More Scientific Impossibilities

Often we read where Christians deny the possibility of the events pertaining to the six day creation or the world wide flood of Noah. The major reason for this denial is due to claims that modern science has disproved the accounts presented within Genesis. Genesis is no longer scientifically feasible.
Despite the many scientific evidences pointing to a recent creation and a world wide flood as told in the accounts of Genesis there is still this nagging need to deny the accounts of Genesis yet believe the other scientifically impossible portions of the bible.
For those who choose not to believe in the accounts of Genesis an allegory must be drawn up to explain the verses.

Below are 9 scientifically impossible events that the bible presents as truth. Why is it that some of the events get dismissed and allegorized by “Theistic Evolutionist” while some of the other events are held on to and presented as the literal truth by these same “Theistic Evolutionist” despite their obvious scientific impossibilities?
If the answer is “miracles” then why can’t all the scientific impossibilities be miracles?
Why is it that the events such as a recent creation and the flood which actually have scientific data to support them become allegories while the others with no scientific support are still up held as fact?

The creation of the world in six days did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
REF: Genesis 1-2

The creation of Adam from the dust then Eve from his side did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
REF: Genesis 2:7 , 2:22

The world wide flood of Noah did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
REF: Genesis 6-8

Men living to long ages did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
REF: Genesis 9:29

Moses staff turning into snakes did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
REF: Exodus 4:3

The sun standing still for Joshua did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
REF: Joshua 10:13

Peter walking on the water with Jesus did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
REF: Matthew 14:29

Jesus turning water into wine did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
REF: John 2: 1-11

Jesus Christ rising from the dead did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
REF: John 20,21

Perhaps it’s best to allegorize the resurrection of Jesus Christ along with the six day creation....after all, both are scientifically impossible. Dead guys don’t rise from the grave after 3 days.
That would be the natural “scientific” interpretational tendencies. Allegorize.

The above questions make me think of the following question:
Why is it the Theistic Evolutionist can believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ which is scientifically impossible, yet deny the six day creation performed by Jesus Christ as written in the accounts of Genesis...which is also considered as scientifically impossible?

I believe the bottom line of biblical translation for the Theistic Evolutionist is as follows:
If it relates to the flood or creation, it's an allegory.
Of course there is a danger in presenting this kind of a watered down scientifically impossible pick and choose your miracle bible .....salvation is easly lost.

But you are doing it again, setting up a strawman so you can knock it down

We have covered this all before.

Christians who believe in an old earth do not do so because a young earth is "scientifically impossible".

Christians who believe in a local flood because a global flood is scientifically impossible.

God is God and can do any miracle He likes, and if He wanted to make the universe in six seconds, He could. No problem there at all.

The problem is not that it is "scientifically impossible" at all. The problem is that the evidence shows very clearly that God did NOT perform His miracle of creation in that particular way. And, the Scripture does not say explicitly that He did. So, why would we disbelieve the evidence God gave us in His creation in favor of one possible reading out of many?

As for the other miracles, the evidence is equally clear that God DID perform the miracle of the resurrection, etc, or there is no evidence at all from God's creation to *disbelieve* it, so I choose to accept it as literal.

The fact that something is "impossible" without God's intervention is NEVER a reason to disbelieve anything since God can always over-ride the natural laws He, Himself, created.

God can perform any miracle He likes, but He does not always perform it in the way that fallible man have read the Scriptures.

Vance covered this quite well. I'm going to repeat a lot of what he said, but I think it needs repitition. Ark Guy, you have posted this at least 3 times before, and every time I've shown how you have a mistaken notion of science. Now, in order to have a valid point, you must address my refutations. You can't simply ignore them.

You simply have a mistaken idea of how science works and what we are saying.

Originally Posted by Ark Guy

Often we read where Christians deny the possibility of the events pertaining to the six day creation or the world wide flood of Noah.

As Vance said, we don't deny the possibility. We deny the events happened. Big difference. Yes, it is possible that God created the universe in 144 hours in the recent past and had a world-wide Flood that acconts for all of geology. However, the evidence in God's Creation clearly shows this did not happen. If we had found different evidence (and we can go into what that evidence would have been) then we would have concluded that Creation Science was correct.

The major reason for this denial is due to claims that modern science has disproved the accounts presented within Genesis. Genesis is no longer scientifically feasible.

Yes, the literal interpretation of the accounts are disproved. Specifically, the scientific theory that is Creation Science or YEC is disproved. The same way that flat earth, geocentrism, aether, or phlogiston as part of combustion is disproved.

