Scientifically Impossible

[YEC]

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

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.

[harvey1]

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 fact of the matter is that creationists have hijacked the Bible into a fundamentalism that was never really a part of Christianity. Jesus departed from the teachings from "Thus saith the Lord", so did Paul, and, in fact, Christians took Old Testament scriptures out of context and allegorized them, something which your faith would never have started had they not done so.

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 six days of Creation did happen, but creationists in a desire for religious power over the fundamentalist Christians seek to stir the understanding of those scriptures in a manner which promotes their careers and fame. Lots of paid lectures, lots of frequent flyer miles, good salaries, etc.

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

Just another example of how creationists would have us believe that it is OKAY to reconcile scriptures with apparent rational conceived discrepancies in every place BUT Genesis 1 and Genesis 2/3.

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

Just another example how creationists would have us believe irrational concepts. That is, they say it's okay to translate Hebrew words that favors creationism, but it is not okay to translate Hebrew words that favor a more rational interpretation.

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

According to creationists, it's okay for scribal and geneology errors to occur in other places EXCEPT the area that promotes their frequent flyer miles.

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

In cases of miracles, it is important to understand that the events are most often left open for doubters. For example, Paul saw a blinding light (Acts 9:3), but no one who was with him saw it (verse 7). Therefore, it is difficult to know if a miracle was 'visible' or if it was merely seen by those in attendence:

"And in the going, he came nigh to Damascus, and suddenly there shone round about him a light from the heaven, and having fallen upon the earth, he heard a voice saying to him, `Saul, Saul, why me dost thou persecute?' And he said, `Who art thou, Lord?' and the Lord said, `I am Jesus whom thou dost persecute; hard for thee at the pricks to kick;' trembling also, and astonished, he said, `Lord, what dost thou wish me to do?' and the Lord [said] unto him, `Arise, and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what it behoveth thee to do.' And the men who are journeying with him stood speechless, hearing indeed the voice but seeing no one, and Saul arose from the earth, and his eyes having been opened, he beheld no one, and leading him by the hand they brought him to Damascus" (Acts 9:3-8 )

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

Same as my last answer.

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

Same as my last answer.

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

Same as my last answer.

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 believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Paul, who was a contempory of Jesus and surely knew the people who witnessed his resurrection, all confirmed they saw the resurrected Jesus. There can be no doubt that either they were lying or they actually saw Jesus. However, Paul also said that Jesus appeared to him last:

"For I delivered to you, in the first place, what also I had received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he was raised the third day, according to the scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the most remain until now, but some also have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to an abortion, he appeared to *me* also." (I Cor. 15:3-8 )

This is the event mentioned in Acts 9:3, but it is important to realize that no one there saw it besides Paul. In addition, the Greek word for 'appear' (Greek: Optanomai) can mean "to allow one's self to be seen, to appear", which if we consider Acts 9:7, it must be the case. That doesn't mean that Jesus did not resurrect in the 'flesh', it just means that Jesus appeared to a select number as mentioned by Paul in I Cor. 15.

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.

I'm not one for promoting allegory without some commitment to the literal interpretation of the scriptures. That doesn't commit me to fundamentalism which the early Christians were strictly not fundamentalist. However, it is not Gnosticism either, and it is important to avoid Gnostic views since, as the early Christians soon realized, there is no anchor to the faith. The scriptures must be the anchor of the Christian faith, otherwise there is no religion.

[YEC]

harvey1 posted:
The fact of the matter is that creationists have hijacked the Bible into a fundamentalism that was never really a part of Christianity. Jesus departed from the teachings from "Thus saith the Lord", so did Paul, and, in fact, Christians took Old Testament scriptures out of context and allegorized them, something which your faith would never have started had they not done so.

I would love to hear how creationist have hijcked the bible.

After all it is the bible that says Adam was formed from the dust THEN Eve was made from Adams rib....your claim is that this is not so, but it is what the bible says.

The OT as well as NT authors tell us man was made from the dust and not from animals..once again this is not evolutionism.

It is crystal clear that making a woman from a mans rib is not evolutionism.

The bible also mentions that the six day creation time frame meant six literal days. This is confirmed in the 10 commandments where it says six days.

So, please do tell us how the creationist hijacked the bible.

[YEC]

harvey1 posted:
I believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Paul, who was a contempory of Jesus and surely knew the people who witnessed his resurrection, all confirmed they saw the resurrected Jesus. There can be no doubt that either they were lying or they actually saw Jesus. However, Paul also said that Jesus appeared to him last:

Just as resurrection is scientifically impossible..so it the claims for a literal six day creation with out evolutionism.

Yet you seem to be able to believe in one and try to descredit the other.

