Scientifically Impossible

[fragmentsofdreams]

However, multiple lines of evidence point to Creation being old. We are not talking about a just a miracle but a miracle constructed in a way that intentionally hides it from later observers. Why would God create geological layers with fossils arranged like they are? Why would He create photons in a pattern that showed galaxies that billions of lightyears away?

Everyone knows that the layers were deposited during the flood....God hid nothing from us.

The geological record fits perfectly with the old earth model. It shows no evidence for a global flood. If there was a Flood, God would have had to miraculously arranged the sediments to make it look like it never happened.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

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's work is filled with flaws, including the fact that he shows little knowledge of statistics despite claiming to do statistical analysis.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Sure are a lot of scientific theories being tossed about here. I would only remind you all that they are that indeed: THEORIES. None of them are TRUTHS. For every theory developed ten are abandoned, unless to do so would irretrievably shake a worldview. Creationists come under such ferocious fire these days, when they are only doing the same thing evolutionists have been doing for decades: interpreting the evidence according to their worldview. In the creationist's case, that worldview is informed by the Word of God. In the evolutionist's case it is a belief that man is good and is naturally evolving into even greater goodness - which conflicts with God's Word from beginning to end. I have no explanation for "theistic" evolutionists unless it is to say they'll go with anything that won't get them into trouble with the World. I for one, could give a fig about the World's opinion. The World hated Christ, I'm honored to be hated by the World as well.

Science is largely independent of worldview because it requires theories to make predictions. If theory A predicts X and theory B predicts Y, one can conclusively decide between A and B by looking to see if X is true or Y is true. The politcal/religious/social/etc orientation of the observer will not change reality.

 

[Promises]

I hope no one is under the impression that any of this is anything other than human opinion! Science has not falsified anything. The statement that a young earth and a global flood have been falsified beyond a reasonable doubt is nothing more than opinion; one that I do not share. In my opinion, and many others, young earth and global flood theories haven't been falsified any more than the theory of common descent and evolution and origin of species through random mutation and natural selection have in your mind. Science is merely a search, a way of thinking, not a conclusion in and of itself. I choose to believe that God created the earth in 6 days and that man was created out of the hand of God, not evolving from the lower life forms that man was given dominion over just as is written in Genesis. That is a theological statement that is nether proven nor falsified by science. Science, in fact, cannot even touch that faith issue.

LewisWildermuth - I do not see the earth as old, I see it as having been dramatically altered in just such a way as a catastrophic Flood would have altered it. Do you propose to know the Truth of what happened in the beginning without the slightest shadow of doubt? What if you find in the end that things happened just as recorded in Genesis? If I need to face God in error, I'd just as soon err on the side of simple faith, unburdened by convictions born from the intellect of man.

I am not in any YEC "movement" I am simply a Christian who takes God at His Word as the Spirit leads me in the study of it. My rejection of evolution is not a result of studying science, it is the result of studying the Word. But I have seen numerous souls lost to evolutionary teaching brought back to belief in God by Creation ministries. Exactly how do you see danger in that?

Notto, I know that those teachers that make such professions are not teaching science, but that does not alter the fact that such professions are being made.

 

[notto]

You are free to believe whatever you want, just don't call it science and try to get it into the classroom. Mainstream science is based on repeatability of observations, peer review, and consensus of scientists world wide. It is not based on Faith.

A challenge was posted on these boards to find a single scientist who believes that the earth is young based on the scientific evidence alone. Not a single one could be found.

Evolution is accepted worldwide as the explaination for the world as we see it. It is accepted by scientists of all religious backgrounds. It is supported by numerous independent lines of evidence. It is beneficial in describing evidence and making predictions in the realm of biology. It is a scientific theory just like gravity or relativity or plate techtonics.

If someone didn't believe the theory of gravity because of their religious views it would not change the theory or the evidence that supports it one bit. It would just seem silly.

 

[Jet Black]

I hope no one is under the impression that any of this is anything other than human opinion! Science has not falsified anything. The statement that a young earth and a global flood have been falsified beyond a reasonable doubt is nothing more than opinion.

not really; true statements cannot have false consequences.