Despite the many scientific evidences pointing to a recent creation and a world wide flood as told in the accounts of Genesis there is still this nagging need to deny the accounts of Genesis yet believe the other scientifically impossible portions of the bible.

Ark Guy, every theory has "evidences pointing to" it. Flat earth has evidences pointing to it. So does the theory that the earth is the center of the solar system. Since every theory has evidences supporting it, such evidences cannot be used as the sole criteria to say a theory is valid. By that criteria, every theory is valid. Instead, science works by showing theories to be false, or wrong. Do you get that? No matter how many times you go onto a prairie and the earth looks flat, there are data that simply can't be there if the earth were really flat. Therefore that theory is wrong. Same with Creation Science. There is data there that can't possibly be there if Creation Science were true. Since true theories can't have false consequences, it means Creation Science is false.

Why is it that some of the events get dismissed and allegorized by “Theistic Evolutionist” while some of the other events are held on to and presented as the literal truth by these same “Theistic Evolutionist” despite their obvious scientific impossibilities?

Because some of the events have data that show they didn't happen. The other events don't have such data.

If the answer is “miracles” then why can’t all the scientific impossibilities be miracles?

Because even miracles have consequences. In some cases those consequences leave evidence we can study today. In those cases, we can say the "miracles" didn't happen because the consequences (data) aren't there. In other cases, the miracles did not leave consequences (data) we can study today.

Why is it that the events such as a recent creation and the flood which actually have scientific data to support them become allegories while the others with no scientific support are still up held as fact?

Because recent creation and the flood have data that falsifies them and the others do not.

The creation of the world in six days did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.

No. Because there is data that shows it didn't happen.

The creation of Adam from the dust then Eve from his side did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.

No. Because there is data that shows it didn't happen.

The world wide flood of Noah did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.

Ark Guy, this was a "popular scientific belief". In the period 1700-1831 scientists believed a world wide flood of Noah happened. These same scientists, all of whom were Christian and most of whom were ministers, showed that a word-wide flood did not happen.

Men living to long ages did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.

Because the data shows it impossible. Ever hear of Hayflick's number?

Moses staff turning into snakes did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.

What is the data that shows this to not have happened? Do we have the staff? What evidence is there today to show it didn't happen? So be specific: how has this been shown to be scientifically impossible?

The sun standing still for Joshua did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.

Again, data shows this one didn't happen. Such a standstill would have released enough energy to melt the earth. Besides, don't you think other peoples would have noticed and written about the event?

Peter walking on the water with Jesus did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.

Where is the data to show this didn't happen?

Jesus turning water into wine did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.

Where's the data? They drank it all, didn't they?

Jesus Christ rising from the dead did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.

Where's the data to show it didn't happen? Got a body you can positively identify as belonging to Yeshu ben Joseph?

[quote[ The above questions make me think of the following question:
Why is it the Theistic Evolutionist can believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ which is scientifically impossible, yet deny the six day creation performed by Jesus Christ as written in the accounts of Genesis...which is also considered as scientifically impossible? [/quote]
Because to do the first you have to commit the second worst crime in science -- use theory to deny data -- while in the second you have data to deny theory.

Understand, Ark Guy? To be consistent as scientists, the resurrection must be acknowledged to be possible.

This has less to do with Bible interpretation than it has to do with doing correct science. To do correct science, you must consider that the resurrection possibly happened.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

The only thing I would add is that science may state that a particular event *is* impossible, such as the resurrection from the dead.

What this means is that it is impossible "in the natural", following the rules which control the natural world God created.

As Christians we can agree that it is "scientifically impossible", meaning that the event could not happen following the natural laws, but still believe it happened without any problem, since God, the author of the natural laws, can choose to over-ride them at any time He pleases.

Vance: But you are doing it again, setting up a strawman so you can knock it down

No strawman...

We have covered this all before.

Christians who believe in an old earth do not do so because a young earth is "scientifically impossible".

Yeah right. The Theo-Evo Sect needs an old earth for their false evolutionary theory to work. Because they believe in this hoax, they present a young earth as scientifically impossible....disregarding the miracles performed by Jesus Christ as per the bible. That much should be rather obvious to you.

Christians who believe in a local flood because a global flood is scientifically impossible.

In complete disregard for what the bible has to say. They claim the bible is incorrect when it describes the flood waters....Now if the bible is incorrect here, where else might it be incorrect? The resurrection? That too is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

God is God and can do any miracle He likes, and if He wanted to make the universe in six seconds, He could. No problem there at all.

true..but the bible says six days, or will you be claiming that a day equals a second?

