Signature failures.

[Ark Guy]

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.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Ark Guy,

I am wondering why your profile used to claim you were a 'science teacher' and now says nothing?

Was the claim false? Or are you embarrassed since reading your posts shows very little science understanding and just a lot of science bashing.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

The Ressurection does not contradict science. It makes no scientifically testable claims. Science can say that there have been no scientifically documented cases of ressurection and that there is no observed mechanism that could ressurect someone, but it cannot say that Jesus was not ressurected or that ressurection is impossible.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

I will not try and defend this quote, as I may disagree with it a bit myself - or at least suggest the statement was poorly worded.

But your main point, which I have seen you make on other occasions, is why do Christians not accept a litteral reading of Genesis on the basis that it clashes with science but do accept a litteral reading of the resurection story despite the fact that this too seems unscientific. I realise this could seem very odd to YECs and I thank you for the chance to clear up the confusion.

First of all, science is intrinsically agnostic - it does not and cannot consider the question of the existance of God. There are many scientists who are Christian, many of other faiths and many atheists and agnostics. It is unable to deny that there might be a creator God who has power over His creation and is able to make it act in a different way from the way in generally appears to function.

So science does not deny God and for reasons beond science many scientists believe in God - specifically the Christian God for the purpose of this thread. Scientists who are Christian accept that God may act in His creation and do things that seem 'unscientific'. So, we believe that He could have created the Universe in 6 days had He wished. However, we see no reason why He would do this and then alter what He had created to make it appear that creation had occured in a different way - i.e. the way the vast majority of scientific opinion says it did with a 'Big Bang' 13.7 billion years ago, abiogenesis and evolution. So, although God could have created 'unscientifically' as the YEC position states - the data collected by scientists trying to determine how the Universe began and life came about would have looked very different. This is what we mean by saying creationism has been scientifically falsified.

Now, Jesus' resurection was 'unscientific' in so far as there is no mechanism in scienctific knowlege by which it could have occured. But science does not rule out a God who could have worked a miracle and raised Him from the dead, and by faith scientist Christians believe this happened. BECAUSE although His resurection was miraculous there is plenty of ordinary evidence that it happened. People actually saw Him after the resurection and left eyewhitness accounts. He was seen to physically eat fish, people touched Him, one even placed his hands in His wounds. If some advanced alien life in a nearby star system has been observing Earth through some 'super telescope' they would have actually seen the resurection take place and their scientists would accept it as fact because it had been scientifically proven. Had they recorded it we could see it ourselves. THIS is the difference between accepting YEC and accepting the resurection.

I hope this has cleared things up.

Shalom,
YN.

 

[Ark Guy]

Ark Guy,

I am wondering why your profile used to claim you were a 'science teacher' and now says nothing?

Was the claim false? Or are you embarrassed since reading your posts shows very little science understanding and just a lot of science bashing.

Why are you trying to insult me? Do you think this is the proper christian attitude?

Just because I find many flaws with evolutionism doesn't mean I don't understand science....that is, just because I disagree with your INTERPRETATION of science doesn't mean I don't understand it.

i expect an apology from you.

 

[Ark Guy]

The Ressurection does not contradict science. It makes no scientifically testable claims. Science can say that there have been no scientifically documented cases of ressurection and that there is no observed mechanism that could ressurect someone, but it cannot say that Jesus was not ressurected or that ressurection is impossible.

The resurrection does contradict science. Once you're dead, especially for 3 days you stay dead....or do you disagree? Can you come back to life? Despite the dead brain cells? Despite the pooling of your blood? Despite the rigamortis? Despite the corpse beginning to rot?

