YEC is physically impossible

[Roderick Spode]

Evidence, please.

Fast-forward a quarter of a century, and the notion of universe-making – or ‘cosmogenesis’ as I dub it – seems less comical than ever. I’ve travelled the world talking to physicists who take the concept seriously, and who have even sketched out rough blueprints for how humanity might one day achieve it. Linde’s referees might have been right to be concerned, but they were asking the wrong questions. The issue is not who might be offended by cosmogenesis, but what would happen if it were truly possible. How would we handle the theological implications? What moral responsibilities would come with fallible humans taking on the role of cosmic creators?

Scientists want to create a universe in a lab, and they actually could

This poses some major philosophical questions.

futurism.com

 

[Roderick Spode]

But the theory of evolution doesn't deny the existence of God, regardless of the intentions of its author or his usurper.

There's a political side of TOE that maintains science absolutely debunks the Bible. And that intelligent design is a religious political agenda.

 

[AV1611VET]

The burden of proof requires the evidence to show Jesus walked on water,

Do you work in a laboratory, or a courtroom?

... if you can't provide the evidence then science has no role in trying to prove your faith.

I don't need science to prove my faith.

You need science to tell you if something is wrong or not.

And in the case of Jesus walking on water, your science is SOL.

(Short On Luck)

 

[d taylor]

Why? Genesis is foundational. Why would we want to replace it with a mere scientific description?

Up holding truth in the current times can not be done, by many who identify as christian. So to get along with the up and coming science deluge that will take a hold of the population. To stay relevant and open, churches will adapt to the current beliefs of their peers in a secular society.

 

[sjastro]

Do you work in a laboratory, or a courtroom?

Investigative or forensic science where the solution derived from the evidence obtained was sometimes used in deciding court cases.
Does that answer your question?

I don't need science to prove my faith.

You need science to tell you if something is wrong or not.

And in the case of Jesus walking on water, your science is SOL.

(Short On Luck)

It's remarkable how you contradict yourself in the space of a few sentences.
First of all you deny the need of science of proving your faith but then conclude science is short on luck on proving Jesus walked on water.
Anything written in the Bible does not constitute evidence unless it can supported externally such as archaeology.
Jesus walking on water is based on faith not evidence and you are attacking the science because it does not meet your expectations of supporting your faith.

 

[sjastro]

Up holding truth in the current times can not be done, by many who identify as christian. So to get along with the up and coming science deluge that will take a hold of the population. To stay relevant and open, churches will adapt to the current beliefs of their peers in a secular society.

So 70% of Christians in your country are not Christians at all.
What makes you think this is because of science, does it require a knowledge of science to be repulsed of how rape victims are treated in the Bible, used to justify slavery or the treatment of women as property as examples.

​

BTW I'm still waiting on your explanation why my still image of Jupiter is fraudulent.

 

[AV1611VET]

So 70% of Christians in your country are not Christians at all.

Does that surprise you?

What makes you think this is because of science,

It may not be because of science per se.

But science will give them excuses to stay lost.

... does it require a knowledge of science to be repulsed of how rape victims are treated in the Bible,

Does it require a knowledge of science to change "child" to "fetus," so as to keep abortion issues tied up in court?

Not to mention using "fetuses" to provide fuel for incinerators?

 

[Neogaia777]

Ok, not to offend anybody, because I actually have a great deal of respect for all of you, etc, but I'm just going to say this, ok, and then it's off to bed for me, ok.

Jesus (or anybody) walking on water, etc. (And maybe Peter very, very temporarily for a very short period of time, etc).

"Prove to me that he did!" "Prove to me that they didn't!", etc, etc, etc.

Well, since a belief doesn't require absolute proof in order to either believe it or disbelieve it, it just should not directly conflict with all the well known or firmly established facts, etc, but in science you do need absolute proof to either absolutely believe it, or else absolutely disbelieve it, etc, or in this case, prove that Jesus and/or anybody can never walk on water, etc, then I would say the burden of proof is on science to disprove that it absolutely never happened, or cannot/could not ever happen ever, etc.

And then I'd have to ask you if you have that proof 100%, etc?

Because my guess is you don't, etc.

Not for 100% absolutely sure for absolutely everbody ever anyway, etc.

And there are also some newer theories in some sciences that says that the evidence they are staring directly at seems to suggest that if anyone was to believe a thing for 100% absolutely sure, or for sure absolutely 100%, and with absolutely zero doubt, etc, that it would happen for them, or would become so for them, etc.

