great usurper sweet it out. As the great usurper sat in this black substance board out of his mind, all of a sudden a wind (invisible force) from God swept over the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it didn't. :o/>

I remember hearing something in TWI about the attack on the bloodline. I trying to show this great usurper first attack before the tree of knowledge of good and bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're asking about science. In that vein, nothing you're talking about has a shred of evidence to support it. Science need not account for it because there is no "it" to account for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Genesis, Egypt exists.

Unless, Egypt is a metaphor.

Genesis covers a broad number of topics. "Science" is not even a specific term. That the "assumptions" in Genesis are assumptions and not something else is another problem.

Therefore, Egypt does not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course. But Egypt existed independently of the false narrative contained in Genesis and especially Exodus.

In Genesis, camels exist. In fact, they were domesticated in Genesis, which is a really neat trick because in real life, camels weren't domesticated in that region until centuries after the events asserted. If I wrote a novel in which Abraham Lincoln watched CNN, it would not be considered a documentary just because CNN exists.

Nor does science have to account for the assumptions in Genesis just because Egypt and camels exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course. But Egypt existed independently of the false narrative contained in Genesis and especially Exodus.

In Genesis, camels exist. In fact, they were domesticated in Genesis, which is a really neat trick because in real life, camels weren't domesticated in that region until centuries after the events asserted. If I wrote a novel in which Abraham Lincoln watched CNN, it would not be considered a documentary just because CNN exists.

Nor does science have to account for the assumptions in Genesis just because Egypt and camels exist.

I was being, um, facetious, I think is the term.

My point being that the opening post is so broad there is really no topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're asking about science. In that vein, nothing you're talking about has a shred of evidence to support it. Science need not account for it because there is no "it" to account for.

I got to agree with you, deep six the science. I like your help with me with a jig saw puzzle, I'm trying to work on my criterial thinking, and you know I really need to work on my criterial thinking. I got this much of the puzzle.

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. Now the earth, the opposite of the created order is ‘nothing,’ (water). But to the ancients, the opposite of the created order was something much worse than ‘nothing’ (chaos). 


God just sat for awhile looking at this new black substance structure from his throne room, letting the great usurper sweet it out. As the great usurper sat in this black substance board out of his mind, all of a sudden a wind (invisible force) from God swept over the water. Now God is a spirit being, meaning his body is composed of a substance called spirit. God also has a unique kind of life within that body composed of that substance called spirit, but the life God has within himself produces some kind of light (His glory). It was this glory that used to be the light to the earth, but God couldn’t control it, his glory just shines. As God sat in his throne room, out of nowhere he said, “Let there be light.” 


Now, somehow from God’s throne room he was able to focus his glory into a beam and bounced that beam of glory off of a prism of some kind. The glory beam from the other side of that prism went into that black substance structure, yet that black substance structure contained that glory. So as the great usurper and follow usurpers sat on the earth, as the earth turned, they spend time in that glory and then spend time in that black substance. Time, this is something else unique about this black substance structure, an hour is an hour, something the usurper's never experienced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deep six the science.

Yeah, you do that.

The lady who wrote that book Leaving the Way. I used to go to her twig back in 1981 in Cheyenne Wyoming. One night a limb dude taught at that lade's house, I remember he said something like that God put a straw into the universe and blew into it like a ballon. Let's keep science than, here is the beginning of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think God passed gas to start the universe. How does science account for that assumption?

It's a nonsense question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't wish to be rude, but when you start a thread about science and Genesis, you kind of unhinged the door and threw it away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oy vey teach! My suggestion? Go fishing, put a hook in yourself, and, please!.....reel yourself back in. Am I reading Dune? Batman vs Superman? L. Ron Hubbard? I mean.......YIKES dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Science can ignore any hypothesis for which there is no testable evidence. Genesis as science has not been ignored. It's been utterly refuted and discredited.

You're asking about science. In that vein, nothing you're talking about has a shred of evidence to support it. Science need not account for it because there is no "it" to account for.

I got to agree with you, deep six the science. I like your help with me with a jig saw puzzle, I'm trying to work on my criterial thinking, and you know I really need to work on my criterial thinking. I got this much of the puzzle.

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. Now the earth, the opposite of the created order is 'nothing,' (water). But to the ancients, the opposite of the created order was something much worse than 'nothing' (chaos). 


God just sat for awhile looking at this new black substance structure from his throne room, letting the great usurper sweet it out. As the great usurper sat in this black substance board out of his mind, all of a sudden a wind (invisible force) from God swept over the water. Now God is a spirit being, meaning his body is composed of a substance called spirit. God also has a unique kind of life within that body composed of that substance called spirit, but the life God has within himself produces some kind of light (His glory). It was this glory that used to be the light to the earth, but God couldn't control it, his glory just shines. As God sat in his throne room, out of nowhere he said, "Let there be light." 


Now, somehow from God's throne room he was able to focus his glory into a beam and bounced that beam of glory off of a prism of some kind. The glory beam from the other side of that prism went into that black substance structure, yet that black substance structure contained that glory. So as the great usurper and follow usurpers sat on the earth, as the earth turned, they spend time in that glory and then spend time in that black substance. Time, this is something else unique about this black substance structure, an hour is an hour, something the usurper's never experienced.

For what it's worth here's my 2 cents on applying critical thinking to Bible study. Raf made some good points about pursuing testable evidence. Along those lines you may want to check out a thing called hypothesis testing on the Internet . I found one that's simple and clear:

The definition of testable hypothesis is an educated guess containing both a dependent and independent variable which can be used in an experiment to be proven true or false through replication and repetitiveness in the same way.

testable hypothesis

In my humble opinion it seems futile to try to explain singular, unique or phenomenal events mentioned in the Bible by scientific means – which usually involves observation and experimentation. And getting back to your desire to work on critical thinking you may want to re-evaluate your assumptions. The gap theory as I remember it taught by VP (suggesting the rebellion of Satan between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2) – whoever he stole it from I don't know - seems a feeble attempt to explain away the disappearance of dinosaurs and the true age of the earth - this like a lot of the other "scientific" sounding things in PFAL have no scientific merit.

I happen to view Genesis 1:1 as a summary statement of the creation of the entire cosmos and the verses following elaborate on that from earth's viewpoint….I can see why Don't Worry said your said your post reads like Dune or L Ron Hubbard – your re-interpretation of Genesis has a definite science fiction / fantasy bent to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientific almost fact #1 - Babies hear and learn while in the womb.

Scientific almost fact #2 - Children display a shift (some say a drop) in learning around the age of 6.

Gen 1:1 - 2:3 might be a strange way of talking about early development in humans.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...