 

[Ark Guy]

I will not try and defend this quote, as I may disagree with it a bit myself - or at least suggest the statement was poorly worded.

snip


So science does not deny God and for reasons beond science many scientists believe in God - specifically the Christian God for the purpose of this thread. Scientists who are Christian accept that God may act in His creation and do things that seem 'unscientific'. So, we believe that He could have created the Universe in 6 days had He wished. However, we see no reason why He would do this and then alter what He had created to make it appear that creation had occured in a different way - i.e. the way the vast majority of scientific opinion says it did with a 'Big Bang' 13.7 billion years ago, abiogenesis and evolution. So, although God could have created 'unscientifically' as the YEC position states - the data collected by scientists trying to determine how the Universe began and life came about would have looked very different. This is what we mean by saying creationism has been scientifically falsified.

snip

I hope this has cleared things up.

Shalom,
YN.

I think good argument could be made against this so-called old earth/universe argument.
Personally I think it looks young and have seen scientific evidence that clearly shows the earth can't be as old as those that accept evolutionism claim. Of course that is another topic and the real answer to your reply about what scientific evidence reveals follows.

In the bible we read that there once was wedding which took place at Cana in Galilee. During the wedding the servants gave the master of the banquet some wine to taste. The master of the banquet seemed to really enjoy the taste of the wine. As a matter of fact the master of the banquet took the bridegroom aside and complimented him on bringing out the better wine near the end of the wedding.

If you were to test the wine that the servants gave to the master of the banquet to taste, you would have laboratory results returned to you that indicated it was indeed a beverage that came from a fruit that use to hang on a vine in a vineyard. For all practical purposes the wine had a history. The test results would be irrefutable scientific proof. If you could extract the DNA from the beverage it would be an identical match to the grape DNA. The history of the wine would lead to a grape vine. The wine would indicate apparent age, yet we know it to be moments old.

But what is the truth? Did the wine really come from a grape vine? The bible tells us in John 2 that the wine did not have its start on a grape vine as the scientific test would have concluded but rather Jesus turned some water in clay jars into the wine. Water to wine was its simple history.

It appeared old in the minds of the scientific, but was not in reality.
For some the anology can be related directly to the six day creation.
----------------
Now once again, when you view this water to wine story against the opening quote in this thread...once again we see that we have interpreted the bible wrong for we all know water can't become wine.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

I think good argument could be made against this so-called old earth/universe argument.
Personally I think it looks young and have seen scientific evidence that clearly shows the earth can't be as old as those that accept evolutionism claim. Of course that is another topic and the real answer to your reply about what scientific evidence reveals follows.

In the bible we read that there once was wedding which took place at Cana in Galilee. During the wedding the servants gave the master of the banquet some wine to taste. The master of the banquet seemed to really enjoy the taste of the wine. As a matter of fact the master of the banquet took the bridegroom aside and complimented him on bringing out the better wine near the end of the wedding.

If you were to test the wine that the servants gave to the master of the banquet to taste, you would have laboratory results returned to you that indicated it was indeed a beverage that came from a fruit that use to hang on a vine in a vineyard. For all practical purposes the wine had a history. The test results would be irrefutable scientific proof. If you could extract the DNA from the beverage it would be an identical match to the grape DNA. The history of the wine would lead to a grape vine. The wine would indicate apparent age, yet we know it to be moments old.

But what is the truth? Did the wine really come from a grape vine? The bible tells us in John 2 that the wine did not have its start on a grape vine as the scientific test would have concluded but rather Jesus turned some water in clay jars into the wine. Water to wine was its simple history.

It appeared old in the minds of the scientific, but was not in reality.
For some the anology can be related directly to the six day creation.
----------------
Now once again, when you view this water to wine story against the opening quote in this thread...once again we see that we have interpreted the bible wrong for we all know water can't become wine.

I say again, I will not try to defend this quote as I do not quite agree with it myself.

And again, all science does say that so far we 'know' (as in can scientifically prove) there is no mechanism for water to turn into wine. But it does not and cannot say that there is no God who can perform miracles in His creation therefore it does not and cannot say that "water can't become wine". Many scientists may make this as an off-the-cuff statement, but if pressed would have to admit that they cannot say this for certain as they cannot for certain disprove the existance of God.

