Signature failures.

[Yahweh Nissi]

Yahweh Nissi: Have you asked them that? No - so you cannot make this statement.

I have asked them that and they do claim evolutionism was the process and not the special creation of Adam and Eve....SO I CAN MAKE THE STATEMENT.

You have totally missunderstood what I was saying - you suggest I was refering to you asking people about their opinions about Adam and Eve. You should read posts more carefully - it is totally clear that that is not what I was saying. I will copy the relevent bit below:-


Quote:

Originally Posted by: Ark Guy

(Quote of YN posted by Ark Guy)
What you say about the DNA testing is true. However, if you were to ask the servants they would be able to tell you Jesus just created it.

(Ark Guy's response in that post)
And if you asked Adam, or Eve, they would be able to tell you they were just made....not evolved.

(YN's response to that post)
Have you asked them that? No - so you cannot make this statement.

I was clearly saying "Have you ever asked Adam or Eve this? Of course you have not. Therefore you cannot make this statement about what they would tell you". You assume that they would say they were litterally made fully grown out of dust and rib because that is what you believe. Others however do not believe this, that is what we are discussing, and as none of us have ever, or could ever, asked Adam we cannot know for sure.

The point I was making in my post (which you again only quoted a little bit of, you keep missing things by doing that) was that all the DNA test would do is tell you it was wine - it would not actually tell you where it came from. Now, one would assume it came from grapes that had grown on a vine because that is what happens in the general scheme of things.

No one would assume the wine didn't come from a grape???? What planet are you from?....sorry for being sarcastic, but that statement was foolish.

You totally misread my post. I said "now, one would assume...", I DID NOT say "no one would assume". I was saying that people would assume the wine came from the vine, but then in the bit you copy below, that if you believe in God you must accept that it might not have grown on the vine but could have been miraculously created. Please read people's posts more carefully.

But if you believe in God then you believe He can work miracles so you would be open to the possabilty that in fact it had not grown, but had been directly created.

And if you believe in God then you could believe he created the world in six days.....hmmmmmmm, what a concept.

Of course. But then it would not then look like He did it in a totally different way.

If you then looked at the evidence that would directly tell you where it came from, i.e. the wine-merchants sales reciepts, asked the servants who saw it happen, etc you would see that in this case the wine had been miraculously created, not grown.

Perhaps you could ask Adam where Eve came from. I think Adam would have know, don't you?

I think he would. But as we cannot ask him we must look at other evidence - which points (IMHO) to the YEC position being incorrect.

Same with the resurection. Of course, in the normal running of things dead people do not come back to life. But a belief in God means you believe it is possible for Him to miraculously bring a dead person back to life.

Or create in six days...yes?

Yes. But then it would not look like He did it in a totally different way.

In the case of Jesus He did and this then left 'scientific' evidence (in the broad sense) - i.e. eyewhitness accounts in the Gospels (which are clearly historical records as especially the start of Luke and end of John state) of it having occured. But the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly (IMHO) against God having miraculously created the Universe in accordance with the YEC position.

The scientific evidence is also overwhelming that dead people stay dead.

Indeed - in general. But scientists who believe in God (or any that admit he might exist, which should be all of them as you cannot conclusively disprove God) believe that it is possible for God to over-ride the general course of things and work a miracle - including bringing a dead man back to life. In this particular case, i.e. Jesus, the evidence - eyewhitness accounts - says that God DID perform a miracle in this case and Jesus did rise from the dead.
Now looking at creation, scientists who believe in God believe it is possible for God to work a miracle and create the Universe in the way the YEC position states He did. But in this particular case the evidence - e.g. the presence of the cosmic microwave background - says that God DID NOT do this, but instead He created the Universe 13.7 billion years ago in the Big Bang. In my eyes this makes God even more awe inspiring and worthy of all honour, praise and glory.

It is in accordance with Him creating the Universe about 13.7 billion years ago in the 'Big Bang' - something I consider much more 'miraculous' in a sense. As I have said many times before, 2Tim 3:15-17 tells us all scripture is God breathed and what it is useful for - and this does NOT include it being an exactly litteral account in all places or that it is useful for understanding science.

So, you are saying that the resurrection did not have to be an exact literal account?

NO, I AM NOT SAYING THAT. I am providing scriptural support, which you are always (rightly) so keen on, that one does not automatically have to take the whole Bible to be litterally true. The Gosples are clearly litteral, historical accounts - Luke and John explicitly say this, and Paul says elsewhere (I think in Romans, not sure though) that it is crucial to believe in a litteral resurection. THEREFORE I SAY THAT THE RESURECTION DOES HAVE TO BE A LITTERAL ACCOUNT.

when you get what is clearly stated to be a historical account, like the gospels, you take it to be a historical account.