 

[Jet Black]

What I'm saying is that science pretty much has already tested the possibility. What tells you that it has to be a supernatural event? If science hasn't already tested the theory why are you so adamant that it was a miracle? And no the definition of resurrection isn't of a supernatural event in fact all it means is the rising of the dead, or comeing back to life. The reason why we think of it as a miracle or supernatural event is because we know it is proven that that is an impossiblity.

well okay, if you want to put it that way:

it is an impossibility* based on current evidence that a dead person would come back to life through natural processes. ace, we have now discounted natural processes.

God is a supernatural entity, God can do things that are not natural, he is supernatural. God Brings Jesus back to life (or Jesus just comes back to life since he is God...) a supernatural process.

so we have discounted a natural process, but not the supernatural one. the whole point I make here, is that science cannot cope with supernatural phenomenon, so there is no point trying to analyse supernatural phenomenon with science.



* well impossiblity assuming he was clinically dead, he might not have been, just in a coma, but this is beside the point, though it does provide a potential naturalistic explanation.

 

[Jet Black]

In the creationist's case, that worldview is informed by the Word of God. In the evolutionist's case it is a belief that man is good and is naturally evolving into even greater goodness - which conflicts with God's Word from beginning to end.

no, you got the evolutionists world view completely wrong, and tempered it with a little evolution=atheism, which it doesn't.

 

[Promises]

Fragment of Dreams – You oversimplify science. If it were as simple as examining X and Y in order to determine whether A or B were true we could all simply kick back and leave it to a supercomputer to end this debate without any human intervention. And the word “predict” is simply a sophisticated replacement for “guess”. No one views reality directly, we can only perceive it. No human thought is free from one’s worldview. You wake up with a worldview in the morning and every thought that passes through your mind throughout the day flows through the filter of that worldview. Throughout scientific work there are gaps in data that must be bridged by informed guesswork – and no matter how “informed” that guesswork is, it is remains GUESSWORK. It is during the construction of those bridges that worldview inserts itself. With macroevolution there is a TREMENDOUS gap of “billions of years” that precedes even the earliest observations. I would also point out, in relation to another of your posts that the “geological record” is not a physical construct; it is simply a theoretical framework. Nowhere on earth will you find a contiguous representation of the model. Also – creation science does not posit that there was only one flood; it posits that there was one catastrophic Flood, followed by an entire history of subsequent local flooding.

 

[Promises]

Notto – Yes, thank you, I am free to believe whatever I want, but I would request that you please not put words into my mouth that were never spoken. I have NEVER advocated the teaching of special creation in the classroom – only that SCIENCE be taught, with evolution presented clearly as THEORY with its flaws and gaps identified, instead of as conclusive, uncontested truth. I believe that is compatible with what you are requesting. God forbid that a public schoolteacher would attempt to instruct my child out of Scripture – that is my duty and right as a parent. As I articulated above to Fragment of Dreams faith most certainly is in the equation of science, not relegated to religion alone. If scientists do not hold faith in the work done by others before them, rather than solely on their own work, they have absolutely no construct on which to build. And when faced with a task, each scientist must choose which theoretical framework on which to build from a veritable smorgasbord of options. Simply because evolution is a popular theory does not transform it into unshakable truth. As an example of this, there is one poster up here that has repetitively lain the dogmatic belief of geocentrism at the door of the Christian Church. This is unfounded. Geocentrism was taught by Aristotle BC and Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD. Copernicus (a creationist) finally postulated a heliocentric theory in the 16th century. Before then, all the world believed the popular geocentric view. But they were wrong. Then Galileo (also a creationist) came along and verified Copernicus’ findings. The mistake that the Roman Catholic Church made at that time was to accept as dogma the belief system of the pagan philosophers as taught by the Aristotelians at the universities (the ancient philosophers were making a popular comeback at the time) who claimed that the geocentric system was taught in Scripture and that Galileo was contradicting the Bible. Galileo paid the price for that mistake. I personally draw a parallel between this earlier mistake and the current one being made within parts of the Church today in regard to macroevolution.

 

[Promises]

JetBlack – Your argument lends nothing to the subject at hand. Science does not involve one simple True or False question. It requires a compendium of true statements that interact successfully with one another consistently over time. The scientific method REQUIRES direct observation for verification, which of course is impossible with macroevolution. All that can ever be done is the examination of aged consequence, the process itself has never been directly observed, nor will it ever – which in itself raises doubt to the veracity of claims to its accuracy. And I assure you that I do not confuse natural selection – genuine science - with macroevolution – nothing more than a guess. As a result, macroevolution will never be raised to the status of conclusive truth. Scientists do not even label gravity or relativity as more than theories because they recognize that there may be yet to be discovered eventualities that may make future accommodation necessary and much current work is fueled by the exciting possibility of such discoveries. Without that perpetual expectation, science would become a dead art. My definition of the worldview associated with evolutionary thought was not a self-made construct, and nowhere in my post did I use the term atheist – that was added by you. Its advocates have written books on it, governments have been framed upon it and agendas have been built on it. It is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from evolutionary thought that maintains intellectual integrity. If you have formed an alternative worldview despite the logical conclusion then that is your own worldview. I am not required to accept your personal worldview as representative of the whole. BTW – “agnostic, but play devils advocate” is not compatible with “This is a CHRISTIAN-ONLY forums - no non-Christians may post here". The initial posting in this particular board elaborates further. Unless, dare I pray, you have bent your knee to Christ since you filled out your profile.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Fragment of Dreams – You oversimplify science. If it were as simple as examining X and Y in order to determine whether A or B were true we could all simply kick back and leave it to a supercomputer to end this debate without any human intervention. And the word “predict” is simply a sophisticated replacement for “guess”. No one views reality directly, we can only perceive it. No human thought is free from one’s worldview. You wake up with a worldview in the morning and every thought that passes through your mind throughout the day flows through the filter of that worldview. Throughout scientific work there are gaps in data that must be bridged by informed guesswork – and no matter how “informed” that guesswork is, it is remains GUESSWORK. It is during the construction of those bridges that worldview inserts itself. With macroevolution there is a TREMENDOUS gap of “billions of years” that precedes even the earliest observations. I would also point out, in relation to another of your posts that the “geological record” is not a physical construct; it is simply a theoretical framework. Nowhere on earth will you find a contiguous representation of the model. Also – creation science does not posit that there was only one flood; it posits that there was one catastrophic Flood, followed by an entire history of subsequent local flooding.

Predictions are not merely guesses. Let me use an example to show this.

Aristotle stated that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. Gallileo hypothesized that all objects fall at the same rate (without air resitistence). Each theory makes a prediction about the relative rates at which objects fall. Gallileo tested the prediction by rolling balls down an ramp. Heavier balls rolled at the same speed as lighter balls. This agreed with what his theory predicted and disagreed with the predictions of Aristotle's theory. Aristotle's theory was discarded and Galilleo's retained, although it was refined first by Newton and then by Einstein.

In the same way, geological theories can be tested against the predictions they make. If a theory predicts that certain features would appear in certain types of locations, one can go and see if they appear. If it predicts that sediments would settle in a particular way, one can construct an experiment to test this.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

JetBlack – Your argument lends nothing to the subject at hand. Science does not involve one simple True or False question. It requires a compendium of true statements that interact successfully with one another consistently over time. The scientific method REQUIRES direct observation for verification, which of course is impossible with macroevolution. All that can ever be done is the examination of aged consequence, the process itself has never been directly observed, nor will it ever – which in itself raises doubt to the veracity of claims to its accuracy. And I assure you that I do not confuse natural selection – genuine science - with macroevolution – nothing more than a guess. As a result, macroevolution will never be raised to the status of conclusive truth. Scientists do not even label gravity or relativity as more than theories because they recognize that there may be yet to be discovered eventualities that may make future accommodation necessary and much current work is fueled by the exciting possibility of such discoveries. Without that perpetual expectation, science would become a dead art. My definition of the worldview associated with evolutionary thought was not a self-made construct, and nowhere in my post did I use the term atheist – that was added by you. Its advocates have written books on it, governments have been framed upon it and agendas have been built on it. It is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from evolutionary thought that maintains intellectual integrity. If you have formed an alternative worldview despite the logical conclusion then that is your own worldview. I am not required to accept your personal worldview as representative of the whole. BTW – “agnostic, but play devils advocate” is not compatible with “This is a CHRISTIAN-ONLY forums - no non-Christians may post here". The initial posting in this particular board elaborates further. Unless, dare I pray, you have bent your knee to Christ since you filled out your profile.

