Signature failures.

[Ark Guy]

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?

It wouldn't matter as far as my argument goes.....200 years ago it was scientifically impossible.

Even if we could do it today..which we can't, the resurrection would have been impossible.

So the question remains...why do the Theo-Evos accept one scientific impossibility...then deny another?

 

[ThePhoenix]

It wouldn't matter as far as my argument goes.....200 years ago it was scientifically impossible.

Even if we could do it today..which we can't, the resurrection would have been impossible.

So the question remains...why do the Theo-Evos accept one scientific impossibility...then deny another?

So to trust theistic evolution we have to believe that Jesus was ressurected by ~30 AD technology Yeah. We're not limiting what God can do, simply what God would do in a christian framework. God would not lie, or christianity is not true.

 

[aziel92]

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.

No fakes were made of the originals, this came from a non-creationist site:
The rumors of Dr. Cabrera's collection have brought tourists to the area, seeking what they are assured are the "real stones." Steede found that the artist managed to emulate the style on the Ica stones, but his technique was not quite as good. Moreover, the tell-tale varnish was absent from his grooves.
Here is the website: http://www.viewzone.com/dinostone.ica.html

 

[Bushido216]

And where are the originals again?

 

[wblastyn]

It wouldn't matter as far as my argument goes.....200 years ago it was scientifically impossible.

Even if we could do it today..which we can't, the resurrection would have been impossible.

So the question remains...why do the Theo-Evos accept one scientific impossibility...then deny another?

Creationism makes statements that can be falsified, and have been by science. Therefore, creationism is not true.

On the other hand, Jesus' resurrection does not make statements that can be falsified. Of course people cannot just rise from the dead naturally, but the resurrection was supposed to defy nature - it was a miracle from GOD! Since it does not make any statements that can be falsified it is outside science and so we believe Jesus rose from the dead based on faith.

You could say that creationism is a miracle, and that may be so, but it makes statements that can be falsified by science (young earth, animals popping into existance at the same time, global flood, etc) and therefore does fit in the realm of science.

Now you've been told this before and I've put it as simple as possible, if you don't understand this and don't stop making this stupid arguement you'll further label yourself as the village idiot.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

It wouldn't matter as far as my argument goes.....200 years ago it was scientifically impossible.

Even if we could do it today..which we can't, the resurrection would have been impossible.

So the question remains...why do the Theo-Evos accept one scientific impossibility...then deny another?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

It wouldn't matter as far as my argument goes.....200 years ago it was scientifically impossible.

Even if we could do it today..which we can't, the resurrection would have been impossible.

So the question remains...why do the Theo-Evos accept one scientific impossibility...then deny another?

Impossible without divine intervention. Nothing is impossible, scientifically or otherwise, with the intervention of an omnipotent God.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Wait a second, this arguement has gone in a full circle twice. Ark guy needs to hit the Prev button to see the answers to his "questions" that have been ignored.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Guys - this is a complete waste of time. Ark Guy has had it explained to him before. But he doesn't actually want to hear your explanations. He just wants to keep bleating his mantra.

Let him. Everyone knows the score.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

So the question remains...why do the Theo-Evos accept one scientific impossibility...then deny another?

Brother, we have already given our reasons many times. We accept that God can interveen in His creation to alter the normal running of things - a miracle. His miraculous actions would leave effects which science could then analyse. The evidence (e.g. eyewhitness accounts in the Gospels) is that God did perform the miracle of the resurection. The evidence (e.g. the cosmic microwave background) is that God did not create in six days ~6000 years ago.

Hence, we accept the resurection and do not accept YEC.

That is our reason - plain and simple. Is it really too much for you to say "OK - thank you for answering my question. I see your reasons and I accept that you are not holding an absurd or self-contradictory position. However, as I disagree with you interpretation of the Bible and the scientific evidence I disagree with your position."

And if you wish to disagree with this post, could you please first reply to my post #61, which is part of our ongoing discussion that goes into the points raised here in much more detail, to which you have not yet replied.

God bless,
YN.

 

[Godzman]

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

special creation of course, but I think the whole age thing is wrong on both sides

 

[Ark Guy]

special creation of course, but I think the whole age thing is wrong on both sides

Might I ask why? I'm kinda curious.

 

[Ark Guy]

So to trust theistic evolution we have to believe that Jesus was ressurected by ~30 AD technology Yeah. We're not limiting what God can do, simply what God would do in a christian framework. God would not lie, or christianity is not true.

Your evolutionISM sure limits Jesus Christ and strips him of his special creation as presented in Genesis.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

The data falsifies a 100,000 year old earth. That there are no radioactive isotopes with have half lives of less than 50 million years that are not made by other processes means the earth cannot be 100,000 years old. The millions of layers in the Green River varves also falsify a 100,000 year old earth. Metamorphic rock falsifies a 100,000 year old earth. The list goes on and on. Christian geologists realized by 1800 that the earth had to be far older than 100,000 years.

 

[Ark Guy]

Radioactive isotope dating has many flaws and can't be trusted...but of course you already knew that.

 

[lucaspa]

The point is that NOW and THEN it is/was scientifically impossible.

You are confusing "technologically impossible" with "scientifically impossible" If it happens, it is not scientifically impossible no matter how many times it fails to happen.

Again, how many times have we seen a object exist in two places at once? All the objects we have seen exist in one place at a time. Now, according to your logic, that should make it "scientifically impossible" for an object to exist in two places at the same time, right?

And yet it was observed! What do you want us to do? Deny it happened?

Remember you must look at scripture with the proper hermenuitics

And that pegs the irony meter! When have you ever applied the proper hermenuetics? http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/b11.html

 

[lucaspa]

Radioactive isotope dating has many flaws and can't be trusted...but of course you already knew that.

Actually, it can be trusted. However, I wasn't referring to any particular dating method.

There are 64 nuclides that have half-lives in excess of 1,000 years. Of these, 47 have half-lives in the range 1,000 to 50 million years. Seven must be excluded from this analysis because they are being generated by interaction with cosmic rays or the decay of other nuclides. If the earth were new (within 10,000 years) then there should be significant amounts of all 40 nuclides in the earth's crust. If, on the other hand, the earth is billions of years old, then these 40 nuclides should have decayed, leaving no trace. We would then be able only to find nuclides with very long half-lives. So how many of the 40 short half-lived nuclides can we find in the crust? None. Zip. Of the 17 nuclides with half-lives greater than 50 million years, we can find detectable amounts of all 17. You may object to specific dating procedures, but this data indicates that the earth is well over 50 million years. In fact, for the half-life decay of nuclides with 50 million year half-lives to eliminate those nuclides, the earth has to be very old.

 

[lucaspa]

Arbitary numbers, you guys think that you can figure something out by digging up the past,

Well, don't archeologists figure out things out by digging up the past? Don't forensic scientists do the same thing? The past there is the recent past, but still the past.

Godzman, the present is the way it is because the past was the way it was.

Do I need to trust man and is subjective beliefs or do I trust God and see that what he says is true.

Let me rephrase this: do you trust man and his subjective idea of how to read Genesis 1-3 or do you trust God and what He left in His Creation to be true? I say trust God.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

Written history is not that reliable. It's why we check it out with archeology.

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

I'll be the first to say that science is a limited form of knowledge, but I don't think we mean the same by that. What do you think are the presuppositions of science?

 

[lucaspa]

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

What is evolutionism?