On to the wine...
Funnily enough I just heard that this morning - it was the gospel reading for the day in the traditional Anglican litturgy
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. If you were to check the books of the wine merchant you would find he had not sold this wine to the house. If you were to see if the DNA exactly matched that of any plants in the local vinyards, or indeed any in the world, you might well find it did not exactly match any. It might, but there would be no need for God to make it so. And again, if our alien civilisation had been watching through their super telescope they would have actually seen it change. So, the seum total of the evidence would be contradictory, and so a theist would conclude a miracle had been performed. (Sure, an athiest would twist out of that conclusion somehow, but that is their problem).
But, IMHO, there is no evidence that supports a YEC position. When we look through our super telescopes we see something quite different. I realise you disagree, but if you do not want to discuss science of YEC vs TE here that is fine - as you say it is not the point of the thread.

However, I do hope I have answered the point. Would you please not conceed that it is not automatically and totally contradictory for Christians to accept a litteral resurection and yet deny YEC on the basis of science? That is not asking a lot and involves absolutely no concesion whatsoever on your YEC views - just an acceptance that the views of others are not a nonsense.

Shalom,
YN.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Why are you trying to insult me? Do you think this is the proper christian attitude?

Just because I find many flaws with evolutionism doesn't mean I don't understand science....that is, just because I disagree with your INTERPRETATION of science doesn't mean I don't understand it.

i expect an apology from you.

It was a question. Why do you expect an apology for a question?

Again, are you a science teacher and pray tell, what science do you accept because it seems you reject anything in regards to evolution, cosmology etc?

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

It was a question. Why do you expect an apology for a question?

Again, are you a science teacher and pray tell, what science do you accept because it seems you reject anything in regards to evolution, cosmology etc?

To be fair, it may have been a simple question but it had nothing to do with the topic of the thread. And it did seem to me to be a little bit inflamatry - and I hugely disagree with Ark Guy on scientific matters.

Peace,
YN.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

I told you when I replied to this in the thread "Your Best Source for Creation" that I expected you to pay attention and not use this invalid argument again. And yet here you are.

The Resurrection does not contradict science. You are using invalid science.

Scientifically, what you have with the dead bodies is a THEORY, based upon the individual data points of dead bodies we have observed. The theory states that a person dead will not come back to life. However, you can never prove a theory, you can only test it. So far, all the data supports that theory. BUT, Yeshu's resurrection is DATA. That is the point that has to be kept firmly in mind. The Resurrection is data. Data can always overthrow theory. But you cannot use theory reject data. You cannot generalize from what you have observed to reject the next observation. And that is what you did above. You have used the theory to reject data. Invalid science.

 

[lucaspa]

The resurrection does contradict science. Once you're dead, especially for 3 days you stay dead....or do you disagree?

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

Can you come back to life? Despite the dead brain cells? Despite the pooling of your blood? Despite the rigamortis? Despite the corpse beginning to rot?

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?

 

[lucaspa]

Jack Sparrow: Ark Guy,

I am wondering why your profile used to claim you were a 'science teacher' and now says nothing?

Was the claim false? Or are you embarrassed since reading your posts shows very little science understanding and just a lot of science bashing.

Why are you trying to insult me? Do you think this is the proper christian attitude?

Just because I find many flaws with evolutionism doesn't mean I don't understand science....that is, just because I disagree with your INTERPRETATION of science doesn't mean I don't understand it.

i expect an apology from you.

I don't see an insult. I see some questions that you are not answering. Why did you change your signature? Was your claim of being a science teacher false? Were you embarrassed by the claim?

Simple questions, Ark Guy. All you had to do was give simple answers. Also, it isn't your opposition to evolution that shows a poor understanding of science. It is your failure to realize that the Resurrection does not contradict science and some other factual mistakes you have made concerning science.