Why did the gospel writer along with numerous other NT writers present the event a historical? Were they being deceptive to us?

The first few chapters of Genesis do not claim to be a litteral historical account and the style in which they are written suggests that they are not - e.g. such things as God (i.e. YHWH - either the father or the full triune Godhead, not sure which) stroling through the garden - clearly an absurdity if taken litterally. And with all the scientific evidence against it being litteral I conclude that it is not litteral.

Funny..the bible all through out it presents it as a literal happening.

Would you like some examples?

I am sure that the gospel writers, other NT writers and other Bible writers did think it was litterally true - they would have no reason not to - they were not being deceptive. God did not make the Bible writers omniscient. He made sure that everying they wrote as scripture was 'God Breathed'. So everything they wrote was true, in the sense intended - but as we see from 2Tim 3:15-17 it was not all intended to be litterally true. God had no reason to tell them it was not litterally true - the reasons for which (I suspect) He did not give a litteral account in the first place had not changed. The people would not have been able to understand a litteral historical account as they had none of the scientific background needed to understand it, and they did not need to know a litteral scientific account. What thay needed to know was that God created the World and the Universe by His soverign will to His exact specifications, that it was good and it was mankind's sin that messed things up, that we are created in God's image but fallen far from its perfection, etc. So He told them these truthes in a metaphorical creation story of the kind thay were used to, and also one the specifically mirrored and mocked the false Babylonian creation account. These reasons were just as valid when the NT was written so God let them continue believing it was a litteral account and gaining the same theological truthes from it we gain, which is the main point.
Now you may be about to say 'ah hah, I thought you said the Gosples, and indeed I thought you believed most of the NT, are historical accounts'. Indeed I do. The vast majority of the Gospel and other NT writings are historical records of things the writers themselves had seen or things people they had talked to had seen. When talking about early Genesis, however, they are not talking about things they have seen or anyone in living memory had seen. They were just getting their knowlege from the scritptures, which as I have said they assumed to be litterally true and which God let them believe.

God bless,
YN.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

Your point is not valid. We can't bring a person back to life after they have been dead for 36 hours. But that says nothing about the ability for it to happen with divine intervention. Does it?

lucaspa: 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.

Ah, now I get it. You are working with god-of-the-gaps. God is only present when there is a miracle and God is absent when science is around? No, Ark Guy. Get that idea out of your head. You have this idea that science is involved totally with human ability. That's not so. Science is simply the study of the physical universe. If God directly intervenes in that universe, then that is part of science too. So, science does not say miracles are impossible. Resusitation is scientifically possible whether humans do it with electric paddles, drugs, and artificial respiration or God does it by a mechanism we don't understand. We can't do a resusitation after 36 hours, but having God do it has nothing to do with "scientifically impossible". It appears that you are confusing "technologically possible" with "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.

Yes, atheists would love to show that God didn't create because there was no God to do the creating. However, science hasn't shown that creation is scientifically impossible. Theistic evolutionists instead believe that science has shown how God created.

Natural selection and evolution do rule the day. What atheists do is believe these processes happen without God. That's not science. It's their belief. They misrepresent science the exact same way you are. We know their motive for misrepresenting science. What's yours?

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.

Neither are "scientifically impossible". That is, God could have created in 6 days. But, if that had happened, the the world would look like God created in 6 days. Instead, the world looks like God created by evolution over a period of 13.4 billion years for the universe and 4.55 billion years for earth. What we are saying is that it is not "impossible" for God to have created in 6 days, but that God did not do it that way. We are not denying the "miracle", but rather saying that God clearly tells us that He did not create that way and that your interpretation of Genesis 1 is wrong.

lucaspa: 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???

Please read it again, Ark Guy. This is an example of something that, by your criteria, is "scientifically impossible". Yet it happens and we accept that it did and change our theories. It's exactly like the Resurrection.

lucaspa: 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.

This gets down to the rock bottom difference between us.
1. I don't deny the Bible. I deny your interpretation of the Bible.
2. I listen to God in both His books: the Bible and Creation. You turn your back on God and don't listen to Him. In particular, you deny that God created.

It's a very basic difference in how we approach God. Theistic evolutionists listen to God. They let God tell us how He created and look for how He meant for Genesis 1-11 to be read. Biblical literalists creationists decide in their human pride how Genesis 1-11 is to be read and then tell God how He had to create. In effect, Biblical literalism says "We read the Bible literally and therefore, God, we demand that You create as we have read the Bible. We will not listen to anything You have to say in Creation or any other possible way we should read the Bible. We demand that You do as we say!"

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.