This is confusing.
Either the bible tells the truth..Adam created from the dust, then Eve from Adams literal rib..or it is lying to us.

Now if you claim that Genesis is false..no special creation...then why not assume the resurrection story is also false?

[Jose]

The bible also mentions that the six day creation time frame meant six literal days. This is confirmed in the 10 commandments where it says six days.

Uhhh...you forget that many Creationists insist that only the King James Version is the True Bible. Probably, this is because more recent updates sound less "godly" and more like they come from the mouth of Man, while older updates are in such archaic speech that we have trouble reading it. So, how does the KJV differ from the original Hebrew? I think I will have to defer to Harvey1 on this, but my understanding is that the original used a term that was more similar to our term, "age," rather than "24-hour day." If you use the original meaning, then it's clear that God was less hasty about creation than the YECs insist. This provides plenty of time for the Theistic Evolutionists' views that much of creation was achieved by means of evolutionary mechanisms.

By the way, YEC, I'd like to see your thoughts on The Flood As Science. If Creationists really want to be taken seriously in science classes (ie, have creation presented as a viable alternative to evolution), then, well, their ideas must be considered scientifically. This has rarely been done. The Flood As Science offers a chance to do so. Let us accept the Flood as a scientific hypothesis, which is of fundamental imporance to biblical Creation. Let's examine the hypothesis scientifically. If you really believe that biblical Creation is valid, then the flood theory should survive the same kinds of scientific tests as the theory of evolution has. In my opinion, it is only fair to give the creation theory a "fair test"--and we can do so in this forum without having the ACLU jump on us for trying to force religion on our children. So, look at The Flood As Science, and help us out.

[YEC]

The bible also mentions that the six day creation time frame meant six literal days. This is confirmed in the 10 commandments where it says six days.

Uhhh...you forget that many Creationists insist that only the King James Version is the True Bible. Probably, this is because more recent updates sound less "godly" and more like they come from the mouth of Man, while older updates are in such archaic speech that we have trouble reading it. So, how does the KJV differ from the original Hebrew? I think I will have to defer to Harvey1 on this, but my understanding is that the original used a term that was more similar to our term, "age," rather than "24-hour day." If you use the original meaning, then it's clear that God was less hasty about creation than the YECs insist. This provides plenty of time for the Theistic Evolutionists' views that much of creation was achieved by means of evolutionary mechanisms.

.

The term YOM may be able to be translated as literal day, or as some claim, an age.

But when you look at the word in context and how it is used in the sentance a 24 hour long time frame is clearly implied.

For example it is surrounded with terms that relate to a 24 hour long day....evening, and there was morning--the first day

Secondly I once again refer you to the ten commandments:

EXO 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.

One other thing to consider....if a day equals many millions of years...then is God still resting on day 7?

[Jose]

The term YOM may be able to be translated as literal day, or as some claim, an age.

But when you look at the word in context and how it is used in the sentance a 24 hour long time frame is clearly implied.

For example it is surrounded with terms that relate to a 24 hour long day....evening, and there was morning--the first day

Secondly I once again refer you to the ten commandments:

EXO 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.

One other thing to consider....if a day equals many millions of years...then is God still resting on day 7?

What walks on 4 legs in the morning, on 2 during the day, and on 3 in the evening?

"Morning" and "Evening" don't necessarily refer to a single 24-hour period even now. In a book so full of allegory, and with such temporal and linguistic barriers between its authors and the currrent readers, I am unable to convince myself that our current translation could possibly be literally exact--especially with respect to scientific information which our ancestors could not have understood even if God had put it into the Book. It is even more disturbing that, when I read it, I can't tell what it's actually trying to say, but that other people (mere mortals) are very willing to tell me that They Know. Funny thing...different people who Know often tell me different things.

Students of history often read primary texts with the morals and attitudes of their own cultures. By bringing their own attitudes to their study, they fail to develop an understanding of the morals and attitudes of the authors' time period. History teachers have a very difficult time trying to help students break out of this approach. I hadn't thought about it before now, but the same principle might apply to our reading of the Bible. What if we throw off our mantle of morals and attitudes, and read the Bible in an effort to gain insigt into the way people thought 2000 years ago, when they wrote it? Try to get into the mindset of a nomadic tribe in a strife-ridden world, without antibiotics, without dictionaries, without disposable diapers or microwave ovens.

Is God still resting? An interesting question. Maybe that's why he's letting us destroy so much of his Creation.

[YEC]

What walks on 4 legs in the morning, on 2 during the day, and on 3 in the evening?

