A
Ark Guy
Guest
fragmentsofdreams said:
Is this the best you have?
Resurrection is scientifically impossible. ESPECIALLY 2000 YEARS AGO.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
fragmentsofdreams said: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.
lucaspa said: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?
Ark Guy said: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.
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.Ark Guy said:Is this the best you have?
Resurrection is scientifically impossible. ESPECIALLY 2000 YEARS AGO.
Why not put words in my mouth here? You do it everywhere else.Ark Guy said: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.
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.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 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 said:lucaspa, you were squarely refuted. Shall we go over it AGAIN?
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.Ark Guy said: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.
seebs said: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.
Bushido216 said: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.
lucaspa said: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.
lucaspa said: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.
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.Ark Guy said: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?
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".Ark Guy said: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.
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.Ark Guy said:Jesus copied the wine? Did he have a special wine making kit?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?