Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#15381 09/25/06 08:45 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
T
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

Often we read where Christians deny the possibility of the events pertaining to the six day creation or the world wide flood of Noah. The major reason for this denial is due to claims that modern science has disproved the accounts presented within Genesis. Genesis is no longer scientifically feasible.
Despite the many scientific evidences pointing to a recent creation and a world wide flood as told in the accounts of Genesis there is still this nagging need to deny the accounts of Genesis yet believe the other scientifically impossible portions of the bible.
For those who choose not to believe in the accounts of Genesis an allegory must be drawn up to explain the verses.

Below are 9 scientifically impossible events that the bible presents as truth. Why is it that some of the events get dismissed and allegorized by ?Theistic Evolutionist? while some of the other events are held on to and presented as the literal truth by these same ?Theistic Evolutionist? despite their obvious scientific impossibilities?
If the answer is ?miracles? then why can?t all the scientific impossibilities be miracles?
Why is it that the events such as a recent creation and the flood which actually have scientific data to support them become allegories while the others with no scientific support are still up held as fact?

  • The creation of the world in six days did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
    They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
    REF: Genesis 1-2


  • The creation of Adam from the dust then Eve from his side did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
    They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
    REF: Genesis 2:7 , 2:22


  • The world wide flood of Noah did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
    They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
    REF: Genesis 6-8


  • Men living to long ages did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
    They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
    REF: Genesis 9:29


  • Moses staff turning into snakes did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
    They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
    REF: Exodus 4:3


  • The sun standing still for Joshua did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
    They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
    REF: Joshua 10:13


  • Peter walking on the water with Jesus did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
    They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
    REF: Matthew 14:29


  • Jesus turning water into wine did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
    They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
    REF: John 2: 1-11


  • Jesus Christ rising from the dead did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
    They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
    REF: John 20,21[/i]


Perhaps it?s best to allegorize the resurrection of Jesus Christ along with the six day creation....after all, both are scientifically impossible. Dead dead people can?t rise from the grave on day 3.
That would be the natural ?scientific? interpretational tendencies. Allegorize.

The above questions make me think of the following question:
Why is it the Theistic Evolutionist can believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ which is scientifically impossible, yet deny the six day creation performed by Jesus Christ as written in the accounts of Genesis...which is also considered as scientifically impossible?

I believe the bottom line of biblical translation for the Theistic Evolutionist is as follows:
If it relates to the flood or creation, it's an allegory.
Of course there is a danger in presenting this kind of a watered down scientifically impossible pick and choose your miracle bible .....salvation may be easly lost.

.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
There is no scientific evidence for a six day creation, at least not six literal days. Not all theistic evolutionists are christians.

There is vast, interrelated, correlated, and corroborated evidence for an ancient Earth and for Evolution. Neither idea becomes false, just because you refuse to do any honest homework.

Probably most evolutionists are theistic evolutionists. Most separate their religious opinions from their scientific opinions. They maintain a belief while admitting that it is not a scientific belief. Beliefs don't have to be scientific to be rational. OTOH, they are very clear and very honest to say that their religious convictions are not supported (or refuted) by science.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
T
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
I don't know TheFallibleFiend, carbon 14 in diamonds kinda puts a hurtin on your old earth theory.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Are there any non-ICR sources that say there is carbon 14 in diamonds?

If it's true, then it doesn't refute evolution any more than anyman's dishonest claim that C14 in fossil beds is a disproof of evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

Consider this:
1) Just because MOST C14 is formed in the atmosphere doesn't mean ALL of it is.
2) Some places we find diamonds are also the places we find uranium.

However, I have to thank you for bringing this up. Typical dishonest creationists use that tactic often. Find some arcane fact, do ABSOLUTELY no research on it, claim it ABSOLUTELY refutes evolution, and then cackle as if you've said something intelligent when you've really just proved yet again that you're intellectually lazy.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5
S
sak Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
S
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5
sorry i couldnt be bothered to read the full extent of that but what i did read was very interesting, i couldnt believe my eyes.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Trilobyte,

It's very clear that you really believe your bible, that you've spent maybe a little time with it. Maybe you really, REALLY believe it. But this is not a christian forum. It's not a religion forum at all. This is a science forum.

