Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
lucaspa has the following as a signature in his post;
"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
Now considering that the resurrection contradicts science...then we must be interpretating the Gospels incorrectly. Or so the above quote would seem to indicate.
I do find it rather odd how some "christians" can carry this double standard.
I told you when I replied to this in the thread "Your Best Source for Creation" that I expected you to pay attention and not use this invalid argument again. And yet here you are.
The Resurrection does not contradict science. You are using invalid science.
Scientifically, what you have with the dead bodies is a THEORY, based upon the individual data points of dead bodies we have observed. The theory states that a person dead will not come back to life. However, you can never prove a theory, you can only test it. So far, all the data supports that theory. BUT, Yeshu's resurrection is DATA. That is the point that has to be kept firmly in mind. The Resurrection is data. Data can always overthrow theory. But you cannot use theory reject data. You cannot generalize from what you have observed to reject the next observation. And that is what you did above. You have used the theory to reject data. Invalid science.
__________________ "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 resurrection does contradict science. Once you're dead, especially for 3 days you stay dead....or do you disagree?
Invalid science. You are trying to use theory to say data is wrong. Can't do that, Ark Guy.
Can you come back to life? Despite the dead brain cells? Despite the pooling of your blood? Despite the rigamortis? Despite the corpse beginning to rot?
The theory states "once you are dead for 36 hours, you stay dead." However, the Resurrection is data that requires a modification of the theory: "once you are dead for 36 hours, you stay dead unless deity changes the situation."
Is that clear?
__________________ "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
I am wondering why your profile used to claim you were a 'science teacher' and now says nothing?
Was the claim false? Or are you embarrassed since reading your posts shows very little science understanding and just a lot of science bashing.
Originally Posted by Ark Guy
Why are you trying to insult me? Do you think this is the proper christian attitude?
Just because I find many flaws with evolutionism doesn't mean I don't understand science....that is, just because I disagree with your INTERPRETATION of science doesn't mean I don't understand it.
i expect an apology from you.
I don't see an insult. I see some questions that you are not answering. Why did you change your signature? Was your claim of being a science teacher false? Were you embarrassed by the claim?
Simple questions, Ark Guy. All you had to do was give simple answers. Also, it isn't your opposition to evolution that shows a poor understanding of science. It is your failure to realize that the Resurrection does not contradict science and some other factual mistakes you have made concerning science.
I see no need for an apology. I do see a need for you to address the questions more directly. I hope you do.
__________________ "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 reason I asked Ark Guy the question was his quibble with signatures. I thought instead of a separate, superfluous thread on Profiles it seemed in spirit of the current thread.
Since he seems to reject any scientific argument I wonder what science he does accept and who the heck would employ soemone who shows (from scanning his past posts) no clue on scientific arguments.
Another point is the irony of him accusing me of not having a 'Christian attitude' and wanting an apology when perusing his posts he frequently accuses others of not being Christian (violating the rules) and just flat out throwing insults around. Where are Ark Guy's apologies?
The reason I asked Ark Guy the question was his quibble with signatures. I thought instead of a separate, superfluous thread on Profiles it seemed in spirit of the current thread.
Ark Guy isn't really quibbling about signatures. Creationists hate the first quote in my signature. Because it passes authority for interpreting scripture from them to God. It also reminds them that God really created and that science is simply the study of that Creation. Creationism wants the Bible, or more correctly the creationist interpretation of the Bible, to be the final authority. If anything in science (God) contradicts their interpretation, we are to take their interpretation. This obviously diminishes the power of Biblical literalism and therefore I see these objections.
Another point is the irony of him accusing me of not having a 'Christian attitude' and wanting an apology when perusing his posts he frequently accuses others of not being Christian (violating the rules) and just flat out throwing insults around. Where are Ark Guy's apologies?
You will find this quite commonly. Part of it is projection. They take what they are uncomfortable with in their own behavior and try to have everyone else do it, too. Part is distraction. If they can divert the thread into discussing these personality traits, then they don't have to discuss arguments and data they can't deal with. Part is, I think, a persecution complex. Ark Guy has just come back from being banned for the behavior you talk about. It appears that he is anxious to make it look like others are guilty of the same behavior.
My suggestion? Turn the other cheek whenever possible. Don't even quote the offending part but just the substance of the post -- assuming there is some. And address the substance.
The only reason I commented is because TheBear tried to teach how to do polite and substantive discussion in a thread here. It didn't work. I know I have no hope of succeeding where TheBear failed (since he is so much more competent than I in these matters) but I am too stubborn to give up.
__________________ "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
Didn't I answer this in another thread... yesterday? Oh well, time for copy/paste.
God could certainly ressurect someone who has been dead for three days. God could also create the world in six days. But God does not hide his works. When he ressurected Jesus, Jesus did not hide in a cave and write a few papers that said "God brought me back, but he doesn't want you to know that he did." He went out and proclaimed that he had been ressurected. Similarly, if God created the world in six days, six thousand years ago then the evidence would proclaim it. It doesn't. He didn't.
The resurrection does contradict science. Once you're dead, especially for 3 days you stay dead....or do you disagree? Can you come back to life? Despite the dead brain cells? Despite the pooling of your blood? Despite the rigamortis? Despite the corpse beginning to rot?
As I said, science can only say that there is no known mechanism that could ressurect a person. Before Einstein, scientists would have said that there is no known mechanism to slow time. Einstein discovered one.
Didn't I answer this in another thread... yesterday? Oh well, time for copy/paste.
God could certainly ressurect someone who has been dead for three days. God could also create the world in six days. But God does not hide his works. When he ressurected Jesus, Jesus did not hide in a cave and write a few papers that said "God brought me back, but he doesn't want you to know that he did." He went out and proclaimed that he had been ressurected. Similarly, if God created the world in six days, six thousand years ago then the evidence would proclaim it. It doesn't. He didn't.
Didn't you read my post on the wine? It was a creation of wine from water. The wine appeared as old, yet it wasn't. Just like the servant told what happened with the water, God in Genesis told us what happened with the creation. God wasn't trying to fool anyone....unlike the theo-evos.
Linear Mode