The problem is not that it is "scientifically impossible" at all. The problem is that the evidence shows very clearly that God did NOT perform His miracle of creation in that particular way. And, the Scripture does not say explicitly that He did. So, why would we disbelieve the evidence God gave us in His creation in favor of one possible reading out of many?

Your faulty presentation of science makes this claim..then you filter Genesis...Gods Word...through your faulty scientific interpretations.
BTW: the scriptures do explicitly say six days and the scripyures do explicitly say Adam was formed from the dust and Eve from his side...sorry.

...would you like me to quote the verses again?

As for the other miracles, the evidence is equally clear that God DID perform the miracle of the resurrection, etc, or there is no evidence at all from God's creation to *disbelieve* it, so I choose to accept it as literal.

There is plenty of reason to disbelieve it occured...outside of a miracle....dead guys don't get up and walk around on day 3 after being dead. Especially suffering the death Jesus Christ did.
JUST LIKE YOU CLAIMS THE EVIDENCE SAYS NO FOR CREATION, THE EVIDENCE SAYS NO FOR THE RESURRECTION...unless a miracle is involved.

The fact that something is "impossible" without God's intervention is NEVER a reason to disbelieve anything since God can always over-ride the natural laws He, Himself, created.

You seem to disbelieve Genesis....and certain passages in the New Testament. You run it through your evo-filter and then deem the bible as incorrrect in certain instances....but don't touch the resurrection.

God can perform any miracle He likes, but He does not always perform it in the way that fallible man have read the Scriptures.

Why would God perform a miracle, tell us about it, then cover up what he really did?

Funny how you claim natural law made Adam and Eve...rather than what the bible claims...yet consider yourself a bible believing christian.

I have trouble with screwed up logic like that.

In the bible we read that there once was wedding which took place at Cana in Galilee. During the wedding the servants gave the master of the banquet some wine to taste. The master of the banquet seemed to really enjoy the taste of the wine. As a matter of fact the master of the banquet took the bridegroom aside and complimented him on bringing out the better wine near the end of the wedding.

If you were to test the wine that the servants gave to the master of the banquet to taste, you would have laboratory results returned to you that indicated it was indeed a beverage that came from a fruit that use to hang on a vine in a vineyard. For all practical purposes the wine had a history. The test results would be irrefutable scientific proof. If you could extract the DNA from the beverage it would be an identical match to the grape DNA. The history of the wine would lead to a grape vine.

But what is the truth? Did the wine really come from a grape vine? The bible tells us in John 2 that the wine did not have its start on a grape vine as the scientific test would have concluded. Rrather Jesus turned some water in clay jars into the wine. Water to wine was it’s simple history.

Didn't we already have a discussion about the difference between impossible and falifiable/falsified?

The young earth and a worldwide flood HAS been falsified (by Christians, long before evolution came up)

The resurrection HAS NOT been falsified.
The water to wine miracle HAS NOT been falsified.

By not discussing the issue of falsification, Arkguy seems to be trying to avoid scientific method altogether yet somehow claim victory using what science says is "impossible".

The logic escapes me.

Is it impossible for a rock to fall up? Certainly not if a miracle takes place. Can we be for certain that a rock has never fallen up? Nope.

If I drop a rock and it falls down and hits the ground, it leaves evidence that it DID NOT fall up. So, for that rock, the conclusion that it fell up has been FALSIFIED, even though it is not impossible for a rock to fall up through a miracle.

Arkguy,

I do not say this lightly, I apologize in advance to all the other posters out there, and I may get slapped on the wrist for it, but:

your posts indicate that you are either incredibly dense, in that you don't even seem to understand the points being made, or are just sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la, la, la, I can't hear you!" It would be different if your responses at least indicated that you understood the point, just didn't agree with it, but you prove your lack of understanding with every post.

Your posts simply don't make any sense in response to the points being made.

And, your constant attacks against the validity of the religious beliefs of others is against the specific rules of these boards.

Unless you come up with a halfway intelligent response which grasps the points being made and deals with them (the way some other YEC's around here do), then I am not going to bother with you anymore. You are simply not worth the time and effort.

Now your back to God covering his tracks. The analogy you use, if put to creation, would be that we take DNA from the wine and it tests as apple juice. If creation happened in the bible, not only would the miracle of creation be grand, but the grandest miracles of all would be those that God used to cover the tracks that he created the world in 6 days a short time ago (not to mention covering his tracks after the flood). This to me doesn't fit the nature of God as outlined in the scriptures.