LOL!! Ark Guy, haven't you been listening in several threads to what I've been saying? You have been using the "logic" to state "that the resurrection too was impossible and then denying that based upon scientific grounds". I have been arguing against that logic! Now you say I will start using it? LOL! Why should I when the logic is wrong!

The logic by which I say that God didn't create two humans -- Adam and Eve -- in their present form is completely different. That isn't "logic" at all but listening to what God tells me in His Creation. Let me repeat that: God tells us that He did not create humans by making Adam out of dust and Eve from a rib. That story is there not for God to tells us how He created humans, but to tell us about how humans relate to God.

 

[lucaspa]

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

Yes, pretty much.

Ark Guy, have you ever watched Star Trek? They have a device called a "replicator". This device replicates material at the molecular level. That is, it puts atoms and molecules together so that the atoms and molecules are in the same places they would be in an original. For instance, you can replicate wine this way. Do the analysis of all the atoms and molecules and then put them together in the same way. Voila! Wine.

Essentially, this is what Jesus does with the wine and the loaves and fishes. Exactly how he does this we don't know. That's the "miracle" part. But the result is that this is what was done.

In putting the molecules together as they are in wine, an unavoidable side effect is that the wine would look like it was pressed grapes with a history of fermentation. Just like a really good photocopy these days is indistinguishable from an original. We even now use the same paper in our printers and photocopiers. So the photocopy has the unavoidable side effect of looking like it is an original composition, with all the history therein.

However, the universe is not like that. It is not a copy. There is only one of it. So, there is no reason to have it look old when it is young except that God would want to deceive us. But God is not a deceiver, is He? For those at the party who didn't investigate, they may have thought the wine was grown and not made by Jesus. But Jesus made no attempt to hide his miracle, did he? It was right out there for anyone to see. But you would have God hide His miracle of a young earth. Why would He do that except to deceive us? Why put one miracle out there for us to see plainly and hide the other?

 

[lucaspa]

lucapsa: 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.

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.

Your "point" had no relevance to my post about how science works. The Appearance of Age argument has nothing to do with not using theory to discard data. If you think it does, instead of this, please explain in detail. Please walk me thru exactly how it enhances your argument.

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.

You haven't demonstrated to me how the Appearance of Age enhanced your argument. You have asserted it. Now I am asking you to explain it.

I still see no relevance to the Appearance of Age and modifying theory to fit data. Call me whatever names you like, but please walk us thru the details of the relevance.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

Facts are observations. Theories are statements about the physical universe.

"dead guys don't come back to life" is thus a theory. It tells us what all dead guys past or present have done.

The facts behind the theory are the observations of what happens to dead guys.

However, even here you are contradicted by observations. We now have several observations where people have died -- heart stopped -- and they have come back to life. It's called resusitation. It happens every day in ERs. Now, the dead guys don't come back to life on their own, do they? They come back because some outside "force" -- the people in the ER -- has intervened.

So, your theory as stated is wrong. It is not "fact". The theory now is "dead guys don't come back unless they are resusitated by other people." Right?

Well, you can extend this. "guys dead 36 hours don't come back unless they are resusitated by God."

What I don't get is why you are insisting that this is right! If it is, if "dead guys don't come back" is the universal truth you are claiming it to be, then Chrisitanity is wrong, false, a myth! IOW, if we really do concede that you are correct, then we have to stop being Christians!

This is the argument used by atheists. So ... Congratulations, Ark Guy! You are insisting that atheists are right and won't let anyone tell you atheists are wrong! Why are you still a Christian? You are now telling us the Bible must be wrong. Because dead guys cannot come back, the Bible must be wrong in telling us one dead guy did come back. For someone who believes the whole Bible is the truth, you are going to a lot of effort to show the Bible to be wrong. Why?

 

[Godzman]

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.

Hmm... I never thought about that before

 

[lucaspa]

God deceived us with the six day creation? HOW?????....God told us what he did. Considering God told us what he did I fail to see how it can be considered as deception.

Simple. God really did create! You keep missing this essential fact, Ark Guy. God really did create. That means that what we find in Creation (via science) was put there by God. Couldn't have come from anywhere else, could it? So, God tells us one thing in Creation and then (supposedly) tells us something different in the Bible. God has to be deceiving us somewhere. If God created only 6,000 years ago but made the universe look old, then God is deceiving us in His Creation.

Of course, the solution to all this is not that God is deceiving us, but that you are. You are deceiving us by telling us God said something He didn't. It is you who are saying that "God told us". Not God. God is quite clear in the text that we are not supposed to read Genesis 1-3 literally like you are doing.

Now, who should I believe? You or God? Gee, that's a tough one! (snicker). I really have to go with God here.

 

[lucaspa]

You've gotten yourself so twisted up in your own arguement that now you are denying the Ressurection.