The problem is that you are starting from religious premises - that your religion is true - and then trying to find some kind - any kind - of justification for it. You haven't done any significant homework in the subject. You've reached your conclusions based on utter ignorance of the subject at hand. You should find yourself a religion forum.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Trilobye wrote:
"Often we read where Christians deny the possibility of the events pertaining to the six day creation or the world wide flood of Noah. The major reason for this denial is due to claims that modern science has disproved the accounts presented within Genesis."

Actually no. That is not why we disagree with it. We disagree with it because we have read the Epic of Gilgamesh and we know it is just a bad plagiarism of the original work.

If the invisibile purple rhinoceros wants to create plants before the sun exists he is welcome to do so.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Actually no. That is not why we disagree with it. We disagree with it because we have read the Epic of Gilgamesh and we know it is just a bad plagiarism of the original work.
...Or two perspectives on the same event.

Blacknad.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16
O
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Trilobye wrote:
"Often we read where Christians deny the possibility of the events pertaining to the six day creation or the world wide flood of Noah. The major reason for this denial is due to claims that modern science has disproved the accounts presented within Genesis."

Actually no. That is not why we disagree with it. We disagree with it because we have read the Epic of Gilgamesh and we know it is just a bad plagiarism of the original work.

If the invisibile purple rhinoceros wants to create plants before the sun exists he is welcome to do so.
It is of my opinion that you are misinterpretting Genesis.


"It is better to believe than to disbelieve. In so doing, you bring everything to the realm of possibility." - Albert Einstein, physicist
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
You'd be correct Blacknad when you write: "Or two perspectives on the same event" were that the case.

Unfortunately ... for that point-of-view there weren't any Jews at the time of Hammurabi. There was no Torah. Abraham's great great great great grandfather had not yet been born.

Abraham's descendants wouldn't make it to Sumeria and hear the epic for more than 1,000 years after it was written. And when they did hear it they were illiterate and passed it down verbally for a very many generations.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
OGGOB wrote:
"It is of my opinion that you are misinterpretting Genesis."

If you think feel free to explain the following:

Genesis 1:3: And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

Note that this is "light" ... not the sun.

Genesis 1:11: And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so.

So now there are plants. But later:

14: And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night;

and finally we have the sun.

You see that's the problem with these books. They were written by people who didn't understand photosynthesis (or disease or just about anything else we take for granted). Thus they made mistakes.


DA Morgan
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16
O
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16
A more indepth study of the bible can show you the flaw in your argument. You are reading the bible in English (I'm guessing) or at least not Hebrew. There is flaw in translation.

There is a lack of creative acts in both Gen 1:3-4 and Gen 1:14-18 for your accessment to actually hold true. God does not create the sun and the moon in Gen 1:14-18, nor the light in Gen 1:3-5.

Instead God does a "let there be" which in Hebrew means more make to appear or make visible. This differs substantially from the creative acts of:

1:1 The heavens and earth
1:21 The creatures of sea and air
1:27 Man

Once we observe that indeed the light and sun and moon and stars were not created in Gen 1:3-4, 14-18, we need to ask, "where did they come from?" There creation is part of Gen 1:1, "God created the heavens."

Gen 1:3-4 then represents either that the light of the sun could not be seen initially from earth, or that it lacked the power to reach the earth (not yet ignited, not yet large enough, lots of possibilities here, the bible is not specific). But in consideration of Gen 1:14-18, something obscured the light of the sun, making it indestinct.

In Gen 1:14-18 again, God does not create the sun and moon and stars, but makes them appear or makes them visible. Whatever obscured the light of the sun, is not cleared up. My guess would be either vapors in the atmosphere or clouds of matter still in space were the obscuring condition that eventually cleared to allow visibility of the sun.

As such, in Gen 1:11-12, when God brings forth vegetation from the land, there is sunlight, but no visibily descernable sun.

I imagine that someone will inquire, visible to whom, so I'll answer that now: Gen 1:2 "God was hovering over the waters" of the earth, during the creation of earth and all the things on the earth, so, visible to God, is the answer. If you're not comfortable with that, another interpretation would allow for, visible from the vantage of those telling, repeating, writing Genesis, or from the perspective of the narrative audience.