I see no need for an apology. I do see a need for you to address the questions more directly. I hope you do.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

The reason I asked Ark Guy the question was his quibble with signatures. I thought instead of a separate, superfluous thread on Profiles it seemed in spirit of the current thread.

Since he seems to reject any scientific argument I wonder what science he does accept and who the heck would employ soemone who shows (from scanning his past posts) no clue on scientific arguments.

Another point is the irony of him accusing me of not having a 'Christian attitude' and wanting an apology when perusing his posts he frequently accuses others of not being Christian (violating the rules) and just flat out throwing insults around. Where are Ark Guy's apologies?

 

[lucaspa]

The reason I asked Ark Guy the question was his quibble with signatures. I thought instead of a separate, superfluous thread on Profiles it seemed in spirit of the current thread.

Ark Guy isn't really quibbling about signatures. Creationists hate the first quote in my signature. Because it passes authority for interpreting scripture from them to God. It also reminds them that God really created and that science is simply the study of that Creation. Creationism wants the Bible, or more correctly the creationist interpretation of the Bible, to be the final authority. If anything in science (God) contradicts their interpretation, we are to take their interpretation. This obviously diminishes the power of Biblical literalism and therefore I see these objections.

Another point is the irony of him accusing me of not having a 'Christian attitude' and wanting an apology when perusing his posts he frequently accuses others of not being Christian (violating the rules) and just flat out throwing insults around. Where are Ark Guy's apologies?

You will find this quite commonly. Part of it is projection. They take what they are uncomfortable with in their own behavior and try to have everyone else do it, too. Part is distraction. If they can divert the thread into discussing these personality traits, then they don't have to discuss arguments and data they can't deal with. Part is, I think, a persecution complex. Ark Guy has just come back from being banned for the behavior you talk about. It appears that he is anxious to make it look like others are guilty of the same behavior.

My suggestion? Turn the other cheek whenever possible. Don't even quote the offending part but just the substance of the post -- assuming there is some. And address the substance.

The only reason I commented is because TheBear tried to teach how to do polite and substantive discussion in a thread here. It didn't work. I know I have no hope of succeeding where TheBear failed (since he is so much more competent than I in these matters) but I am too stubborn to give up.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Didn't I answer this in another thread... yesterday? Oh well, time for copy/paste.

God could certainly ressurect someone who has been dead for three days. God could also create the world in six days. But God does not hide his works. When he ressurected Jesus, Jesus did not hide in a cave and write a few papers that said "God brought me back, but he doesn't want you to know that he did." He went out and proclaimed that he had been ressurected. Similarly, if God created the world in six days, six thousand years ago then the evidence would proclaim it. It doesn't. He didn't.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

The resurrection does contradict science. Once you're dead, especially for 3 days you stay dead....or do you disagree? Can you come back to life? Despite the dead brain cells? Despite the pooling of your blood? Despite the rigamortis? Despite the corpse beginning to rot?

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.

 

[Ark Guy]

YN:
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.

And if you asked Adam, or Eve, they would be able to tell you they were just made....not evolved.

 

[Ark Guy]

The Resurrection does not contradict science. You are using invalid science.

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

 

[Ark Guy]

Didn't I answer this in another thread... yesterday? Oh well, time for copy/paste.

God could certainly ressurect someone who has been dead for three days. God could also create the world in six days. But God does not hide his works. When he ressurected Jesus, Jesus did not hide in a cave and write a few papers that said "God brought me back, but he doesn't want you to know that he did." He went out and proclaimed that he had been ressurected. Similarly, if God created the world in six days, six thousand years ago then the evidence would proclaim it. It doesn't. He didn't.

Didn't you read my post on the wine? It was a creation of wine from water. The wine appeared as old, yet it wasn't. Just like the servant told what happened with the water, God in Genesis told us what happened with the creation. God wasn't trying to fool anyone....unlike the theo-evos.