Scientifically Impossible

fragmentsofdreams · Aug 27, 2003

Promises said:
Your example from forensic science is again oversimplifying the facts. Science can only OBSERVE observable data. Forensic scientists are able to figure out the details surrounding a murder ONLY by direct observation of a specific vicitim coupled with camparisons to BOTH repetitive past direct observations of victims that have displayed similar characteristics AND to countless observations and intensive instruction on anatomy and pathophysiology. Without prior direct observation, they would not have the necessary understanding of the effect of various weapons, flight paths, dispersal patterns, anatomical tolerances or trauma effects upon which to base their findings. Without this prior observational experience they would not even be able to describe what they are seeing, much less correlate those observations to a plausible cause and effect scenario.

On a personal note, being a hospice nurse, I can vouch for this through my own personal experience. When I began my education I didn't know what was "normal" much less what was "abnormal". Before I could even lay in a timid approach pattern to an understanding of pathophysiology and death processes it was first necessary for me to learn and observe countless variations of what was "normal". Only then could I recognize that something was "abnormal" in my patient. I had to spend hours observing all the various connotations of normal before I was even able to visualize in the most rudimentary way what was anomalous. An extensive number of examinations were prerequisite to developing the ability to chart my observations in any meaningful terms. Even after years, this is an ongoing process. It was then necessary to personally observe countless disease processes and their effects on the human body in order to gain the skills required to combat discomfort in my patients as well as their families.

It did take a lot of investigation to understand forensic science, but the same work happened in physics and biology. One advances one's understanding in small steps and does experiments designed to test areas that one does not understand well.

Promises · Aug 27, 2003

I never denied that there is genuine science. Of course there is science. The point that I was specifically discussing was macroevolution, from goo to you via the zoo. This phenomenon purportedly occurred billions of years ago during a period in which no observations were made.

notto · Aug 27, 2003

Promises said:
I never denied that there is genuine science. Of course there is science. The point that I was specifically discussing was macroevolution, from goo to you via the zoo. This phenomenon purportedly occurred billions of years ago during a period in which no observations were made.

But that doesn't mean that there is not evidence to observe and mechanisms that can be found that can be used to explain those observations.

Life in the past was much different than life today. (evidenced by fossils)
The world is old (evidenced by independed dating methods)
Random Mutation (observed phenomena)
Natural Selection (observed phenomena)

Thats all you need for speciation and "macroevolution".

There is no difference between the mechanisms of macroevolution and microevolution. Macroevolution has been observed directly right NOW. It is not something that purportedly occured billions of years ago. But, again, events in the past leave evidence for us to find.

Promises · Aug 28, 2003

Natural Selection within a species (speciation) is a science accepted by all. Macroevolution requires one species to cross over into another. Never observed, no evidence to back it up. Mutations always degrades genetic makeup, it never improves it. Reverse evolution is more likely than macroevolution.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Aug 28, 2003

Promises said:
Natural Selection within a species (speciation) is a science accepted by all. Macroevolution requires one species to cross over into another. Never observed, no evidence to back it up.

Not true: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Mutations always degrades genetic makeup, it never improves it.

Not true: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7430351&dopt=Abstract for one example of many.

Reverse evolution is more likely than macroevolution.

Not so. A negative mutation will be selected against.

fragmentsofdreams · Aug 28, 2003

Promises said:
I never denied that there is genuine science. Of course there is science. The point that I was specifically discussing was macroevolution, from goo to you via the zoo. This phenomenon purportedly occurred billions of years ago during a period in which no observations were made.

First, we can make observations via the fossil record. While it isn't as good as a time machine, it gives us the opportunity to investigate some of the properties of ancient organisms. We can also look at the DNA of modern organisms to gain insights into their ancestoral history.

There is no difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" except for scale. The division is the same as distinguishing between "microgravity" (the force we feel on Earth's surface) and "macrogravity" (the force that affects the planets).

fragmentsofdreams · Aug 28, 2003

Promises said:
Natural Selection within a species (speciation) is a science accepted by all. Macroevolution requires one species to cross over into another. Never observed, no evidence to back it up. Mutations always degrades genetic makeup, it never improves it. Reverse evolution is more likely than macroevolution.

There are mutations that give an organism improved functionability, such as a recent mutation that allows some bacteria to metabolize nylon. This mutation does not degrade them; it gives them an additional food source.

