Jesus' ressurection was a supernatural event. What does the law of gravity have to do with it?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Jesus' ressurection was a supernatural event. What does the law of gravity have to do with it?um, there are reasons why helium balloos, air planes, and the space shuttle do fly..
But there is no way for a human to fly on his own other than breaking the natural laws.
edit: (well, I wouldn't know what the future holds, so, it's impossible for now ><)
I'll quote something that I found interesting from Bouw's book:
The only difference between evolutionists and creation scientists, is that evolutionists seek to understand the world seperate from God...and creationists seek to understand the world God has made.
So how can we possably include such an otherworldly being into our study of the worldly?
Interesting perspective. I've always though of those Laws as existing to serve man, but at the beck and call of their Creator.
In the same manner that the Sabbath was for us ---
[bible]Mark 2:27[/bible]
The physical laws are subject to God ---
[bible]Mark 4:41[/bible]
Bouw's book mentions God violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (E=mc[sup]2[/sup]) at the Creation, but point-in-fact is that the 1st Law wasn't established until God rested on the 7th day from creating.
Also, you can add to that list of "violations" of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (^S[sub]universe[/sub]>0) the time when the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness ---
[bible]Deuteronomy 29:5[/bible]
God wasn't made for these laws, these laws were made by God - for our benefit.
Well, that's not really true, though. There are some reference frames that are clearly very different from others. Using the Earth as a reference frame, for instance, is great for describing things on and near the Earth, as the Earth is certainly the center of the system of the Earth and the artificial satellites surrounding it (it's not the center of the Earth-moon system, though, as the moon is massive enough to deflect the Earth significantly).Actually, as I understand it, Richard T's point is sort of trivially true. In relativity, all frames of reference are equivalent and you can certainly adjust the mathmatics of Newtonian physics such that they will work with a geocentric universe, we just choose to use the simpler transformation.
That being said, I won't even bother with a napkin calculation of the forces involved in stopping the sun in it's orbit.
Open thinking is important, but creationism isn't a science, as it doesn't ever hold itself to the scientific method.I'm a homeschool mom and science is one of our favorite subjects. I think it is important that my children understand both evolution and creation theories. I also think it's important that they determine for themselves what they believe...and the only way they can do that is to receive as much information as possible. Have you ever noticed how both sides, evolutionists and christians, try to hide their children from the teachings of the other? I think it is more detrimental to try to brainwash our children into believing what we believe than it is to teach them everything there is to know about a subject and let them decide for themselves what they believe.
The public school system should be promoting open thinking...after all, it's the very principle our country was founded on. Makes you wonder what everyone's so afraid of, doesn't it??
The first law of thermodynamics is E=mc[sup]2[/sup]?Bouw's book mentions God violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (E=mc[sup]2[/sup]) at the Creation, but point-in-fact is that the 1st Law wasn't established until God rested on the 7th day from creating.
How on Earth does the 2nd law of thermodynamics have anything to do with nomads wandering in the desert?Also, you can add to that list of "violations" of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (^S[sub]universe[/sub]>0) the time when the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness ---
You're right, scientists are not alone in their effort to understand the world seperate from God. There are other subjects taught in school (history, literature) that conveniently leave out evidence of Christ's existence.That's not unique to evolutionists. Mathematicians, chemists, geologists, historians, (to name a few) all seek to understand the world separate from God. God exists outside the realm of human knowledge and is undetectable by any form of observation. So how can we possably include such an otherworldly being into our study of the worldly?
Well, it's absolute truth that it occurs. I haven't heard of anyone claiming that the Theory of Evolution is perfect though. But considering it is the most well evidenced and supported theory in science, if it weren't a very accurate theory, that doesn't hold much promise for other theories like gravity, plate tectonics, etc.Excellent...EXCELLENT topic!
My biggest complaint about the way schools teach science, specifically evolution, is that they present it as absolute truth, rather than theory.
Science shouldn't be combined with God. Creationists don't seek to understand anything about the world God made because they make blanket statements such as "if science disagrees with my interpretation of Genesis, it is wrong". That isn't science, nor is it intellectually honest.All science, regardless of whether you believe in creation or not, is best guess based on the observations of the world around us. The only difference between evolutionists and creation scientists, is that evolutionists seek to understand the world seperate from God...and creationists seek to understand the world God has made.
Why do you make a distinction between evolutionists and christians? Evolutionist does not mean atheist. The majority of the 2+ billion Christians on Earth accept the theory of evolution.Have you ever noticed how both sides, evolutionists and christians, try to hide their children from the teachings of the other?