"Morning" and "Evening" don't necessarily refer to a single 24-hour period even now. In a book so full of allegory,

You can't use the extreme to change the norm.

it would be like me saying that a magacian walked down the street and turned into a drug store.[

and with such temporal and linguistic barriers between its authors and the currrent readers, I am unable to convince myself that our current translation could possibly be literally exact--especially with respect to scientific information which our ancestors could not have understood even if God had put it into the Book.

God could have very easily said....long time. instead he chose DAY, then in the Ten Commandments told us how long the day was.


It is even more disturbing that, when I read it, I can't tell what it's actually trying to say, but that other people (mere mortals) are very willing to tell me that They Know. Funny thing...different people who Know often tell me different things.


Arn't you a mere mortal insisting day equals...long age?

Students of history often read primary texts with the morals and attitudes of their own cultures. By bringing their own attitudes to their study, they fail to develop an understanding of the morals and attitudes of the authors' time period. History teachers have a very difficult time trying to help students break out of this approach. I hadn't thought about it before now, but the same principle might apply to our reading of the Bible. What if we throw off our mantle of morals and attitudes, and read the Bible in an effort to gain insigt into the way people thought 2000 years ago, when they wrote it? Try to get into the mindset of a nomadic tribe in a strife-ridden world, without antibiotics, without dictionaries, without disposable diapers or microwave ovens.

So, there meaning for a literal day was the same as a long period of time????

Is God still resting? An interesting question. Maybe that's why he's letting us destroy so much of his Creation.

Once again, is God still resting?

[axeplayer]

[quote=Jose]
Is God still resting? An interesting question. Maybe that's why he's letting us destroy so much of his Creation.[/qoute]

God gave us dominion over his creation, as it states in Genesis. And he gave us free will. So he's not letting us destroy the earth, he is allowing us to make our own decisions regarding the treatment of the earth, and allowing us to learn from our mistakes.

[Jose]

Is God still resting? An interesting question. Maybe that's why he's letting us destroy so much of his Creation.

God gave us dominion over his creation, as it states in Genesis. And he gave us free will. So he's not letting us destroy the earth, he is allowing us to make our own decisions regarding the treatment of the earth, and allowing us to learn from our mistakes.

Ah, would that it were true! We don't seem to be learning very fast. Look at what we're doing to the ocean's fish stocks--70% of them are in decline, because we're catching more than can be reproduced every year. Some of the fisheries have collapsed altogether (which is why the McD's filet-o-fish is now ocean whitefish, rather than cod). The Johannesburg conference on sustainable development sought to establish catch limits, so our grandchildren can have fish, too. The US scuttled that idea, because "it's bad for the economy." No learning here.

It's pretty clear that we know where all of the oil is, and that it's a non-renewable resource. What do we do? Develop an energy policy based on using as much of it as we possibly can! Bush decreased the tax break for a fuel-efficient hybrid from $2000 to $1500, and increased the tax break on Hummers from $68,000 to $100,000. This is not very good stewardship of the limited resources God gave us. It's setting things up so that the current energy moguls can get rich, and our grandchildren can walk. Bush I tried to do something about this--he officially sanctioned the National Renewable Energy Lab in Boulder, CO. Bush II slashed their budget.

We know that forests and watersheds are important in many ways. Yet, we're putting policies in place to clear-cut them, and to convert as much as possible into oil and gas fields. The Alaska National Wildlife Refuge is probably irrelevant, since by the time we're done drilling it, the caribou will have died out from global warming. I guess Santa will have to deliver his presents using a Hummer, if we lose the caribou (ie reindeer).

...and these dorks who started driving bulldozers around at random in some of the most beautiful country in the US, as soon as Clinton established the Escalante/Grand Staircase National Monument, in order to pretend they are pre-existing roads. There's out-and-out destruction for you, the sole purpose being..uhh...what?

Maybe it's OK, though, since we're dumb enough to use antibiotics continuously in growing animals for food, so we're selecting antibiotic resistant bacteria. Some are pretty nasty--like E. coli H7:O157, which has the pathogenesis genes from cholera. Maybe we'll wipe ourselves out, and solve the problem.

But, this is off-topic.

What YEC originally brought up was the notion that all of the scientfic-impossibilities in the bible are miracles, and that God can make anything happen. Sure. Why not? I have no problem with that. But, we won't ever get anywhere by shaking bible verses at each other, or by comparing alternate religions. Let's do it another way: accept the stories as the Creationists' scientific hypothesis of how the world was created, and then test the hypothesis--just like any other scientific hypothesis. If creation happened 6000 years ago (Oct. 26, 4004 BC, to use the Bishop of Usher's calculations), there should be plenty of confirming evidence in God's Creation (ie, the world).

We can't easily test Creation itself, but we can test things like the Flood. Let's do it. Look at The Flood As Science thread, and give us the data to help us figure it out.