Vance · Aug 28, 2003

Promises said:
Natural Selection within a species (speciation) is a science accepted by all. Macroevolution requires one species to cross over into another. Never observed, no evidence to back it up. Mutations always degrades genetic makeup, it never improves it. Reverse evolution is more likely than macroevolution.

I would suggest you read the list of "arguments not to make anymore" from AIG, the leading Creation Science group. I have a thread on this which gives a one line summary of each abandoned argument, and there is (further down in the discussion) a link to the page, so you can see the whole reasoning behind AIG's position.

They admit that speciation has occured, and this means that one species becomes a new species altogether. Speciation is NOT natural selection within a given species. I am not sure what you mean by "crossing over" to another species, since this does not sound like anything from the theory of evolution. There are *new* species created, but evolution does not say that one species morphs into another, existing, species.

They also admit that not all mutations are negative.

They also point out that it is best not to argue about macro rather than micro evolution.

With these (and a bunch of other) arguments in doubt, they *have* come up with new ones, so you might want to check them out.

Serapha · Aug 31, 2003

Ark Guy said:
Scientifically Impossible

The question becomes....how can a christian believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ which is a scientifically impossible event, then turn around and deny the glorious creation performed by Jesus Christ as mentioned in the accounts of Genesis? Which by the way is also considered as a scientifically impossible event.

Ark Guy

Hi there!

Sorry to be jumping in so late on this one... but, perhaps, there is a passage in the Bible that needs to be introduced in this posting....

Matthew 28:15

So they took the money and did as they wre instructed; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

Some theologians have presented the thoughts that the resurrection of Christ was a developed legend that was developed over time and was written back into the Scriptures. There are two major arguments against this ideology. The first argument is that the grave of Christ is identified as being empty three days after the death of Christ. From a historical perspective, this was obvious because at the writing of the book of Matthew after AD 66, the suggestion that the disciples had taken the body of Christ were still circulating as Matthew cites in Chapter 28.

The Jewish question was not that the grave was empty, that was not disputed. What was disputed was knowing what happened to the body. The second argument is the fact that the grave was known to everyone. It was public knowledge. The disciples, friends and family knew. The Jews knew, and more importantly, the Roman government knew. The Roman government certainly would seal and guard the correct tomb considering the controversy over the grave and the need to place guards at the tomb. Perhaps the greatest argument is the eyewitness account of John. John writes of seeing the resurrected Christ in his gospel. If the courts allow the accused to be a witness on their behalf, then certainly, the Gospel of John can be used as a witness to the authenticity of the resurrection of Christ.

~malaka~

lucaspa · Sep 1, 2003

Ark Guy said:
Scientifically Impossible

Science often proves things to be scientifically impossible. For example the Theological Evolutionist (Theo-evos) will tell you that science has proven the six day creation with the formation of Adam from the dust and Eve from his side (rib) is a scientifically impossible events.

Not "scientifically impossible" but rather falsified by the data. That is, the theory of a 144 hr creation in the recent past with formation of humans in their present form has been shown to be untrue by comparing it with the data.

Basically, true statements cannot have false consequences. The statements about how creation happened above have false consequences. Thus, creation could not have happened THAT way.

Because of this biblical/scientific interpretation the Theo-Evos have made the determination that the accounts presented in Genesis are some kind of myth or allegorical in nature.

Not myth. Just that the stories are true as theology but not true as history. Or rather, the scientific theory constructed from a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is not true.

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.

But now you are not using scientific logic. That's that problem. This isn't science (altho atheists would have you believe it is; why do you listen to atheists anyway?)

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 possible resurrection is DATA. That is the point you keep missing. 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.

Now, Yeshu's supposed resurrection is not solid data. It happened a long time ago and it left no physical consequences around that we can objectively, intersubjectively study today. So, we are allowed to view the event as an anomaly and do not have to revise the theory. But we simply CANNOT use the theory to say the data (the resurrection) never happened.

Let me give you another example of theory and data. We have released several rocks and seen them fall. So we devise a theory of gravity that says that ALL unsupported objects will fall. This works well as we drop bricks, limbs, seashells, leaves, etc. But then we try a helium balloon. It goes up. Do we deny that it goes up? NO. Instead, we revise the theory to: all objects that mass more than the air they displace will fall when unsupported. The THEORY gets changed. In the case of Yeshu, IF we could find objecitve data to confirm the event happened, then our theory would be: all humans who die remain dead except when deity interferes and reverses the process.

Do you understand now? Any questions?

lucaspa · Sep 1, 2003

Promises said:
I never denied that there is genuine science. Of course there is science. The point that I was specifically discussing was macroevolution, from goo to you via the zoo. This phenomenon purportedly occurred billions of years ago during a period in which no observations were made.

The present is the way it is because the past was the way it was. Care to deny that? You only have to deny cause and effect.

This means that, as long as a past event leaves evidence we can observe TODAY, we can know what happened even tho we weren't there.

For instance, take Meteor Crator in Arizona. No one witnessed the impact. Yet do you deny that a meteor struck the earth in that spot and left Meteor Crator? How do you know?

When Darwin first introduced macroevolution -- common ancestry -- he used MODERN organisms. The evidence of common ancestry is left in them: in their morphology (appearance), physiology, embryology, and biogeography. More recently we can see the evidence left in their proteins and most recently in their DNA.

Today we can and have observed the formation of new species. Since species is the only biological REALITY, we have observed macroevolution. Some of those speciations have spawned yet more speciations to form an entirely new genus of species. Macroevolution with a vengeance.

In the fossil record, which are the remains of living animals, there are series of fossilized individuals that are in sequence that go from one species to another, and then to other species across genera, family, order, and even class in the taxonomic system. IOW, observed macroevolution in the fossil record. The creationist websites carefully conceal that data from you, but it is there.

lucaspa · Sep 1, 2003

pudmuddle said:
Are we to assume that you have seen all of this evidence first hand and examined and interpreted yourself? If not, you are depending on the word of a multitude of men, who are decidedly not inspired by God to say the things they do.

All the early geologists who falsified YEC were Christians. Most of them were ministers. Your claim is falsified unless you use the circular reasoning that anyone who disagrees with creation science are not inspired by God because they disagree with creation science.

Can you really say you have observed the process of macro-evolution with your own eyes? If not, why do you believe it happens?

Because I observe the consequences. If macroevolution did NOT happen, all my scientific work would have been impossible and I never could have gotten the results I have.

Creation is a miracle, which means the impossible happened.
Creation can not be tested, because no one but God observed it first hand.

Let's be clear what we are talking about here. We are NOT talking about "Creation". Creation is the statement that God created.

We are talking about a particular how of creation: 144 hours, recent past, all organisms instantaneously made in their present form, etc. This how of creation can indeed be tested. It has been tested, and it has been shown to be wrong.

What you call "evolution" is also a HOW of creation. This how has been tested, has survived attempts to show it false, and is now accepted as provisionally true. IOW, evolution is how God created.

lucaspa · Sep 1, 2003

Ark Guy said:
Why would He create photons in a pattern that showed galaxies that billions of lightyears away?

How do you know light hasn't slowed down?

Read up on setterfields work

Setterfield forgets the error bars. Those early measurments of light speed used crude instruments and had huge error bars, error bars overlapping the more accurate measurements.

Setterfield also forgets the equation E= mc^2. That c is the speed of light, remember. Now, radioactivity and the fusion of the sun release energy by that formula. If c were tens of thousands of times faster in the recent past, energy released by radioactive decay of isotopes and fusion would be billions of times greater (because c is squared). So, the energy released by radioactivity would melt the earth and the energy from the sun would fry it.

Setterfield simply didn't think it thru. It is a great example of an ad hoc hypothesis to try to save the theory (YEC) from falsification. Unfortunately, when we test it outside the narrow area it was meant for (but it applies out of the narrow area) we find that the consequences of the hypothesis are false. Therefore that light has slowed down as Setterfield states is false.

True statements can't have fasle consequences.

Serapha · Sep 1, 2003

lucaspa said:
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 possible resurrection is DATA. That is the point you keep missing. 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.

Now, Yeshu's supposed resurrection is not solid data. It happened a long time ago and it left no physical consequences around that we can objectively, intersubjectively study today. So, we are allowed to view the event as an anomaly and do not have to revise the theory. But we simply CANNOT use the theory to say the data (the resurrection) never happened.

Do you understand now? Any questions?

No, I don't understand, and I do have a question.

Since you are a professing Christian, how can you make the statement....

"BUT, Yeshu's possible resurrection is DATA."

or

"Now, Yeshu's supposed resurrection is not solid data."

Just curious.

~malaka~

Plan 9 · Sep 1, 2003

Malaka said:
No, I don't understand, and I do have a question.

Since you are a professing Christian, how can you make the statement....

"BUT, Yeshu's possible resurrection is DATA."

or

"Now, Yeshu's supposed resurrection is not solid data."

Just curious.

