Scientifically Impossible

Ark Guy · Aug 23, 2003

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. 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.

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.

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

Jet Black · Aug 23, 2003

tut tut tut. it is not a matter of adam and eve and the creation story being scientifically impossible, it is a matter of all the kinds of predictions that have been made being falsified! for example the creation story cannot account for all the various features that we see in the geological strata of the earth, it cannot account for the cosmic microwave background, it cannot account for endogenous retroviral sequences and so on. However science cannot be applied to the story of jesus, since there is nothing there to falsify. there isn't a body, there are no eyewitness accounts, there isn't an autopsy and there aren't any medical reports. From the point of view of science, the whole jesus-thing could have happened. but we can't prove or disprove it. Science is not the enemy of religion that you make it out to be

Ark Guy · Aug 23, 2003

Jet black, I have to disagre with yoou...I trust that is OK?
Creation Science can explain the geological features and cosmic micro-wave background..but that is another topic.
For now the topic is about the resurrection which is scientifically impossible. Science can be applied to the resurrection story regardless of whether or not Christ body is present. Why? Science has shown that resurrection on the thiird day, especially of a person that died the death that Jesus Christ died is scientifically impossible....Hence, no need for a body to examine.

wblastyn · Aug 23, 2003

The evidence from creation shows God did not zap everything into existance but rather used evolution to create humans and all the other species on the planet.

Science cannot say anything about the resurrection of Jesus since it was a supernatural event and science cannot test the supernatural. Jesus' resurrection was a miracle, which means the impossibe happened.

Creationism makes claims that can be tested scientifically and they are false.

Jet Black · Aug 23, 2003

as wblastyn said. the resurrection was a supernatural event, and once one claims an event is supernatural, science cannot touch it.

one could of course extend this and attempt to say that all of the creationism theory waas also a supernatural event. the problem then is you have to explain many effects without resorting to calling God a liar or contradicting yourself.

If you think you can explain the geological features and cosmic microwave background, then I suggest going over to the Science forum, where I should be

pudmuddle · Aug 23, 2003

wblastyn said:
The evidence from creation shows God did not zap everything into existance but rather used evolution to create humans and all the other species on the planet.

Science cannot say anything about the resurrection of Jesus since it was a supernatural event and science cannot test the supernatural. Jesus' resurrection was a miracle, which means the impossibe happened.

Creationism makes claims that can be tested scientifically and they are false.

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.
Can you really say you have observed the process of macro-evolution with your own eyes? If not, why do you believe it happens? Sounds like blind faith to me.
Creation is a miracle, which means the impossible happened.
Creation can not be tested, because no one but God observed it first hand.

wblastyn · Aug 23, 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.
Can you really say you have observed the process of macro-evolution with your own eyes? If not, why do you believe it happens? Sounds like blind faith to me.
Creation is a miracle, which means the impossible happened.
Creation can not be tested, because no one but God observed it first hand.

Are we to assume you have seen creation first hand? If not, you are depending on the word of a multitude of men who claim to speak for God.

If not, sounds like blind faith to me.

I have seen the evidence people have presented here on the forums and other websites, but I haven't seen fossils in real life or anything like that.

Anyway, creationism makes statements that can be tested scientifically and it has been falsified. The resurrection doesn't leave anything to test, unless we found Jesus' body but how would you know that it was His.

Ark Guy · Aug 23, 2003

Wblastyn posted the following;
Science cannot say anything about the resurrection of Jesus since it was a supernatural event and science cannot test the supernatural. Jesus' resurrection was a miracle, which means the impossibe happened
---------
What Wblastyn has forgotten is that the creation...also...was a supernatural event. Or in other words...a miracle. Which means the impossible happened.

The problem is...how do these christians believe in one miracle then dismiss the other. That is considering the claim that both events are/were scientifically impossible.

Ark Guy

Ark Guy · Aug 23, 2003

Once again, whether or not you have the body of Jesus Christ means nothing when it comes to scientifically testing the resurrection.
Why? Because science says it's impossible. Other bodies can be tested....and this is exactly what has been done...and so far no resurrection.

So if the resurrection is belieavable, then why not the creation?

troodon · Aug 23, 2003

Ark Guy said:
What Wblastyn has forgotten is that the creation...also...was a supernatural event. Or in other words...a miracle. Which means the impossible happened.

The problem is...how do these christians believe in one miracle then dismiss the other. That is considering the claim that both events are/were scientifically impossible.

You are not understanding the point. If the earth was created 6,000 years ago then we should expect all properly used radiometric dating to provide a date <6,000 years, we should expect the fossil record to be very jumbled up with very few clear distinctions, we should expect there to be no pseudogenes and hidden genes in the genomes of living creatures, we should expect the world's geology to actually look like a flood took place. Because none of these are (in our opinions) the case, the idea of YEC is falsified. Not because it was supposed to have been of supernatural origin, but because its required effects are not seen in creation.

