YEC is physically impossible

[AV1611VET]

Those who do science have to understand that rigorous objectivity is a highest value, that if an idea doesn't stand up to testing, it's wrong.

Then test our claims.

If you can.

But if you can't -- admit it.

Don't shoot the messenger (or put him on IGNORE).

Just admit that science can take a hike when it comes to things that can't be tested.

Like creatio ex nihilo, Jesus walking on water, or the Resurrection.

 

[sjastro]

Then test our claims.

If you can.

But if you can't -- admit it.

Don't shoot the messenger (or put him on IGNORE).

Just admit that science can take a hike when it comes to things that can't be tested.

Like creatio ex nihilo, Jesus walking on water, or the Resurrection.

I will provide an answer on one condition that you explain why Jesus walking on water is not recorded in Luke.

 

[AV1611VET]

I will provide an answer on one condition that you explain why Jesus walking on water is not recorded in Luke.

Writer's choice.

And keep in mind Luke wasn't there.

But I like what Josh McDowell once pointed out.

Take Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

For the most part, if it's in any two of the books, it's not in the third:

1. Matthew + Mark - Luke
2. Matthew + Luke - Mark
3. Mark + Luke - Matthew

There are exceptions however, like the Resurrection, where they are in all four Gospel accounts.

 

[Neogaia777]

I will provide an answer on one condition that you explain why Jesus walking on water is not recorded in Luke.

I can most certainly tell you what I think it doesn't mean, if you are truly interested, etc?

And I would also like to ask you what you think it means as well, etc?

Or what do you think is among the great or most majority of most likely possibilities as to why all of the four accounts are not all exactly the same, or either includes, or doesn't include, absolutely everything that the others do, or otherwise do not, etc?

And again, I can always tell you what I think it doesn't mean, if you're truly interested, etc?

Because in my view, Jesus left no doubt of that, etc, but it's just difficult for some to accept or believe, etc.

God Bless.

 

[sjastro]

Writer's choice.

And keep in mind Luke wasn't there.

But I like what Josh McDowell once pointed out.

Take Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

For the most part, if it's in any two of the books, it's not in the third:

1. Matthew + Mark - Luke
2. Matthew + Luke - Mark
3. Mark + Luke - Matthew

There are exceptions however, like the Resurrection, where they are in all four Gospel accounts.

Your exercise now is to identify which statement in your post explains why science cannot provide the answers.

In the meantime I am getting some sleep as it is the very early hours of the morning here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your exercise now is to identify which statement in your post explains why science cannot provide the answers.

Answers?

I want test results.

Test results for creatio ex nihilo, Jesus walking on water, and the Resurrection.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I will provide an answer on one condition that you explain why Jesus walking on water is not recorded in Luke.

Maybe the educated physician knew the Lake of Gennesarat never froze over...

 

[Hans Blaster]

Writer's choice.

And keep in mind Luke wasn't there.

But I like what Josh McDowell once pointed out.

Take Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

For the most part, if it's in any two of the books, it's not in the third:

1. Matthew + Mark - Luke
2. Matthew + Luke - Mark
3. Mark + Luke - Matthew

There are exceptions however, like the Resurrection, where they are in all four Gospel accounts.

I've seen those charts before about the Triple Tradition, etc., and as I recall roughly half of Mark is in Luke *AND* Matthew often word for word.

 

[BCP1928]

Then test our claims.

If you can.

But if you can't -- admit it.

Don't shoot the messenger (or put him on IGNORE).

Just admit that science can take a hike when it comes to things that can't be tested.

Like creatio ex nihilo, Jesus walking on water, or the Resurrection.

Why should science accept those events if they cannot be tested?

 

[Neogaia777]

Why should science accept those events if they cannot be tested?

Science has the limitation that it cannot test (or prove) (or disprove) things that are either unwilling, or that are unable to be seen, etc.

And Jesus knew this, which is why he left himself as part of the evidence through a demonstration of power that came from the realms unseen, etc.

But that is impossible to know or see without at least some small measure of "faith", etc.

God Bless.

 

[BCP1928]

Science has the limitation that it cannot test (or prove) (or disprove) things that are either unwilling, or that are unable to be seen, etc.

And Jesus knew this, which is why he left himself as part of the evidence through a demonstration of power that came from the realms unseen, etc.

