Scientifically Impossible

[Serapha]

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.

The important point is this...


If you profess Christianity.... you are a Christian 24 hours-a-day.... not just when you feel like it or when it is convenient....

but that you put Christianity on a shelf and change into the anti-christian as a science supporter because you believe science overrides the Bible.


what a little god you serve. please do....


~malaka~






P.S.


lucaspa, I don't intend for this to become personal, and I won't be replying in this manner again on this thread... but I think you need to find God... the real one... and not the textbook classic you seem to find inadequate to be "Supreme". Don't put me in a little box and tell me I have to believe YEC as it is depicted by your quotation or else.


My God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, and immutable.... He doesn't change just because you say He has to.


~malaka~

 

[Vance]

Malaka:

I can not believe your arrogance. To actually tell a professing Christian that he has not found the true God is just amazing. To debate with them the nature of their particular beliefs is one thing, and perfectly acceptable. But to assert that you know that he is out of line with God is amazing.

 

[Plan 9]

Malaka:

I can not believe your arrogance. To actually tell a professing Christian that he has not found the true God is just amazing. To debate with them the nature of their particular beliefs is one thing, and perfectly acceptable. But to assert that you know that he is out of line with God is amazing.

Amazing is one word for it, Vance.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

's stage three.

Stage 1: Attack the science with PRATTs like moon dust, 'no transitional fossils', Hovind's cytochrome lie, etc.

Stage 2: Attack the hermeneutic and associate literal interpretation with acceptance - "You don't believe the Bible!"

Stage 3: Attack the person's faith - "You're not a real Christian".

Seen it too many times.

 

[Plan 9]

's stage three.

Stage 1: Attack the science with PRATTs like moon dust, 'no transitional fossils', Hovind's cytochrome lie, etc.

Stage 2: Attack the hermeneutic and associate literal interpretation with acceptance - "You don't believe the Bible!"

Stage 3: Attack the person's faith - "You're not a real Christian".

Seen it too many times.

It's as though Hovind were Jesus.

 

[JohnR7]

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,

How does God's creation of Adam and Eve 6000 years ago, have any effect on what we know about Geology?

 

[JohnR7]

It's as though Hovind were Jesus.

Christians are to be Christ like. Everything Jesus did, we are to do, everything He was, we are to be. We are being made into His image. He showed us an example of how we are to live.

 

[lucaspa]

The important point is this...


If you profess Christianity.... you are a Christian 24 hours-a-day.... not just when you feel like it or when it is convenient....

Malaka, how do you misread so much? The point is to state accurately what you believe and not misstate it.

How would you like me to state it?

but that you put Christianity on a shelf and change into the anti-christian as a science supporter because you believe science overrides the Bible.

Since the whole point of the posts is to show that science does NOT override the Bible in this case, and that science is NOT anti-Christian, this comment makes no sense.

Do you want me to say that science somehow proves the Resurrection? How would that be?

what a little god you serve. please do....

I was praying for your comprehension. It is obvious that the prayer wasn't answered.

lucaspa, I don't intend for this to become personal, and I won't be replying in this manner again on this thread... but I think you need to find God... the real one... and not the textbook classic you seem to find inadequate to be "Supreme". Don't put me in a little box and tell me I have to believe YEC as it is depicted by your quotation or else.

And I think you need to read what people write, and not what you think they say. And you shouldn't put them in little boxes because we can accept both books of God.

What I said (on another thread) was that heresy was inherent in Creation Science. I don't see any way to be a YEC and not be heretic.

I have support from Francis Bacon in this:

"For nothing is so mischievous as the apotheosis of error; and it is a very plague of the understanding for vanity to become the object of veneration. Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy on the first chapter of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings, seeking for the dead among the living; which also makes the inhibition and repression of it the more important, because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy but also a heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give to faith that only which is faith's." Francis Bacon. Novum Organum LXV, 1620 http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm

Bacon and I have walked the same logical path and reached the same conclusion. We share it with Augustine of Hippo, Vawter and Gilkey. I personally like the company. If you don't like the heat, then get out of the kitchen.

My God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, and immutable.... He doesn't change just because you say He has to.

We are not talking about the characteristics of God. We are talking about HOW God created. I prefer to listen to God and what He said in His Creation. You apparently prefer to dictate to God from your interpretation of the Bible. I admire your chutzpah. Telling God how He had to create because that is the only way you will read the Bible is something I would never dare to do.

To me it looks like you put your interpretation of the Bible above God. Isn't that false idol worship?

 

[Serapha]

Malaka, how do you misread so much? The point is to state accurately what you believe and not misstate it.

How would you like me to state it?



Since the whole point of the posts is to show that science does NOT override the Bible in this case, and that science is NOT anti-Christian, this comment makes no sense.

Do you want me to say that science somehow proves the Resurrection? How would that be?




I was praying for your comprehension. It is obvious that the prayer wasn't answered.