With all that said, I will say, there is a great deal of knowledge and information out there, especially in this age. As such, it cannot be assumed that everyone, or indeed even anyone, can study it all. So I will not waste time assaulting you with suggestions that you study more before speaking on the subject, or thrusting insults.

But I will take the time to say that lacking understanding is human nature, for we all lack far more knowledge than we possess.

I hope this consideration occurs to more people, especially on these forums, when confronting one another.


"It is better to believe than to disbelieve. In so doing, you bring everything to the realm of possibility." - Albert Einstein, physicist
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
While I don't personally read ancient Hebrew or Aramaic I have associates that do.

I checked with two of them and they are unaware of any support for your statements in either the text or their religion.


DA Morgan
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Trilobyte. Could you please tell us any evidence you have for a world-wide flood. I did a fair bit of work in geology in my younger days and have been following developments since. Nver heard of anything about any flood such as mentioned in the Bible.

The Bible is simply a collection of origin stories developed at the eastern end of the Mediterranean before writing was developed. Even the bits that survive from after that time are heavily slanted to support a particular perspective. they contain easily as much propaganda as any modern government press release.

As to the age of diamonds. It's my understanding they form when volcanic lava passes through carbon such as coal deposits. Diamonds are presumably forming as you read this.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally posted by trilobyte:
I don't know TheFallibleFiend, carbon 14 in diamonds kinda puts a hurtin on your old earth theory.
In what way is an ancient age for Earth dependent on C14 dating?


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Soilguy, the argument goes that the half life of C14 is only a few thousand years. After a billion years, there should be no measurable amount of C14.

This is the same argument put forth by anyman. It's predicated on the assumption that C14 is ONLY created in the atmosphere. As you're aware, it's is a common technique used by creationists to look at some arcane factoid that most people are not likely to be familiar with and say how that UTTERLY refutes evolution. They like to pick something where they're not likely to be challenged. After all, they're not likely to do any homework themselves, because they're too intellectually lazy.

Find an interesting, but unexpected fact, make an assertion, and then move on to the next thing you can misrepresent. But keep throwing that first factoid out as an "unanswered question."

Here's an explanation conveyed to talk.origins by an actual scientist:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

No reason to believe the carbon in diamonds would react to radiation from uranium any differently than the carbon in coal.

When you have no scruples and you just want to confuse the subject and you're too intellectually lazy to do any real research, this kind of claim is your bread and butter.

It's amazing anyone believes in evolution with all those Nobel Laureates pub-jacking, er, uh, "doing original research" at the ICR and Discovery Institute.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12
A
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12
All people(s) from all cultures from all corners of the globe - from the Bushman to the Aboriginal to the Eskimo, the Ancient Egyptians & Romans, the Indians and yes, even modern man - have folklore stories about 'the coming to being of man(kind), earth & (the) heaven(s)' that have been handed down from generation to generation for as long as they (man) have had the capacity to contemplate their (own) existence. And they are as diverse as their religions (that usually underscore these notions/beliefs) themselves. Maybe there's just a universal need to make sense of the unexplainable - albeit in the form of a story. There was a beautiful film made in the 80's by the South African playwright; Jamie Uys, called 'The Gods Must be Crazy'. It provides some (comical) insight into the interpretations of strange-things-new to a Kalahari Bushman when his life's journey crosses with that of 21-st century modern man, and portrays his beliefs & understanding of the world around him in an interesting manner.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Brilliant film.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
T
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
Quote:
Originally posted by soilguy:
Quote:
Originally posted by trilobyte:
I don't know TheFallibleFiend, carbon 14 in diamonds kinda puts a hurtin on your old earth theory.
In what way is an ancient age for Earth dependent on C14 dating?
If the earth is ancient...then there would be no C14 in the diamonds.

You do understand the principles or radiometric decay?

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally posted by trilobyte:
If the earth is ancient...then there would be no C14 in the diamonds.

You do understand the principles or radiometric decay?
Then how come all diamonds don't have C14 in them? You do understand that your young Earth hypothesis predicts that all carbon on Earth would be within the dating range of C14, don't you?


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5