Science can observe events by looking at the effects. That is how forensic scientists are able to figure out the details surrounding a murder. They weren't there to watch it, but they can figure out where the murderer was standing, what type of weapon he used, etc.

 

[Promises]

Fragment of Dreams - your example merely correlated my assertion. Let's take your own example and do a word substitution:

Aristotle's guess was that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. Gallileo's guess was that all objects fall at the same rate. Each theory made a guess about the relative rates at which objects fall. Gallileo tested his guess by rolling balls down an ramp. Heavier balls rolled at the same speed as lighter balls. This agreed with what he had guessed and disagreed with what Aristotle guessed. Aristotle's guess was proved wrong (through repeated direct observation) and Galilleo's guess was proved correct and even then had to be refined first by Newton and then by Einstein.

 

[Promises]

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.

 

[Promises]

All:

After recently viewing a contentious, hateful posting I thought I'd stop in to share a sentiment. It is my fervent hope that none of the wording of any of my posts have been perceived as demeaning or angry. There is a fine line between debating and arguing. I enjoy the former from time to time, but have no wish for the latter. I know also from experience that typewritten words without the softening of warm body language can be perceived more harshly than intended. No matter how firmly I may disagree with someone's viewpoint, I am committed to maintaining my love for all of you, intact and unsullied by any puffed up need to "win the day" in a debate. I would rather lose the debate than the love of Christ who dwells within. If any of my posts have ever caused even the slightest bruise I offer a heartfelt apology. This is a Christian only posting area, so I feel comfortable pleading with all of you to remain as one despite our differences of opinion. Even if brutally attacked by a wayward word taken captive by emotion, we must all strive to glorify God here.

Receive the kiss of agape love and take joy in it!

 

[LewisWildermuth]

LewisWildermuth - I do not see the earth as old, I see it as having been dramatically altered in just such a way as a catastrophic Flood would have altered it. Do you propose to know the Truth of what happened in the beginning without the slightest shadow of doubt? What if you find in the end that things happened just as recorded in Genesis? If I need to face God in error, I'd just as soon err on the side of simple faith, unburdened by convictions born from the intellect of man.

I am not in any YEC "movement" I am simply a Christian who takes God at His Word as the Spirit leads me in the study of it. My rejection of evolution is not a result of studying science, it is the result of studying the Word. But I have seen numerous souls lost to evolutionary teaching brought back to belief in God by Creation ministries. Exactly how do you see danger in that?

If you take God at his word then why do you say anything about a catastrophic flood?

Go back and read Genesis again. You will find nothing about a catastrophic flood like many creationist claim happened.

The flood of Noah was a gentle flood that did not hurt plants or even change the course of the Tigerus or Euphrates rivers. They were mentioned in the beginning before the flood and are still there.

The catastrophic flood that raised mountains and created the geologic column is a myth created by the creationist movement to try and explain things that the gentle flood of Noah could not. Simply a lie they made up to try and save a bad theology.

For creationists claiming to be such great literalists, they sure don't seem to have ever read the Bible sometimes.

This is the danger of Creationism, they lie about taking the Bible literally, they lie about radio-halos, they lie about foot prints in Texas, and on and on. Is it good to lie in the name of God?

 

[Promises]

Romans 12:16-18
Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.

 

[webboffin]

For science many things are called impossible.

Luk 1:37 For with God nothing, shall be impossible.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Fragment of Dreams - your example merely correlated my assertion. Let's take your own example and do a word substitution:

Aristotle's guess was that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. Gallileo's guess was that all objects fall at the same rate. Each theory made a guess about the relative rates at which objects fall. Gallileo tested his guess by rolling balls down an ramp. Heavier balls rolled at the same speed as lighter balls. This agreed with what he had guessed and disagreed with what Aristotle guessed. Aristotle's guess was proved wrong (through repeated direct observation) and Galilleo's guess was proved correct and even then had to be refined first by Newton and then by Einstein.

Let's try another example. The Standard Model predicted the existence of the top quark. No one had ever seen a top quark, but physicists were able to predict its approximate mass and properties using the theory.