And I think you need to read what people write, and not what you think they say. And you shouldn't put them in little boxes because we can accept both books of God.

What I said (on another thread) was that heresy was inherent in Creation Science. I don't see any way to be a YEC and not be heretic.

I have support from Francis Bacon in this:

"For nothing is so mischievous as the apotheosis of error; and it is a very plague of the understanding for vanity to become the object of veneration. Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy on the first chapter of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings, seeking for the dead among the living; which also makes the inhibition and repression of it the more important, because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy but also a heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give to faith that only which is faith's." Francis Bacon. Novum Organum LXV, 1620 http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm

Bacon and I have walked the same logical path and reached the same conclusion. We share it with Augustine of Hippo, Vawter and Gilkey. I personally like the company. If you don't like the heat, then get out of the kitchen.



We are not talking about the characteristics of God. We are talking about HOW God created. I prefer to listen to God and what He said in His Creation. You apparently prefer to dictate to God from your interpretation of the Bible. I admire your chutzpah. Telling God how He had to create because that is the only way you will read the Bible is something I would never dare to do.

To me it looks like you put your interpretation of the Bible above God. Isn't that false idol worship?

Lucaspa,


You have resorted to name calling and labeling... and I am done with your comments. If you want me to assign a listing of names and characteristics of heresies that fit your profile... then I can to that... but it won't serve any purpose.


This thread is not longer bringing any glory to God, and there is no longer any "worth" to the responses.


~malaka~

 

[Vance]

A new way to abandon a discussion:

the retreat into righteous indignation.

I will inform my logic professor (if I can track him down after so many years)

 

[JesusServant]

MOD HAT ON

Folks, please be civil to one another and remember that as believers we are to be lights set upon hills to others. Remember to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If I see any more flaming this thread will be closed and warnings issued. Thanks!

MOD HAT OFF

 

[Saint Philip]

The question becomes....how can a christian believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ which is a scientifically impossible event

I read a number of replies (not all), and saw that no one answered your question. It was argued that there is no scientific evidence against the resurrection but there is against a six-day creation. This is a non-answer because your point is about rejecting the scientifically impossible, not about rejecting something the evidence points away from.

They should just say that scientific impossibility has nothing to do with whether Jesus came back from the dead or whether God created the universe in six days. These are acts of God, not of nature.

Then they should keep on eye on themselves to prevent themselves from using the "impossible" argument against a Creationist.

Now, let's talk about scientific impossibilities, such as nature creating life from warm ponds.

 

[lucaspa]

I read a number of replies (not all), and saw that no one answered your question. It was argued that there is no scientific evidence against the resurrection but there is against a six-day creation. This is a non-answer because your point is about rejecting the scientifically impossible, not about rejecting something the evidence points away from.

SaintPhillip, go back and look at my first post in the thread. I directly addressed the issue.

To summarize, saying "the dead do not rise" is a theory. Theories must be tested against data. Jesus' resurrection is data. Thus, the resurrection would show the theory wrong. The reason it does not is that the resurrection's documentation is not rigorous enough for science. It is therefore an anomaly as far as science is concerned.

You cannot use theory to say data is wrong.

Now, the problem is that creationism does exactly that -- use theory to say data is wrong. The theory here is a 144 hr instantaneous creation in the recent past according to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Both ICR and AiG explicitly state that no evidence can be considered that goes counter to the theory.

Now, let's talk about scientific impossibilities, such as nature creating life from warm ponds.

Not so impossible.
Start here and we can then discuss it in more detail. Or you can go to the other forum and look up the thread "Primordial Soup"
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

BTW, this is not "nature" creating. It is God creating. All we are seeing here are the material mechanisms God uses.

 

[lucaspa]

A new way to abandon a discussion:

the retreat into righteous indignation.

I will inform my logic professor (if I can track him down after so many years)

That's what it looks like. He can call me names but doesn't like examining his own position. However, I'm sure we'll make contact again.

I am still very puzzled, however.

I show that the Resurrection is not impossible by science and Malaka gets very upset. Why? What's the motive in desiring the resurrection to be impossible to science?

 

[lucaspa]

[lucaspa] To me it looks like you put your interpretation of the Bible above God. Isn't that false idol worship?

Lucaspa,


You have resorted to name calling and labeling... and I am done with your comments. If you want me to assign a listing of names and characteristics of heresies that fit your profile... then I can to that... but it won't serve any purpose.

Unfortunately, you didn't address my question. I am serious. It does look like false idol worship to me. If I've followed a wrong logical path here it would serve a purpose to show where I left the path.

Also, you talk about "heresies that fit your profile". Isn't that a bit personal? I am talking about creationism being heresy. Not you being a heresy. Again, I am not the only one looking at creationism and reaching that conclusion. If we have all somehow made a mistake, wouldn't it be of interest to show just how that mistake occurred?