~malaka~

Malaka, could you be more specific, please, in stating why you find these statements objectionable, if indeed you do?

Serapha · Sep 1, 2003

Plan 9 said:
Malaka, could you be more specific, please, in stating why you find these statements objectionable, if indeed you do?

I would like to hear from the author of those statements... but thanks for your comments.

~malaka~

lucaspa · Sep 1, 2003

Malaka said:
No, I don't understand, and I do have a question.

Since you are a professing Christian, how can you make the statement....

"BUT, Yeshu's possible resurrection is DATA."

or

"Now, Yeshu's supposed resurrection is not solid data."

Just curious.

~malaka~

I can make the statements because

1. I make a clear distinction between what I believe and what I know.
2. I am speaking from the pov of science wearing my scientist hat, not as a Christian. From the pov of science the resurrection is, as I have stated, a claim of data. It has not been documented sufficiently to be stated as fact. Therefore the qualifications are still present.

Now, Christians "know" on a personal level that Jesus was resurrected. However, this knowledge is not science.

Arkguy was saying that science said the resurrection was scientifically impossible. That is not true. To do that means using theory to deny data. You absolutely can't do that. It is a theory that people dead 36 hours do not resurrect. Each person that dies is a test of that theory. So far, the theory is supported. However, Jesus represents a (possible) falsification of the theory as it stands. The only thing that keeps Jesus from falsifying the theory is that the documentation of the event is insufficient for science.

To repeat, Arkguy is misusing science.

Understand? Any more questions?

Serapha · Sep 1, 2003

lucaspa said:
I can make the statements because

1. I make a clear distinction between what I believe and what I know.
2. I am speaking from the pov of science wearing my scientist hat, not as a Christian. From the pov of science the resurrection is, as I have stated, a claim of data. It has not been documented sufficiently to be stated as fact. Therefore the qualifications are still present.

Now, Christians "know" on a personal level that Jesus was resurrected. However, this knowledge is not science.

Arkguy was saying that science said the resurrection was scientifically impossible. That is not true. To do that means using theory to deny data. You absolutely can't do that. It is a theory that people dead 36 hours do not resurrect. Each person that dies is a test of that theory. So far, the theory is supported. However, Jesus represents a (possible) falsification of the theory as it stands. The only thing that keeps Jesus from falsifying the theory is that the documentation of the event is insufficient for science.

To repeat, Arkguy is misusing science.

Understand? Any more questions?

Yes, one.

You believe you are a Christian, but because of your knowledge of science, you can't know that you are a Christian.

Are we on the same page? Because that is the message I am reading.

~malaka~

Plan 9 · Sep 1, 2003

Malaka said:
I would like to hear from the author of those statements... but thanks for your comments.

~malaka~

I was making no comment whatsoever; rather I was asking a question, but I will refrain from doing so in the future if you would rather I didn't.

lucaspa · Sep 1, 2003

Malaka said:
Yes, one.

You believe you are a Christian, but because of your knowledge of science, you can't know that you are a Christian.

Are we on the same page? Because that is the message I am reading.

~malaka~

How could he have gotten it so wrong? That's not the message I am saying.

Everyone (except some atheists) know what their faith is. You know you are a Christian, for instance.

However, in that faith there are certain tenets you believe. However much those tenets may be knowledge to you, you cannot state them as objective, intersubjective knowledge because you lack the objective, intersubjective evidence to do so.

Jesus' resurrection is one of those tenets. You and I trust that the authors of the gospels got it essentially right. Both of us know of people who say they have personal experience of the risen Jesus. You may be one of these; I am not. Thus, there is evidence of Jesus' resurrection. But it is personal evidence, not objective, intersubjective (available to everyone under approximately the same conditions). Therefore when speaking outside the faith community (which I am doing here), you can only say you believe Jesus resurrected. You can't say "I absolutely know it". Thus, looking at it from the pov of science, Jesus' resurrection is "possible" and "supposed". It has been reported by people but can't be adequately confirmed.

What you are saying is that you want me to have said "Jesus' resurection happened". That I didn't seems to have upset you. But speaking from the perspective of science, I can't say that. While I may have all the personal experience to convince me that happened, that experience isn't sufficient to meet the stringent requirements of science.

Understand?

The important point here is that science does not show the resurrection to be impossible. Arkguy got science wrong.

Scientifically Impossible

Critical loyalist

Active Member

Legend

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Critical loyalist

Critical loyalist

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Well-Known Member

Absolutely Elsewhere

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Absolutely Elsewhere

Legend

Similar threads