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.
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.
Is this the best you have?
Resurrection is scientifically impossible. ESPECIALLY 2000 YEARS AGO.
So, what you're saying is that evolution would be the normal way the world would work, and that the miracle of Creation is that God did it in six days, where it would normally have taken billions of years?
Because you sure seem to be arguing an analogy that requires that we have some idea of how long it takes life to arise without divine intervention.
__________________ Save me / And when you see me strut / Remind me of what left this outlaw torn I follow Christ; therefore I am To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . I affirm the Nicene Creed.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. -- Romans 8:38-39
Invalid science. You are trying to use theory to say data is wrong. Can't do that, Ark Guy.
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?
Are you claiming that deity could not have created in six days? Seems like it....but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
remember how the wine was created with apparent age? An apparent history? Then why not certain aspects of the universe? I.E., light created in transit from a distant star.
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.
What does the quoation marks around the word, "christians" mean? Are you a "christian"?
Resurrection is scientifically impossible. ESPECIALLY 2000 YEARS AGO.
No. Resurrection is never scientifically impossible. Remember, it is data. Data -- observations -- are never "impossible". We don't have a material mechanism to resurrect a person after 36 hours, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means we can't do it. Why do you want the Resurrection to be "scientifically impossible"? I know why atheists do. They use that to try to falsify Christianity. But I don't understand your motive.
Let's take another example. Two objects cannot exist in different places at the same time. All our experience says this is so, right? Yet along comes this paper: 15. J Winters, Quantum cat tricks. Discover, 17(10): 26, Oct. 1996.
The researchers took an atom in both its spin up and spin down quantum states and separated them. Same atom but in two different places at the same time! Now, what am I supposed to do? According to you, I'm supposed to say "this is scientifically impossible" and say it didn't happen. I say I accept the observation and change the theory. Two objects can exist in different places at the same time.
Same thing with the Resurrection. A person dead 36 hours can come back to life. IF God intervenes and makes it so. If God does not intervene, then the person stays dead.
Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
__________________ "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
Are you claiming that deity could not have created in six days? Seems like it....but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Why not put words in my mouth here? You do it everywhere else.
Bushido gave the answer. We are not saying God could not. We are saying God did not. And I've told you this several times already. You don't have to like the answer, but you need to stop pretending you haven't got it.
remember how the wine was created with apparent age? An apparent history? Then why not certain aspects of the universe? I.E., light created in transit from a distant star.
I did this in another thread. This seems to be the new creationist reply to objections to the Oomphalos Argument. The wine was duplicated. In essence, it was photocopied. Jesus made a copy of what already existed. Of course the photocopy is going to have the appearance of the original. That isn't deception.
In light created in transit, God is not copying. He is making something that does not exist and making it deliberately to fool us. God does not have to make the universe appear old. He can easily have the universe look young. We would simply not see the stars in the sky until their light reached us. There is no reason to make the light in transit except to deceive us.
__________________ "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
lucaspa, you were squarely refuted. Shall we go over it AGAIN?
I guess so, because after this post you admit that I am not refuted. Instead, you change the argument to one of the appearance of age.
Ark Guy, if you want to refute me, you are going to have to show that we use theories to get rid of data. You are going to have to show that we threw out the experiments that "stopped" light, that showed Schrodinger's Cat was both dead and alive, and that had a object in two places at the same time.
Theories change with new data. In other contexts, you have objected to this because "science changes". What you must demonstrate to refute me is
1. Show that the Resurrection is not data.
2. Show with several examples where data is thrown out because theory says it cannot exist.
Go for it.
__________________ "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
lucaspa: Invalid science. You are trying to use theory to say data is wrong. Can't do that, Ark Guy.
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?
Are you claiming that deity could not have created in six days? Seems like it....but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
remember how the wine was created with apparent age? An apparent history? Then why not certain aspects of the universe? I.E., light created in transit from a distant star.
It must have been clear, because you changed the subject. Instead of showing how I am wrong about science, you switched claims to wonder what God could have done and then switched to the Appearance of Age argument. Neither has any relevance to my post.
Not very good "refuting", Ark Guy. Try again. You have to stick to subject to refute. Changing the subject doesn't count.
__________________ "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
Linear Mode