The resurrection cannot be delt with in the same manner because it has no testable repercussions. There are visible consequences if the earth is 6,000 years old; there are none (to my knowledge) if Christ was resurrected 2,000 years ago.

fragmentsofdreams · Aug 24, 2003

Ark Guy said:
Once again, whether or not you have the body of Jesus Christ means nothing when it comes to scientifically testing the resurrection.
Why? Because science says it's impossible. Other bodies can be tested....and this is exactly what has been done...and so far no resurrection.

So if the resurrection is belieavable, then why not the creation?

A 6,000 year old Earth is not believeable because it cannot be supported without ending up in heresy. The evidence in Creation indicates that the Earth is far older than this, so a young Earth requires a deception to be inserted into Creation. This would have been done by either God or Satan. If one says God, one is claiming that God intentionally deceives us, which is heretical. If we choose Satan, we are elevating him to an almost dualistic heights and denying that all of Creation is good, both of which are heresies.

For the Ressurection, there is no physical evidence. We have the Earth and the rest of Creation to study. There is no body of Jesus to study.

nephilimiyr · Aug 24, 2003

fragmentsofdreams said:
For the Ressurection, there is no physical evidence. We have the Earth and the rest of Creation to study. There is no body of Jesus to study.

True there is no physical evidence of Jesus Christ's resurrection but does that mean science can't test whether a resurrection could ever happen? If we had Jesus's living body to test, science wouldn't be testing it to tell us whether it happend but rather how it happend. Right?

wblastyn · Aug 24, 2003

nephilimiyr said:
True there is no physical evidence of Jesus Christ's resurrection but does that mean science can't test whether a resurrection could ever happen? If we had Jesus's living body to test, science wouldn't be testing it to tell us whether it happend but rather how it happend. Right?

How could they?

wblastyn · Aug 24, 2003

Ark Guy said:
What Wblastyn has forgotten is that the creation...also...was a supernatural event. Or in other words...a miracle. Which means the impossible happened.

The problem is...how do these christians believe in one miracle then dismiss the other. That is considering the claim that both events are/were scientifically impossible.

Ark Guy

As Troodon already pointed out, if creationism is true we should see the effects (young earth, global flood, etc), instead we see the exact opposite (ancient earth, no global flood, etc).

Jesus' resurrection had effects too - Jesus is alive after being dead, so if we found Jesus' dead body (assuming you could tell it was his) then we would know the resurrection could not havw taken place, since no body has been found we can assume Jesus was resurrected based on faith (that the Gospel writer were telling the truth).

Jet Black · Aug 24, 2003

nephilimiyr said:
True there is no physical evidence of Jesus Christ's resurrection but does that mean science can't test whether a resurrection could ever happen? If we had Jesus's living body to test, science wouldn't be testing it to tell us whether it happend but rather how it happend. Right?

the ressurection by definition is a supernatural event, so it is pointless looking at other corpses to see if they can come back, because then you are just looking for a natural explanation.

Ark Guy · Aug 24, 2003

Troodon:
You are not understanding the point. If the earth was created 6,000 years ago then we should expect all properly used radiometric dating to provide a date <6,000 years,

There is plenty of evidence that suggest radiometic dating is flawed....once again, that's another topic

we should expect the fossil record to be very jumbled up with very few clear distinctions,

No, we would expect to see the fossil record just as it is. Tha is with the marine creatures first followed by the amphibian then land creatures. Why? That's the way the flood covered the earth.

we should expect there to be no pseudogenes and hidden genes in the genomes of living creatures,

...you seemed to have forgotten the common creator argument.

we should expect the world's geology to actually look like a flood took place.

This is EXACTLY what we see.

Because none of these are (in our opinions) the case, the idea of YEC is falsified. Not because it was supposed to have been of supernatural origin, but because its required effects are not seen in creation.

...by the same token, if the resurrection was possible we would/should see evidence of resurrection from different people all over the world...but we don't.

The resurrection cannot be delt with in the same manner because it has no testable repercussions. There are visible consequences if the earth is 6,000 years old; there are none (to my knowledge) if Christ was resurrected 2,000 years ago

Once again here is where you are wrong. My last paragraph above addressed some of the reasons as to why it is teatable.
My other paragraphs show that your old earth thinking has problems and Young Earth Creation Science has provided answers to the features we see on and in the earth

Ark Guy · Aug 24, 2003

...So as you see, science clearly says both are scientifically impossible.
Both according to the Theo-Evos using scientific methods have been shown to be so.

Jet Black · Aug 24, 2003

Ark Guy, I suggest that you go over to the Science forum, there are a number of threads there that demonstrate several features that are impossible to describe using the flood theory.

Ark Guy · Aug 24, 2003

There are no features that are imposible to describe by flood models. Sorry Jet Black but you have been mislead....You trust your bible for salvation, but not for the creation.

Jet Black · Aug 24, 2003

as I suggest, look at the science forum.

Scientifically Impossible

Ark Guy

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Ark Guy

Guest

Jedi Master

Jet Black

Guest

Active Member

Jedi Master

Ark Guy

Guest

Ark Guy

Guest

Be wise and be smart

Critical loyalist

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open

Jedi Master

Jedi Master

Jet Black

Guest

Ark Guy

Guest

Ark Guy

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Ark Guy

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency