Signature failures.

[Ark Guy]

As I said, science can only say that there is no known mechanism that could ressurect a person. Before Einstein, scientists would have said that there is no known mechanism to slow time. Einstein discovered one.

Is this the best you have?

Resurrection is scientifically impossible. ESPECIALLY 2000 YEARS AGO.

 

[seebs]

So, what you're saying is that evolution would be the normal way the world would work, and that the miracle of Creation is that God did it in six days, where it would normally have taken billions of years?

Because you sure seem to be arguing an analogy that requires that we have some idea of how long it takes life to arise without divine intervention.

 

[Ark Guy]

Invalid science. You are trying to use theory to say data is wrong. Can't do that, Ark Guy.


The theory states "once you are dead for 36 hours, you stay dead." However, the Resurrection is data that requires a modification of the theory: "once you are dead for 36 hours, you stay dead unless deity changes the situation."

Is that clear?

Are you claiming that deity could not have created in six days? Seems like it....but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

remember how the wine was created with apparent age? An apparent history? Then why not certain aspects of the universe? I.E., light created in transit from a distant star.

 

[Bushido216]

Ark Guy, you're being willfully ignorant and are appealing to emotion. We never said that our deity couldn't, we said he didn't.

 

[Larry]

lucaspa has the following as a signature in his post;

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

Now considering that the resurrection contradicts science...then we must be interpretating the Gospels incorrectly. Or so the above quote would seem to indicate.

I do find it rather odd how some "christians" can carry this double standard.

What does the quoation marks around the word, "christians" mean? Are you a "christian"?

 

[Larry]

Can we get past this 'throwing the baby out with the batwater' mentality?

 

[lucaspa]

Is this the best you have?

Resurrection is scientifically impossible. ESPECIALLY 2000 YEARS AGO.

No. Resurrection is never scientifically impossible. Remember, it is data. Data -- observations -- are never "impossible". We don't have a material mechanism to resurrect a person after 36 hours, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means we can't do it. Why do you want the Resurrection to be "scientifically impossible"? I know why atheists do. They use that to try to falsify Christianity. But I don't understand your motive.

Let's take another example. Two objects cannot exist in different places at the same time. All our experience says this is so, right? Yet along comes this paper:
15. J Winters, Quantum cat tricks. Discover, 17(10): 26, Oct. 1996.

The researchers took an atom in both its spin up and spin down quantum states and separated them. Same atom but in two different places at the same time! Now, what am I supposed to do? According to you, I'm supposed to say "this is scientifically impossible" and say it didn't happen. I say I accept the observation and change the theory. Two objects can exist in different places at the same time.

Same thing with the Resurrection. A person dead 36 hours can come back to life. IF God intervenes and makes it so. If God does not intervene, then the person stays dead.

Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

 

[lucaspa]

Are you claiming that deity could not have created in six days? Seems like it....but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Why not put words in my mouth here? You do it everywhere else.

Bushido gave the answer. We are not saying God could not. We are saying God did not. And I've told you this several times already. You don't have to like the answer, but you need to stop pretending you haven't got it.

remember how the wine was created with apparent age? An apparent history? Then why not certain aspects of the universe? I.E., light created in transit from a distant star.

I did this in another thread. This seems to be the new creationist reply to objections to the Oomphalos Argument. The wine was duplicated. In essence, it was photocopied. Jesus made a copy of what already existed. Of course the photocopy is going to have the appearance of the original. That isn't deception.

In light created in transit, God is not copying. He is making something that does not exist and making it deliberately to fool us. God does not have to make the universe appear old. He can easily have the universe look young. We would simply not see the stars in the sky until their light reached us. There is no reason to make the light in transit except to deceive us.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa, you were squarely refuted. Shall we go over it AGAIN?

I guess so, because after this post you admit that I am not refuted. Instead, you change the argument to one of the appearance of age.

Ark Guy, if you want to refute me, you are going to have to show that we use theories to get rid of data. You are going to have to show that we threw out the experiments that "stopped" light, that showed Schrodinger's Cat was both dead and alive, and that had a object in two places at the same time.

Theories change with new data. In other contexts, you have objected to this because "science changes". What you must demonstrate to refute me is
1. Show that the Resurrection is not data.
2. Show with several examples where data is thrown out because theory says it cannot exist.

Go for it.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa: Invalid science. You are trying to use theory to say data is wrong. Can't do that, Ark Guy.


The theory states "once you are dead for 36 hours, you stay dead." However, the Resurrection is data that requires a modification of the theory: "once you are dead for 36 hours, you stay dead unless deity changes the situation."

Is that clear?

Are you claiming that deity could not have created in six days? Seems like it....but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

remember how the wine was created with apparent age? An apparent history? Then why not certain aspects of the universe? I.E., light created in transit from a distant star.

It must have been clear, because you changed the subject. Instead of showing how I am wrong about science, you switched claims to wonder what God could have done and then switched to the Appearance of Age argument. Neither has any relevance to my post.

Not very good "refuting", Ark Guy. Try again. You have to stick to subject to refute. Changing the subject doesn't count.

 

[Ark Guy]

So, what you're saying is that evolution would be the normal way the world would work, and that the miracle of Creation is that God did it in six days, where it would normally have taken billions of years?

Because you sure seem to be arguing an analogy that requires that we have some idea of how long it takes life to arise without divine intervention.

Nope, that's not what I am saying.

All along I have been saying that evolution can't work. The odds ara against repeated mutations that must occur.

 

[Ark Guy]

Ark Guy, you're being willfully ignorant and are appealing to emotion. We never said that our deity couldn't, we said he didn't.

And that's the problem...God said he did, and you arrogantly claim God didn't.


Then again I am ignorant because, what? I disagree with you?

 

[Ark Guy]

lucaspa: No. Resurrection is never scientifically impossible. Remember, it is data. Data -- observations -- are never "impossible". We don't have a material mechanism to resurrect a person after 36 hours, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

Thank you for helping to prove my point. Currently, and like I said especially 2000 years ago resurrection was and STILL is scientifically impossible.


It just means we can't do it. Why do you want the Resurrection to be "scientifically impossible"? I know why atheists do. They use that to try to falsify Christianity. But I don't understand your motive.

The resurrection was a miracle. There was no need for it to be scientifically possible.

Then again the atheist would love for creation to be scientifically impossible so that their natural selections of evolution could rule the day. But what YOU and the atheist seem to fail to realize is that a miracle was used in both instances. Then YOU deny one of the miracles.....based on science....despite both are scientifically impossible.

Let's take another example. Two objects cannot exist in different places at the same time. All our experience says this is so, right? Yet along comes this paper:
15. J Winters, Quantum cat tricks. Discover, 17(10): 26, Oct. 1996.

The researchers took an atom in both its spin up and spin down quantum states and separated them. Same atom but in two different places at the same time! Now, what am I supposed to do? According to you, I'm supposed to say "this is scientifically impossible" and say it didn't happen. I say I accept the observation and change the theory. Two objects can exist in different places at the same time.

So???

Same thing with the Resurrection. A person dead 36 hours can come back to life. IF God intervenes and makes it so. If God does not intervene, then the person stays dead.

And a six day creation can take place if God intervened. Of course that is exactly what God told us he did in his bible. But you seem to deny the bible. You claim God didn't create Adam from the dust then Eve from his side. You claimed this is false and God used evolutionism instead of special creation as mentioned in scripture.......pretty soon you'll be applying the same logic and claiming that the resurrection too was impossible and then denying that based upon scientific grounds.....forgetting God has and can still perform miracles.

Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Yup, and your faulty logic is still hard to grasp.

 

[Ark Guy]

Why not put words in my mouth here? You do it everywhere else.

Bushido gave the answer. We are not saying God could not. We are saying God did not. And I've told you this several times already. You don't have to like the answer, but you need to stop pretending you haven't got it.


I did this in another thread. This seems to be the new creationist reply to objections to the Oomphalos Argument. The wine was duplicated. In essence, it was photocopied. Jesus made a copy of what already existed. Of course the photocopy is going to have the appearance of the original. That isn't deception.

In light created in transit, God is not copying. He is making something that does not exist and making it deliberately to fool us. God does not have to make the universe appear old. He can easily have the universe look young. We would simply not see the stars in the sky until their light reached us. There is no reason to make the light in transit except to deceive us.

Jesus copied the wine? Did he have a special wine making kit?

 

[Ark Guy]

It must have been clear, because you changed the subject. Instead of showing how I am wrong about science, you switched claims to wonder what God could have done and then switched to the Appearance of Age argument. Neither has any relevance to my post.

Not very good "refuting", Ark Guy. Try again. You have to stick to subject to refute. Changing the subject doesn't count.

No lucaspa, the appearance of age in some instances ENHANCED my argument.
The discussion MATURED to the point where I could use the apparent age to help get my point across.

But of course you seemed to miss that. I suppose in your mind you will continue to think I tried to switch topics because you were just so clear.

NEXT​

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Ark Guy.

Listen carefully, because I'm not going to repeat myself.

We have told you until we are blue in the face that we do not reject six day creation because it is impossible, but because (a) the evidence is clear to see that it did not happen, and (b) the evidence is equally clear as to how it did happen.

But you repeatedly ignore our explanation and hurl your scurrilous and dishonest accusations again at us week in week out. You don't actually care a flying one for truth; rather you prefer to stick to your mischaracterisations and character assassinations of your opponents.

So I've had it with you. I will waste my wine on peasants no more. You have repeatedly shown yourself to be arrogant, self-righteous, to ridiculously claim victory when you have done no more than ignore, and to brush away your brothers in Christ (your last post with its bit red "next" is a perfect example) in an arrogant manner that beggars belief. Clearly you consider that you are the paragon of theological purity and have so much to offer us miserable sinners; shame you have to resort to such pathetic and mean-spirited means in order to do so.

But I have better things to do than bash my head against your brick wall of arrogance and ignorance.

Moderators - sorry if this is a flame, but he's had it coming for months.

 

[Bushido216]

And that's the problem...God said he did, and you arrogantly claim God didn't.


Then again I am ignorant because, what? I disagree with you?

I've said this again. The only legitimate interpretation we have left is a metaphorical interpretation, since all of the evidence points to an old earth and evolution, and we can't have two conflicting truths, we look towards new ways of discovering the Bible.

I know I've said this many times before, but I'm hoping it'll sink in.

 

[Bushido216]

Let's take another example. Two objects cannot exist in different places at the same time. All our experience says this is so, right? Yet along comes this paper:
15. J Winters, Quantum cat tricks. Discover, 17(10): 26, Oct. 1996.

The researchers took an atom in both its spin up and spin down quantum states and separated them. Same atom but in two different places at the same time! Now, what am I supposed to do? According to you, I'm supposed to say "this is scientifically impossible" and say it didn't happen. I say I accept the observation and change the theory. Two objects can exist in different places at the same time.

So???

Same thing with the Resurrection. A person dead 36 hours can come back to life. IF God intervenes and makes it so. If God does not intervene, then the person stays dead.

And a six day creation can take place if God intervened. Of course that is exactly what God told us he did in his bible. But you seem to deny the bible. You claim God didn't create Adam from the dust then Eve from his side. You claimed this is false and God used evolutionism instead of special creation as mentioned in scripture.......pretty soon you'll be applying the same logic and claiming that the resurrection too was impossible and then denying that based upon scientific grounds.....forgetting God has and can still perform miracles.

Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Yup, and your faulty logic is still hard to grasp.

a.) His point, genius, is that you cannot use a theory to deny data. The data must redefine the theory. The Ressurrection redefined the theory that no one can come back to life after 72 hours by adding the clause "unless God does it".

b.) Lucaspa denies a literal interpration of Genesis, not Genesis outright. And saying what he will or won't do is really dishonest of you.

 

[Bushido216]

Jesus copied the wine? Did he have a special wine making kit?

You completely missed lucaspa's point. When Jesus performed the miracle of turning the water into the wine, he copied the essence of wine over the essence of the water. In essence (pun?) Jesus did a copy / paste.

IF God created the universe 6,000 years ago, then he decieved us by making it look old, because he told us it was younger. In the first example, Jesus didn't decieve anyone, because he wasn't making claims to the contrary. In the second, God decieved us.

I'm hoping the bolding, underlining, and italics will make it clear.

 

[Ark Guy]

bushido, STOP WITH THE INSULTS.

The well know FACT that dead guys don't come back to life is much more than THEORY. It is FACT.

Get over it.