But that is impossible to know or see without at least some small measure of "faith", etc.

God Bless.

Exactly. But all of this is just another red herring. Creationism makes untestable claims that science has no opinion of. So what? The real problem is that creationism also makes testable claims that science can test and reject.

 

[Neogaia777]

Exactly. But all of this is just another red herring. Creationism makes untestable claims that science has no opinion of. So what? The real problem is that creationism also makes testable claims that science can test and reject.

If you are asking me if I think YEC is correct, or has any merit to it, then I will have to tell you that I think it does not, etc. But I will also have to tell you that I also think the Bible is still 100% correct, and true, etc.

God Bless.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those who do science have to understand that rigorous objectivity is a highest value, that if an idea doesn't stand up to testing, it's wrong.

Then test our claims.

Why should science accept those events if they cannot be tested?

So you can, as Estrid pointed out, legitimately claim it's wrong.*

Otherwise, my "science can take a hike" mantra stands.

* Not that I would be obligated to believe it though. I'm trying to get you to realize she's calling something that can't be tested or reproduced in a laboratory "scientifically wrong," and I'm challenging her on that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science has the limitation that it cannot test (or prove) (or disprove) things that are either unwilling, or that are unable to be seen, etc.

I love this story:

A scientist told God, “We no longer need you. We have advanced to the point that we can create anything we need with our own ingenuity.”

God said, “You want to put that to a test?”

The scientist said, “Sure. What do you have in mind?”

God said, “Let’s each make a man, just like I did with Adam. I’ll go first.”

Then God created man from the dirt. The scientist leaned down to pick up a handful of dirt, so he could replicate the work of God.

“Wait a minute!” said God. “Go get your own dirt!”

SOURCE

 

[Neogaia777]

I love this story:

A scientist told God, “We no longer need you. We have advanced to the point that we can create anything we need with our own ingenuity.”

God said, “You want to put that to a test?”

The scientist said, “Sure. What do you have in mind?”

God said, “Let’s each make a man, just like I did with Adam. I’ll go first.”

Then God created man from the dirt. The scientist leaned down to pick up a handful of dirt, so he could replicate the work of God.

“Wait a minute!” said God. “Go get your own dirt!”

SOURCE

I've heard that one before, and I did find it a little bit humorous at the time, etc.

God Bless.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism makes untestable claims that science has no opinion of.

What's this then:

Those who do science have to understand that rigorous objectivity is a highest value, that if an idea doesn't stand up to testing, it's wrong.

 

[dlamberth]

You'd have to talk to dlamberth about that, who now wants to deny the universe is communicating with him.

And I suspect it's because I made a good point.

(For the record, he's a panentheist.)

I have no idea why your throwing around stuff that I've not said or even believe. That's not nice.

 

[BCP1928]

What's this then:

A statement about the testable claims that creationism makes, obviously.

 

[AV1611VET]

A statement about the testable claims that creationism makes, obviously.

Well, I'll admit.

Any testable claim made by a creationist re creationism is wrong, and should be shown so.

In my opinion.

 

[Neogaia777]

"Creationism" is certainly not specific enough for me?

And then it also being "wrong", etc? I hope you mean "incorrect" or "in error", and not like in any way morally, etc? Because that just doesn't apply to things like this here, etc?

What about "creationism through natural processes" going all the way back to the beginnings of the earth or the universe maybe, etc? Is that in any way quote/unquote "wrong", etc?

And I also believe in a separate special creation of a race or species of man, or human, in a small localized chosen area in the middle east around 4-6000 years ago also, along with an evolved race or species that was pretty much everywhere except that area at the time also, etc, but that's just a belief I hold, or a theory I have, etc, but it is one that also cannot be disproven yet by any other facts so far, etc, so is believing in that for the time being quote/unquote "wrong", etc? I already know it's not morally "wrong", etc, and as for it's being not correct or not, etc, I've seen absolutely no evidence that can disprove the theory thus far, etc? So how can it then be quote/unquote "wrong", as in being totally incorrect "wrong", etc?

But if your talking about YEC creationism, of like the earth or the universe or whatever, well, I've already told you my views on that, and that I think it's incorrect or "wrong", etc.

God Bless.