Probably because there isn't a whole lot of evidence for it. I of course believe he existed, but it doesn't exactly have overwhelming evidence supporting it.You're right, scientists are not alone in their effort to understand the world seperate from God. There are other subjects taught in school (history, literature) that conveniently leave out evidence of Christ's existence.
The only "evidence" of these things is contained in the Bible, and saying events in the Bible occurred because the Bible says so is circular logic. We can see the effects of the gravitational pull of a black hole. We can't see any evidence of a global flood. In fact, we can clearly see evidence that completely contradicts a global flood.Also, I get what you're saying about worldly vs. unwordly. But there are plenty of things in science that are not of this world and that we cannot observe, but yet we believe in their existence. (ie - black holes) We hypothesize that they are there based on other evidence that points to the possibility of their existence. How is that different than creationists seeking to prove the existence of God, based on historical documentation of miracles, Jesus' death and resurrection, the great flood. All of these things point to evidence of the unworldly.
But evolution is both a fact and a theory. Do you understand what is meant in science by fact and theory? I can provide a good summary explaining them if you're interested.All that said…I'm okay with creation not being taught in the public science class, but I do have a problem with evolution being taught as fact, rather than theory. For me, that’s what it boils down to.
Thanks for your reply.
I think you missed my point, though you restated it succinctly at the end:Well, that's not really true, though. There are some reference frames that are clearly very different from others. Using the Earth as a reference frame, for instance, is great for describing things on and near the Earth, as the Earth is certainly the center of the system of the Earth and the artificial satellites surrounding it (it's not the center of the Earth-moon system, though, as the moon is massive enough to deflect the Earth significantly).
But when describing the solar system as a whole, you would never use a reference frame with the Earth as a center. The special point in the solar system is the sun. It is only by choosing the sun as the center of the system that your equations work out best.
But when describing the universe as a whole, you would never use a reference frame with the sun as a center. Actually, you don't use a reference frame with any point as the center. You instead use a reference frame for which the universe is homogeneous (the same everywhere) and isotropic (the same in every direction). The origin of the coordinate system in this case is completely irrelevant, as any place is as good as any other.
Bouw's argument is only trivially true because there is no way of defining an absolute center or origin.The origin of the coordinate system in this case is completely irrelevant, as any place is as good as any other.
You're right, scientists are not alone in their effort to understand the world seperate from God. There are other subjects taught in school (history, literature) that conveniently leave out evidence of Christ's existence.
Also, I get what you're saying about worldly vs. unwordly. But there are plenty of things in science that are not of this world and that we cannot observe, but yet we believe in their existence. (ie - black holes) We hypothesize that they are there based on other evidence that points to the possibility of their existence. How is that different than creationists seeking to prove the existence of God, based on historical documentation of miracles, Jesus' death and resurrection, the great flood. All of these things point to evidence of the unworldly.
All that said I'm okay with creation not being taught in the public science class, but I do have a problem with evolution being taught as fact, rather than theory. For me, thats what it boils down to.
Though another thing you should consider, where in the bible does it say that God has to be restrained by the "natural laws", plus, I will disagree with you that the "natural laws" were meant to be unbroken, these laws were made by humans, and thus, they are not infallible.
Oh, it's very, very different. In science, you first have a theory (that is likely to be based on some other evidence), then within that theory you make a prediction that is testable. In this situation, general relativity predicts that black holes can exist (providing a process for their production is a different discipline), and provides a number of very specific predictions as to the properties such black holes would have that we could possibly measure from Earth. Then we go out and look for astronomical objects with these specific properties.Also, I get what you're saying about worldly vs. unwordly. But there are plenty of things in science that are not of this world and that we cannot observe, but yet we believe in their existence. (ie - black holes) We hypothesize that they are there based on other evidence that points to the possibility of their existence. How is that different than creationists seeking to prove the existence of God, based on historical documentation of miracles, Jesus' death and resurrection, the great flood. All of these things point to evidence of the unworldly.
The first law of thermodynamics is E=mc[sup]2[/sup]?
Jase said:How on Earth does the 2nd law of thermodynamics have anything to do with nomads wandering in the desert?
Which is why what you would be teaching would be religion, not science.You bet'cha!
That would be our main textbook.
No. I've noticed how 'evolutionists' don't want creationism taught AS SCIENCE, because it's not science. Creationists, on the other hand (not Christians - most Christians accept evolution) don't want evolution taught at all.Have you ever noticed how both sides, evolutionists and christians, try to hide their children from the teachings of the other?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?