Scientifically Impossible

[fragmentsofdreams]

...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.

Science says that both are impossible without a miracle. However, in the case of Creationism, the miracle would need to be inherently deceptive, which would contradict God's nature.

 

[Ark Guy]

The resurrection would also have been deceptive..that is considering that it is scientifically impossible, just as your claims with the creation.

Then again, you seem to forget that God said he formed Adam from the dust then Eve from his side...now if evolution is true, then, God deceived us.

 

[pudmuddle]

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.

Of course, I believe in faith. The difference is, I believe the Word of God in faith, instead of men. Do you believe the Bible is truth or not?

Evidence? Do you believe everything you read on the internet? What do you think the agenda of the people who present this evidence is?

So, if they said they had found the body of Jesus-would you believe them or your Bible?
I kind of like the old saying to believe nothing you hear and only half of what you read...

 

[nephilimiyr]

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.

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.

 

[Drotar]

Actually, I'd have to say Jet Black kind is right, in that a resurrection is a supernatural event.

It's the 'rising of the dead' part that is 'above nature.' Calling a human rising from the dead a natural event isn't exactly the most accurate claim.


The Old Earth model cannot be reconciled with the Scriptures. Why? It is said that dinosaurs died out 65 million years before man. BUT, according to Genesis 3, death was a result of the Fall of man. So man had to exist before the very first thing died. TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

The resurrection would also have been deceptive..that is considering that it is scientifically impossible, just as your claims with the creation.

Then again, you seem to forget that God said he formed Adam from the dust then Eve from his side...now if evolution is true, then, God deceived us.

Science can only say that using the observed processes of nature, the dead do not rise. It cannot say anything about processes which it has not observed (such as divine intervention).

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?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Of course, I believe in faith. The difference is, I believe the Word of God in faith, instead of men. Do you believe the Bible is truth or not?

Evidence? Do you believe everything you read on the internet? What do you think the agenda of the people who present this evidence is?

So, if they said they had found the body of Jesus-would you believe them or your Bible?
I kind of like the old saying to believe nothing you hear and only half of what you read...

They would need to find a body and prove it was Jesus'. They can't, both because there is no body to be found and because we have no way of differentiating Jesus' body from another person living in first century Palestine.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Actually, I'd have to say Jet Black kind is right, in that a resurrection is a supernatural event.

It's the 'rising of the dead' part that is 'above nature.' Calling a human rising from the dead a natural event isn't exactly the most accurate claim.

Nobody here has said that it's a natural event. My question is, who or what says that a resurrection is impossible. Someone or something has to tell us that first before we can believe that it's an impossibilty or if that it does occure that it's a miracle. Now if science hasn't said it who does? If nature says that it's an impossibilty why can't that be tested?

Isn't our own observance of things dieing and never comeing back to life useing a scientific method? And if this method shows that a resurrection does not happen isn't it than science that tells us that a resurrection is impossible? I mean sure science can't prove whether Jesus resurrected from the dead but it can make a hypothesis that it could never happen. So in a indirect way science does say that Jesus couldn't have been resurrected.

In fact I say that if there isn't anything out there to tell us that a resurrection can't happen why should any of us believe that Jesus's resurrection was a miracle.

The Old Earth model cannot be reconciled with the Scriptures. Why? It is said that dinosaurs died out 65 million years before man. BUT, according to Genesis 3, death was a result of the Fall of man. So man had to exist before the very first thing died. TTYL Jesus loves you!

But the first verse in Genesis shouldn't be looked at as haveing anything to do with the 6 days of creation. The original Hebrew conveys that they are separate. And that's useing a literal interpretation of what the original Hebrew says.

 

[pudmuddle]

They would need to find a body and prove it was Jesus'. They can't, both because there is no body to be found and because we have no way of differentiating Jesus' body from another person living in first century Palestine.

and people call me a literalist...of course they won't find it, it is a hypothetical question. Any believing Christian should be shouting "No, I would not believe it." Sadly, some put more faith in the accuracy of science than the accurancy of the Bible.

 

[Ark Guy]

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.

 

[Ark Guy]

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

 

[Promises]

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.

 

[notto]

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

Most creationists have abandoned setterfields work becuase it was simplistic and ill conceived.

"At the present time, it appears that general support by the creationist community of the decay of the speed of light hypothesis is not warranted by the data upon which the hypothesis rests."
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-179.htm

"I don’t go along with Barry‘s statements on this; he’s well-meaning, but in my opinion he‘s made a lot of rash assumptions. For instance, he has a whole sequence of things that have to be held constant just because his theory needs it, and he’s certainly not come up with any real equations explaining anything. There is not a lot of mathematical and physical theory in his work, and there‘s a misunderstanding of many of the things that would have happened if c had been 1010 higher than what it is today.’"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4153.asp

 

[notto]

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.

The difference is that they are UNFALSIFIED theories. Young Earth Creationist theories and the theory of a world wide flood to explain the evidence we find have been FALSIFIED for over 100 years.

 

[Promises]

Goodness gracious, that's a bold statement! It is also deceptively untrue. Falsified statements - with an implied "all YECs"? You certainly don't want to go there, because the history of falsifications that can be lain at the feet of evolutionists is quite formidible. Like gluing moths to tree trucks for photo opps, constructing skeletons using mismatched and even prefabricated bones and modifying anatomical drawings to create the false image that embryos go through evolution within the womb. YECs have had theories fall through just as evolutionists have. Nor can I personally testify that there have been no instances where YECs have inaccurately presented or even falsified their findings. But what I can say is that for anyone to make a broad brush statement such you have made is rather unbecoming of the Spirit of Christ. I thought this was a Christians-only Board posting area?

 

[notto]

Goodness gracious, that's a bold statement! It is also deceptively untrue. Falsified statements - with an implied "all YECs"? You certainly don't want to go there, because the history of falsifications that can be lain at the feet of evolutionists is quite formidible. Like gluing moths to tree trucks for photo opps, constructing skeletons using mismatched and even prefabricated bones and modifying anatomical drawings to create the false image that embryos go through evolution within the womb. YECs have had theories fall through just as evolutionists have. Nor can I personally testify that there have been no instances where YECs have inaccurately presented or even falsified their findings. But what I can say is that for anyone to make a broad brush statement such you have made is rather unbecoming of the Spirit of Christ. I thought this was a Christians-only Board posting area?

You are confusing falsifying information with a Falsified theory.

A falsified theory is a theory where there is direct observable evidence that renders the theory false. There are specific pieces of evidence that cannot be explained by the models creationists use and there are specific pieces of evidence that directly conflict with the models creationists use.

A 6000 year old earth and a global flood are falsified theories. They were falsified by Christians geologists over 100 years ago as they went out to seek evidence to back them up.

Evolution has not been falsified, otherwise, scientists would not continue to use it as a model. Special Creation is not used as a scientific model because it was falsified.

Why do you suggest that I am not a Christian. I am a Christian. Don't confuse Creationism with Christianity. Many of the scientists working in evolutionary biology are Christian. (You did notice the title of the forum you posted in, didn't you?)

 

[Promises]

The actual definition of the word falsify means to make false by giving an untrue idea - and it is often used in that manner in these threads. If you use it merely to point out that just as many evolutionary theories have been "falsified = proven incorrect", so have many creationist theories, then I accept that statement without malice. But your statement still implies that ALL creationist theories have been "falsified" and I hold that that statement is not true. There are many brilliant and widely accepted scientific theories that have been and continue to be put forth by Creation Scientists. Your statement made no mention of how many of the early evolutionary thoughts have been "falsified" - which again makes an unspoken implication. Just as "there are specific pieces of evidence that cannot be explained by the models creationists use and there are specific pieces of evidence that directly conflict with the models creationists use" the same can be said for evolution and old earth theories. Certainly the ideas of 100 years ago, which were not postulated through modern scientific means, have failed the test of today's scientific methods. Then again some of the evolutionary theories that were espoused 100 years ago are today considered equally preposterous. My original post set down equal terms for the evaluation of theories - both evolutionary and creationist. Theory and Truth are not equal terms. Therories must adapt to conform to advancing data, be they evolutionary or creationist. Truth, such as God's Word, is immutable.

I certainly did read the title of this forum but have also read through numerous postings by self-professed non-Christians in here, so have no confidence in that title. You have no information in your profile, so I can assume nothing about you. I have observed many very anti-Christian sentiments expressed from posters whose profiles are blank. If you wish to ensure that no one will mistake you for a non-Christian you might wish to bodly share your beliefs in your profile - it only takes a couple of minutes to fill it out.

I do not "confuse" Creationism with Christianity because I personally equate the two as one in the same. My primary concern as a Christian is and will ever be the effects of evolutionary thought as it is taught to my children that makes a total muddle of God's plan of salvation and undermines their confidence in the veracity of God's Word - two concerns that should be shared by all Christians. I refer to bold proclamations made in classrooms across the world that state that there is no divine Creator and that such beliefs are unscientific and rustically foolish. I could give a fig about whether man will eventually figure out what God has left shrouded in mystery. We'll probably laugh at how dim-witted "science" was while sitting at the foot of God's throne.

 

[notto]

I refer to bold proclamations made in classrooms across the world that state that there is no divine Creator and that such beliefs are unscientific and rustically foolish.

If this is true, those classrooms are not teaching science. You should take it up with the schoolboards. Science is agnostic toward the existence of God. Evolutionary theory (just like geology, physics, biology in general, etc) make no claims of the divine. If they do, they have moved beyond science.

A young earth and a global flood have been falsified beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why mainstream scientific studies do not included them anymore. They were the prevalent scientific thought at one time but they have since been falsified. Once a theory is falsified, it cannot be unfalsified.

The theory of common descent and evolution and origin of species through random mutation and natural selection has not yet been falsified. That is why it is still valid as the mainstream model biology uses to explain facts and evidence, and to make predictions.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

So far as I know Science has never stated anything as impossible, just unlikely.

Since the resurrection of Jesus is a supernatural event than science can say nothing about it.

There has never to my knowledge even been a scientific study of resurrection since it's not something we can duplicate.

Science does not say that it is impossible that the Earth was created 6000 years ago or so, just that it is unlikely since there is no evidence of such an event and plenty of evidence against it.

Science does not even say that it is impossible that the world was created six minutes ago by a grumpy unicorn with a gas problem, but that it is unlikely.

This unicorn could have created us with false memories and all the false evidence that would lead us to thing that we have been around for longer, but since it is super-natural, science cannot say that it is impossible.

Since T.E.'s like myself believe that God created too, we believe that one can also learn about God by studying creation.

If the Earth is really only 6000 years old or so, then what would that say about the god that would have made everything look so much older?

Why would this god feel the need to lie over and over and in so many ways? And after lying so much turn around and tell us that it is bad and evil to lie?

The more I learn and the longer I have been out of the YEC movement, the more I have come to believe that Creationism is a growing danger to Christianity.

The YEC god is not the Christian God and needs to be exposed as such.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

and people call me a literalist...of course they won't find it, it is a hypothetical question. Any believing Christian should be shouting "No, I would not believe it." Sadly, some put more faith in the accuracy of science than the accurancy of the Bible.

Faith fears no questions because it trusts the right answers will come.