But please notice the terms I am using here "absolutely 100%" and "absolutely zero", etc. Many of you schooled in even any kind of even basic math knows how unlikely these terms are, but some sciences do also say that if it was achievable, etc, then it would happen, etc.

So, what are the odds of this, etc? Maybe you think it's that a person can only ever be 99% sure that it would ever happen, or maybe 99.9%, or maybe 99.99% sure, etc, etc, etc, and so on and so forth, etc... Well, what was the population of the earth during the time of Jesus, etc? And I think all of us already pretty much know Jesus was a pretty special case, or was a very unique person, etc, assuming he actually did exist, and that at least some of the things that were said about at least some of things he did were actually true, etc, so then, that has to also be figured into all the calculating as well, etc. So then, how likely is it that he actually had attained to this, or actually had that kind of belief that was 100% capable of doing these kinds of things, etc?

I'll leave that with you, etc.

It's not 100% impossible, so what are the odds that Jesus met up to, or exceeded those odds, so that he was able to do these kinds of things on a whim, etc?

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

What makes you think this is because of science, does it require a knowledge of science to be repulsed of how rape victims are treated in the Bible, used to justify slavery or the treatment of women as property as examples.

No offense to you sir, but this is most usually the position that I only see believers take a lot of the time when they are starting to get really, really desperate, etc?

Are you ok?

God Bless.

 

[dlamberth]

Ok, not to offend anybody, because I actually have a great deal of respect for all of you, etc, but I'm just going to say this, ok, and then it's off to bed for me, ok.

Jesus (or anybody) walking on water, etc. (And maybe Peter very, very temporarily for a very short period of time, etc).

"Prove to me that he did!" "Prove to me that they didn't!", etc, etc, etc.

Well, since a belief doesn't require absolute proof in order to either believe it or disbelieve it, it just should not directly conflict with all the well known or firmly established facts, etc, but in science you do need absolute proof to either absolutely believe it, or else absolutely disbelieve it, etc, or in this case, prove that Jesus and/or anybody can never walk on water, etc, then I would say the burden of proof is on science to disprove that it absolutely never happened, or cannot/could not ever happen ever, etc.

And then I'd have to ask you if you have that proof 100%, etc?

Because my guess is you don't, etc.

Not for 100% absolutely sure for absolutely everbody ever anyway, etc.

And there are also some newer theories in some sciences that says that the evidence they are staring directly at seems to suggest that if anyone was to believe a thing for 100% absolutely sure, or for sure absolutely 100%, and with absolutely zero doubt, etc, that it would happen for them, or would become so for them, etc.

But please notice the terms I am using here "absolutely 100%" and "absolutely zero", etc. Many of you schooled in even any kind of even basic math knows how unlikely these terms are, but some sciences do also say that if it was achievable, etc, then it would happen, etc.

So, what are the odds of this, etc? Maybe you think it's that a person can only ever be 99% sure that it would ever happen, or maybe 99.9%, or maybe 99.99% sure, etc, etc, etc, and so on and so forth, etc... Well, what was the population of the earth during the time of Jesus, etc? And I think all of us already pretty much know Jesus was a pretty special case, or was a very unique person, etc, assuming he actually did exist, and that at least some of the things that were said about at least some of things he did were actually true, etc, so then, that has to also be figured into all the calculating as well, etc. So then, how likely is it that he actually had attained to this, or actually had that kind of belief that was 100% capable of doing these kinds of things, etc?

I'll leave that with you, etc.

It's not 100% impossible, so what are the odds that Jesus met up to, or exceeded those odds, so that he was able to do these kinds of things on a whim, etc?

God Bless.

I have no problem with the idea of Jesus walking on water. Its really not that far removed from other examples of Buddhist monks levitating and flying around their monastery or of St. Teresa of Avila and other Christians levitating. There's also reports of Sufies flying as well as Hindu saints.

 

[Neogaia777]

No offense to you sir, but this is most usually the position that I only see believers take a lot of the time when they are starting to get really, really desperate, etc?

Are you ok?

God Bless.

@sjastro

Because I might also say "be careful" as well, because you real reasons for not believing are starting to show, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I have no problem with the idea of Jesus walking on water. Its really not that far removed from other examples of Buddhist monks levitating and flying around their monastery or of St. Teresa of Avila and other Christians levitating. There's also reports of Sufies flying as well as Hindu saints.

Not that I expect you to believe me, but back when I was going through some "stuff", I was able to leviate, and move myself, and kind of float around for short periods of time. I have no idea how I did it now, I just know that I did. But if you knew where I was, and what I was going through at the time, maybe you would understand, etc. I don't know that I could ever go back there again, etc.

