Scientifically Impossible

JesusServant · #91 3rd September 2003, 01:29 PM

MOD HAT ON

Folks, please be civil to one another and remember that as believers we are to be lights set upon hills to others. Remember to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If I see any more flaming this thread will be closed and warnings issued. Thanks!

MOD HAT OFF

Saint Philip · #92 3rd September 2003, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Ark Guy

The question becomes....how can a christian believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ which is a scientifically impossible event

I read a number of replies (not all), and saw that no one answered your question. It was argued that there is no scientific evidence against the resurrection but there is against a six-day creation. This is a non-answer because your point is about rejecting the scientifically impossible, not about rejecting something the evidence points away from.

They should just say that scientific impossibility has nothing to do with whether Jesus came back from the dead or whether God created the universe in six days. These are acts of God, not of nature.

Then they should keep on eye on themselves to prevent themselves from using the "impossible" argument against a Creationist.

Now, let's talk about scientific impossibilities, such as nature creating life from warm ponds.

lucaspa · #93 3rd September 2003, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Saint Philip

I read a number of replies (not all), and saw that no one answered your question. It was argued that there is no scientific evidence against the resurrection but there is against a six-day creation. This is a non-answer because your point is about rejecting the scientifically impossible, not about rejecting something the evidence points away from.

SaintPhillip, go back and look at my first post in the thread. I directly addressed the issue.

To summarize, saying "the dead do not rise" is a theory. Theories must be tested against data. Jesus' resurrection is data. Thus, the resurrection would show the theory wrong. The reason it does not is that the resurrection's documentation is not rigorous enough for science. It is therefore an anomaly as far as science is concerned.

You cannot use theory to say data is wrong.

Now, the problem is that creationism does exactly that -- use theory to say data is wrong. The theory here is a 144 hr instantaneous creation in the recent past according to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Both ICR and AiG explicitly state that no evidence can be considered that goes counter to the theory.

Now, let's talk about scientific impossibilities, such as nature creating life from warm ponds.

Not so impossible.
Start here and we can then discuss it in more detail. Or you can go to the other forum and look up the thread "Primordial Soup"
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

BTW, this is not "nature" creating. It is God creating. All we are seeing here are the material mechanisms God uses.

lucaspa · #94 3rd September 2003, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Vance

A new way to abandon a discussion:

the retreat into righteous indignation.

I will inform my logic professor (if I can track him down after so many years)

That's what it looks like. He can call me names but doesn't like examining his own position. However, I'm sure we'll make contact again.

I am still very puzzled, however.

I show that the Resurrection is not impossible by science and Malaka gets very upset. Why? What's the motive in desiring the resurrection to be impossible to science?

lucaspa · #95 3rd September 2003, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Malaka

[lucaspa] To me it looks like you put your interpretation of the Bible above God. Isn't that false idol worship?

Lucaspa,

You have resorted to name calling and labeling... and I am done with your comments. If you want me to assign a listing of names and characteristics of heresies that fit your profile... then I can to that... but it won't serve any purpose.

Unfortunately, you didn't address my question. I am serious. It does look like false idol worship to me. If I've followed a wrong logical path here it would serve a purpose to show where I left the path.

Also, you talk about "heresies that fit your profile". Isn't that a bit personal? I am talking about creationism being heresy. Not you being a heresy. Again, I am not the only one looking at creationism and reaching that conclusion. If we have all somehow made a mistake, wouldn't it be of interest to show just how that mistake occurred?

Saint Philip · #96 3rd September 2003, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

SaintPhillip, go back and look at my first post in the thread. I directly addressed the issue.

To summarize, saying "the dead do not rise" is a theory. Theories must be tested against data. Jesus' resurrection is data. Thus, the resurrection would show the theory wrong. The reason it does not is that the resurrection's documentation is not rigorous enough for science. It is therefore an anomaly as far as science is concerned.

In reading this thread, I did not get as far as your first post. But, you essentually said what I said. "Scientifically Impossible" is not the issue, but whether the evidence refutes the occurence of the event. But, this raises a question.

If you had sufficient data, how do you know the resurrection wouldn't be shown false? I've heard of faith in the unknown, but this looks like faith in ignorance.

