Troy, the scriptures tells WHY God raised Jesus from the dead. What does science tell us about HOW He did it?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Christians Should Mind Their Own Business
- Thread starter Craigbythesea
- Start date
Troy, the scriptures tells WHY God raised Jesus from the dead. What does science tell us about HOW He did it?
Consider the problem is not scripture but your understanding and interpretation of scripture. We all have that problem to one extent or another.
You indicated otherwise with your previous post I quoted. No qualifiers at all.
If I had provided an interpretation or my understanding of Scripture, then I would agree. Thumbsup
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
There is no need for God to make foolish what was posted by this person, because it is a manifestly foolish misapplication of the words of Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 1:20. I do not enjoy giving negative ratings to the posts by others—but some posts are so “dumb” that, in all fairness and objectivity, such a rating is necessary.
My point is that sciences fail when it is utmost important. Science will affirm that when a person is dead...I mean, really dead and buried...they do not come back alive days later. And if they do, they certainly do not walk through walls.
I agree.
dad1
Member
So? Who cares if a pink unicorn wrote it, it was alright.
dad1
Member
False. There is no other way to look at the creation than to include the creator. Real science does that.
According to You God's word is bad religion then, He dun told us.
You should probably get your emotions under control before you post. That way you do not post silly things like this.
So you begin this thread with your hostile attitude toward those with whom you disagree with, and you then continue this hostile attitude by engaging in an adhominem attack against the author of the article I posted.
Got it.!
And a very hostile one at that.
dad1
Member
All so called science that claims to deal in origins issues is bad science. Bad religion too.
Myths Dressed as Science
.....Four basic assumptions are necessary to use any radioisotope dating process as a reliable clock:
(1) The system of which the rock samples are a part must be a closed system. This is an increasingly bad assumption with the increasing age of the system.
(2) Decay rates of the isotopes used as clocks must remain constant over time. Again, this assumption becomes more tenuous with the increasing age of the system.
(3) The initial or primordial concentrations of parent and daughter in the system must be accurately known.
(4) For any system ages of long duration, it must be assumed that enough time has passed for measurable levels of the radioactive daughter to have been produced.
All four of these assumptions must hold fast without exception—any exception invalidates the dating method. It is doubtful that any one of these assumptions can be rigorously satisfied over 3.67 million years, much less all four. But the particular dating method used to date Little Foot added one more dubious assumption, i.e.:
(5) The production rates for the cosmogenic radionuclides have remained constant over millions of years.
Since the interstellar radiation incident on the earth's atmosphere varies with the seasons, with weather, with solar activity, with galactic activity, and with variations in the earth's magnetic field, it is extremely unreasonable to expect constant production rates for any of these radioisotopes over the vast amounts of time claimed. To suggest that all five assumptions can be strictly maintained for over three million years is completely untenable.
Why would any scientist publish something as fact when it rests on such a shaky foundation? There are probably many superficial reasons, but it appears the fundamental reason is that these "scientists" are attempting, whether consciously or unconsciously, to indoctrinate the public rather than educate them.
http://www.icr.org/article/myths-dressed-science/
.....Four basic assumptions are necessary to use any radioisotope dating process as a reliable clock:
(1) The system of which the rock samples are a part must be a closed system. This is an increasingly bad assumption with the increasing age of the system.
(2) Decay rates of the isotopes used as clocks must remain constant over time. Again, this assumption becomes more tenuous with the increasing age of the system.
(3) The initial or primordial concentrations of parent and daughter in the system must be accurately known.
(4) For any system ages of long duration, it must be assumed that enough time has passed for measurable levels of the radioactive daughter to have been produced.
All four of these assumptions must hold fast without exception—any exception invalidates the dating method. It is doubtful that any one of these assumptions can be rigorously satisfied over 3.67 million years, much less all four. But the particular dating method used to date Little Foot added one more dubious assumption, i.e.:
(5) The production rates for the cosmogenic radionuclides have remained constant over millions of years.
Since the interstellar radiation incident on the earth's atmosphere varies with the seasons, with weather, with solar activity, with galactic activity, and with variations in the earth's magnetic field, it is extremely unreasonable to expect constant production rates for any of these radioisotopes over the vast amounts of time claimed. To suggest that all five assumptions can be strictly maintained for over three million years is completely untenable.
Why would any scientist publish something as fact when it rests on such a shaky foundation? There are probably many superficial reasons, but it appears the fundamental reason is that these "scientists" are attempting, whether consciously or unconsciously, to indoctrinate the public rather than educate them.
http://www.icr.org/article/myths-dressed-science/
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
I gave this worthless and insulting piece of trash a dumb rating, and the author retaliated by giving every post of mine in this thread a dumb rating without even reading my posts. What kind of a person would do such an evil thing?
Accurately describes this hostile thread you created.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Mitchell,
Please tell us how the words “this worthless and insulting piece of trash” accurately describes the thread that I created.
Please also document your accusation that I began this thread with a hostile attitude.
Please also tell us how giving 20 posts a “dumb” rating without even reading the posts is not only a hostile act, but an evil act.
I see that you yourself have broken a new record for receiving the most “dumb” ratings—do you suppose that may be due to many of your posts being worthless trash. I have read many of your 35,939, and I have never seen any of them that made much more sense than what you have posted here.
Be glad too. right after you prove I gave any dumb posts at all without reading them.