But I'm not going to deny that some other people were maybe actually able to occasionally do certain kinds of things, though not I think quite on the level of Jesus, etc. Maybe they had just gotten a small taste of it maybe? And maybe I did at one time as well maybe, etc?

God Bless.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no problem with the idea of Jesus walking on water. Its really not that far removed from other examples of Buddhist monks levitating and flying around their monastery or of St. Teresa of Avila and other Christians levitating. There's also reports of Sufies flying as well as Hindu saints.

I don't get what you're saying.

Are you saying you believe Jesus walked on water, because you believe Buddhist monks levitated and flew around their monasteries, and because you believe St. Teresa of Avila and other Christians levitated, and because you believe Hindu saints flew as well?

Or are you saying you don't believe Jesus walked on water, because you don't believe Buddhists and Christians and Hindus flew?

Which is it?

 

[sjastro]

Does that surprise you?

In your make believe world you are the only true Christian as no one else can distort the Bible to your degree.

It may not be because of science per se.

But science will give them excuses to stay lost.

Great yet another contradiction.

Does it require a knowledge of science to change "child" to "fetus," so as to keep abortion issues tied up in court?

Not to mention using "fetuses" to provide fuel for incinerators?

This doesn't even make any sense.

 

[Astrid]

There's a political side of TOE that maintains science absolutely debunks the Bible. And that intelligent design is a religious political agenda.

Its impossible to " debunk ( all of ) the
bible", and nobody tries to.
Who could debunk "Egypt"? A camel?
Just TRY to debunk a camel!
Theres real stuff in it.

Debunk "flood"? Been done ten thousand
times over. ToE has nothung to do with that
though. Not that you would likely be curious and want
to know the hows and whys.

I.D. at this point is pseudoscience.
MAYBE some day they will have a fact or two.
So far they have zero.
People have tried to use it to force their
religious agenda into schools.

 

[dlamberth]

I don't get what you're saying.

Are you saying you believe Jesus walked on water, because you believe Buddhist monks levitated and flew around their monasteries, and because you believe St. Teresa of Avila and other Christians levitated, and because you believe Hindu saints flew as well?

Or are you saying you don't believe Jesus walked on water, because you don't believe Buddhists and Christians and Hindus flew?

Which is it?

I'm saying it's entirely possible that Jesus walked on water. Others also do that sort of thing too, so it's not that far fetched to me.

 

[sjastro]

No offense to you sir, but this is most usually the position that I only see believers take a lot of the time when they are starting to get really, really desperate, etc?

Are you ok?

God Bless.

Gaslighting is against forum rules and a reportable offense; so are references made in other posts that individuals cannot be Christians unless they have a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The point I was making this mindless adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible comes with caveats.
In Deuteronomy 22 ff, it is explicitly stated women who do not cry out during rape shall be put to death along with the rapist, or if the victim is a virgin the rapist pays the father the fine and marries the victim.
I challenge any literalist to come forward and state disagreeing with Deuteronomy's description of rape laws and therefore the Bible is being a non Christian and ascribing to the works of the devil.

 

[sjastro]

@sjastro

Because I might also say "be careful" as well, because you real reasons for not believing are starting to show, etc.

God Bless.

Once again you are skating on thin ice, I share the same views as 70% of your Americans who do not have a literal view of the Bible and are able to think for themselves to make an informed decision without compromising their faith.

 

[Neogaia777]

Gaslighting is against forum rules and a reportable offense; so are references made in other posts that individuals cannot be Christians unless they have a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The point I was making this mindless adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible comes with caveats.
In Deuteronomy 22 ff, it is explicitly stated women who do not cry out during rape shall be put to death along with the rapist, or if the victim is a virgin the rapist pays the father the fine and marries the victim.
I challenge any literalist to come forward and state disagreeing with Deuteronomy's description of rape laws and therefore the Bible is being a non Christian and ascribing to the works of the devil.

I do very much deeply and sincerely apologize if you thought I was trying to gaslight you or some other thing, because that wasn't at all how I intended for it to be or mean, etc. And I never said you ever had to accept a literal anything, etc, but was just sharing my interpretations or beliefs, etc.

Are you sure your not just upset?

How was I trying to gaslight you, or flame you or goad you or anything, etc?

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Once again you are skating on thin ice, I share the same views as 70% of your Americans who do not have a literal view of the Bible and are able to think for themselves to make an informed decision without compromising their faith.

I'm just trying to have a conversation, etc. And I never said anyone had to accept a literal anything to be or not be anything at all either, etc.

But, whatever, just report me if you're really that upset, ok.

Later.

God Bless.