Start here and we can then discuss it in more detail. Or you can go to the other forum and look up the thread "Primordial Soup"

"Sid was also the first to synthesize a protein by heating amino acids under conditions found here on planet earth. Also, he was the first to show that these new thermal proteins, when placed in water, would self-organize into a living cell."

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

So, Sid made living cells just by heating a few amino acids and dropping them in water? Sorry, a few bubbles are an insignificant step toward life. You might as well spray some mist against a window and when the window fogs up claim "I've created living breath!"

The interesting obstacle is not to discover whether the laws of chemistry are the same outside as inside of living creatures, but to explain where the genetic information came from in the first place.

lucaspa · #97 3rd September 2003, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by Saint Philip

In reading this thread, I did not get as far as your first post. But, you essentually said what I said. "Scientifically Impossible" is not the issue, but whether the evidence refutes the occurence of the event. But, this raises a question.

I disagree. "scientifically impossible" is the issue. This is what ArkGuy said "The problem is when one continues to interpret the rest of the bible with this same biblical/scientific logic. For example, if a man dies science says that it is medically impossible to come back to life on the third day."

Arkguy was using a theory -- dead people don't come back to life on the third day -- to deny the data that a dead guy came back to life on the third day. This is not science. Theory always bends or breaks in the face of data. Data never goes away in the face of theory.

If you had sufficient data, how do you know the resurrection wouldn't be shown false? I've heard of faith in the unknown, but this looks like faith in ignorance.

I don't. Just as I don't know that mammalian fossils in Cambrian strata might be found tomorrow and show common ancestry to be false. You go with the data you have today and change your view if and when new data becomes available.

However, faith in the Resurrection is not based solely on the fact that the Resurrection is not falsified, just like acceptance of evolution is based solely because it has not been falsified.

Faith in the Resurrection is based on three general types of personal experience:
1. Trust in the gospel accounts.
2. Experience of the risen Jesus, either firsthand or trust of those who report such experience.
3. General agreement with the idea of Resurrection with your own personal life experiences.

Now, science works only with a subset of personal experience. Personal experience that is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. The three types of evidence above don't fit that subset.

"Sid was also the first to synthesize a protein by heating amino acids under conditions found here on planet earth. Also, he was the first to show that these new thermal proteins, when placed in water, would self-organize into a living cell."

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

So, Sid made living cells just by heating a few amino acids and dropping them in water? Sorry, a few bubbles are an insignificant step toward life.

Yes. And do you seriously think the speaker, and I, would say the cells were living if that was all they were? Of course not!

What is life? Life is defined as having all of the following characteristics:
1. Metabolism (anabolism and catabolism)
2. Response to stimuli
3. Growth
4. Reproduction.

The protocells do all three. They are alive.

Seriously, Saint Phillip, you need to check your facts before you just go into denial.

The interesting obstacle is not to discover whether the laws of chemistry are the same outside as inside of living creatures, but to explain where the genetic information came from in the first place.

Oh, that's easy. Been done.

1. The thermal proteins already have information. In fact, protocells have more information in them than modern cells. You see, the amino acids in the proteins made by chemistry is not random. The sequences are ordered. That means information.
2. Protocells make RNA/DNA. That gives you the genetic material.
3. There is selective binding between particular types of proteins and certain types of DNA (see below). That is the beginning of coding.
4. Natural selection, like all selection, generates information.

What I find disturbing in your argument is god-of-the-gaps and violation of Christian doctrine about creation. What you are doing is saying that God did not create a complete universe. God has to directly intervene to connect two parts of the material universe. This makes God a material creature, which is directly counter to Christian doctrine.

"In more recent work, Fox and his colleagues have shown that basic proteinoids, rich in lysine residues, selectively associate with the homopolynucleotides poly C and poly U but not with poly A or poly G. On the other hand, arginine-rich proteinoids associate selectively with poly A and poly G. In this manner, the information in proteinoids can be used to select polynucleotides. Morever, it is striking that aminoacyl adenylates yield oligopeptides when incubated with proteinoid-polynucleotide complexes, which thus have some of the characteristics of ribosomes. Fox has suggested that proteinoids bearing this sort of primitive chemical information could have transferred it to a primitive nucleic acid; the specificity of interaction between certain proteinoids and polynucleotides suggests the beginning of the genetic code." A. Lehninger, Biochemistry, 1975, pp 1047-1048