 

[Saint Philip]

SaintPhillip, go back and look at my first post in the thread. I directly addressed the issue.

To summarize, saying "the dead do not rise" is a theory. Theories must be tested against data. Jesus' resurrection is data. Thus, the resurrection would show the theory wrong. The reason it does not is that the resurrection's documentation is not rigorous enough for science. It is therefore an anomaly as far as science is concerned.

In reading this thread, I did not get as far as your first post. But, you essentually said what I said. "Scientifically Impossible" is not the issue, but whether the evidence refutes the occurence of the event. But, this raises a question.

If you had sufficient data, how do you know the resurrection wouldn't be shown false? I've heard of faith in the unknown, but this looks like faith in ignorance.

Start here and we can then discuss it in more detail. Or you can go to the other forum and look up the thread "Primordial Soup"

"Sid was also the first to synthesize a protein by heating amino acids under conditions found here on planet earth. Also, he was the first to show that these new thermal proteins, when placed in water, would self-organize into a living cell."

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

So, Sid made living cells just by heating a few amino acids and dropping them in water? Sorry, a few bubbles are an insignificant step toward life. You might as well spray some mist against a window and when the window fogs up claim "I've created living breath!"

The interesting obstacle is not to discover whether the laws of chemistry are the same outside as inside of living creatures, but to explain where the genetic information came from in the first place.

 

[lucaspa]

In reading this thread, I did not get as far as your first post. But, you essentually said what I said. "Scientifically Impossible" is not the issue, but whether the evidence refutes the occurence of the event. But, this raises a question.

I disagree. "scientifically impossible" is the issue. This is what ArkGuy said "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."

Arkguy was using a theory -- dead people don't come back to life on the third day -- to deny the data that a dead guy came back to life on the third day. This is not science. Theory always bends or breaks in the face of data. Data never goes away in the face of theory.

If you had sufficient data, how do you know the resurrection wouldn't be shown false? I've heard of faith in the unknown, but this looks like faith in ignorance.

I don't. Just as I don't know that mammalian fossils in Cambrian strata might be found tomorrow and show common ancestry to be false. You go with the data you have today and change your view if and when new data becomes available.

However, faith in the Resurrection is not based solely on the fact that the Resurrection is not falsified, just like acceptance of evolution is based solely because it has not been falsified.

Faith in the Resurrection is based on three general types of personal experience:
1. Trust in the gospel accounts.
2. Experience of the risen Jesus, either firsthand or trust of those who report such experience.
3. General agreement with the idea of Resurrection with your own personal life experiences.

Now, science works only with a subset of personal experience. Personal experience that is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. The three types of evidence above don't fit that subset.

"Sid was also the first to synthesize a protein by heating amino acids under conditions found here on planet earth. Also, he was the first to show that these new thermal proteins, when placed in water, would self-organize into a living cell."

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

So, Sid made living cells just by heating a few amino acids and dropping them in water? Sorry, a few bubbles are an insignificant step toward life.

Yes. And do you seriously think the speaker, and I, would say the cells were living if that was all they were? Of course not!

What is life? Life is defined as having all of the following characteristics:
1. Metabolism (anabolism and catabolism)
2. Response to stimuli
3. Growth
4. Reproduction.

The protocells do all three. They are alive.

Seriously, Saint Phillip, you need to check your facts before you just go into denial.

The interesting obstacle is not to discover whether the laws of chemistry are the same outside as inside of living creatures, but to explain where the genetic information came from in the first place.

Oh, that's easy. Been done.

1. The thermal proteins already have information. In fact, protocells have more information in them than modern cells. You see, the amino acids in the proteins made by chemistry is not random. The sequences are ordered. That means information.
2. Protocells make RNA/DNA. That gives you the genetic material.
3. There is selective binding between particular types of proteins and certain types of DNA (see below). That is the beginning of coding.
4. Natural selection, like all selection, generates information.

What I find disturbing in your argument is god-of-the-gaps and violation of Christian doctrine about creation. What you are doing is saying that God did not create a complete universe. God has to directly intervene to connect two parts of the material universe. This makes God a material creature, which is directly counter to Christian doctrine.

"In more recent work, Fox and his colleagues have shown that basic proteinoids, rich in lysine residues, selectively associate with the homopolynucleotides poly C and poly U but not with poly A or poly G. On the other hand, arginine-rich proteinoids associate selectively with poly A and poly G. In this manner, the information in proteinoids can be used to select polynucleotides. Morever, it is striking that aminoacyl adenylates yield oligopeptides when incubated with proteinoid-polynucleotide complexes, which thus have some of the characteristics of ribosomes. Fox has suggested that proteinoids bearing this sort of primitive chemical information could have transferred it to a primitive nucleic acid; the specificity of interaction between certain proteinoids and polynucleotides suggests the beginning of the genetic code." A. Lehninger, Biochemistry, 1975, pp 1047-1048