You noticed this too, huh? What we should do is let Ark Guy "win" this. Let him say that the Resurrection is impossible. And then we all leave Christianity and either join another theism or become agnostic or atheist. And then Ark Guy can have this forum all to himself, and all Christianity to himself, because he destroyed Christianity!

Let him have his Pyrrhic victory. Wouldn't that be fun?

 

[lucaspa]

Hmm... I never thought about that before

Keep reading the thread. You will see that Ark Guy simply has the wrong idea about what science is and how it works.

 

[Godzman]

Simple. God really did create! You keep missing this essential fact, Ark Guy. God really did create. That means that what we find in Creation (via science) was put there by God. Couldn't have come from anywhere else, could it? So, God tells us one thing in Creation and then (supposedly) tells us something different in the Bible. God has to be deceiving us somewhere. If God created only 6,000 years ago but made the universe look old, then God is deceiving us in His Creation.

Of course, the solution to all this is not that God is deceiving us, but that you are. You are deceiving us by telling us God said something He didn't. It is you who are saying that "God told us". Not God. God is quite clear in the text that we are not supposed to read Genesis 1-3 literally like you are doing.

Now, who should I believe? You or God? Gee, that's a tough one! (snicker). I really have to go with God here.

I have a question, how old do you believe the earth is, I am an old earth creationist, and I believe the earth is a lot older then 6,000 years, maybe 10,000-25,000 but I more often go with around 100,000. But I don't believe it is as old as scientists believe it is.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Godzman, how did you come up with these arbitrary numbers. Do you think all of us scientists are somehow deluded. There are so many different lines of evidence for an old Earth & Universe it's ridiculous to accept they are all wrong. What is more it is the concordancy of the results that is even more striking.

 

[Godzman]

Godzman, how did you come up with these arbitrary numbers. Do you think all of us scientists are somehow deluded. There are so many different lines of evidence for an old Earth & Universe it's ridiculous to accept they are all wrong. What is more it is the concordancy of the results that is even more striking.

Arbitary numbers, you guys think that you can figure something out by digging up the past, but even the dinosaur bones people find are not frequent and what about the finds in South America with primitive drawings of people with creatures that seem to resemble the scientific idea of what a dinosaur looks like.

Do I need to trust man and is subjective beliefs or do I trust God and see that what he says is true. Even if men on both sides of the argument distort his word.

I am no John Usher but I am no Charles Darwin either.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

If you are referring to the Ica stones (I think that was there name) they were faked. They found the guy who was making and selling them to gullible creationst types who so desperately want to believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted. ROTFLMAO.

Oh - and yes we can figure this stuff out.

 

[Godzman]

If you are referring to the Ica stones (I think that was there name) they were faked. They found the guy who was making and selling them to gullible creationst types who so desperately want to believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted. ROTFLMAO.

Oh - and yes we can figure this stuff out.

How were you there, did God reveal it to you, was it in written history, it seems that the most reliable sources we have is written history, and that only dates to 6,000 years ago.

Science can only go so far, and it is based on a lot of persupositions

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

I'm sorry but I am not going to spend the time giving you a scientific education. But you know the various dating methods are not plucked out of our backsides for the heck of it. And actually written history if often a very poor guide especially more than 1000 years in the past.

Do you have any idea how many different physical principles (often unrelated) give CONCORDANT results with respect to dating. Is this coincidence?

 

[Godzman]

I'm sorry but I am not going to spend the time giving you a scientific education. But you know the various dating methods are not plucked out of our backsides for the heck of it. And actually written history if often a very poor guide especially more than 1000 years in the past.

Do you have any idea how many different physical principles (often unrelated) give CONCORDANT results with respect to dating. Is this coincidence?

Are they reliable or how do you define, by what calendar do you go by, calendars are not reliable all the time anyway. Do you as a Christian ultimately put your trust in a Holy God, or a holy science?

That is the choice you are faced with. I believe both YEC and evolutionists are extremists

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

No it is not the choice I am faced with. Maybe at your Bible college they teach this kind of reasoning - but I would pay for an accredited education instead.

And what has calendar got to do with dating anyway?

You are only 19 and I think some reading is in order, though at 19 you should be a little better versed methinks.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Is this the best you have?

Resurrection is scientifically impossible. ESPECIALLY 2000 YEARS AGO.

Science cannot make statements about the unknown. Scientists who do have a history of making fools of themselves. People used to think that you couldn't fly faster than sound and survive. They were proved wrong.

What would happen to your argument if by some miracle of science a three day old dead body could be revived in the future?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

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.

I shall pray for you.

 

[Ark Guy]

Godzman...do you believe in evolutionism or special creation?