Page 1 of 2
Supernatural defies science.
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:57 pm
by tyler_demerhcant
Hi. My name is Tyler Demerchant.
I am 19 and I know very little about Creation Science, though I know enough to hold my own in an uneducated evolutionary battlefield.
Throughout this topic, i am making my first attempt to prove behond a reasonable doubt, 3 things.
-The Supernatural world exists and defies Scientific Law
-Evolution Science lacks the ability to disprove Creation
-Christianity is the Only Religion worth following.
These are pretty broad statements, but everything I am discussing will be going into a book I will be writting called " ADAM or DARWIN".
I would like to start off by asking for testimony to supernatural events inexclusive to any relgious background.
Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:49 am
by Kurieuo
Some key terms and issue I see need defining are:
1) Natural (what is "natural", especially as contrasted with "super"-natural)
2) Scientic Law
3) Evolution Science (what is "Evolution Science" or what forms of evolution are included in this?)
4) Creation (what form of "Creation" do you mean e.g., Young-Earth, Day-Age, Theistic Evolution, divine creation, creation in general...)
5) What makes a religion worthy to follow?
This really puts the onus on you to describe how you see such things. And these terms or issues are no doubt debatable in themselves. Until such things are expanded upon, people would perhaps simply be talking past you and vice-versa.
Kurieuo
Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:14 pm
by tyler_demerhcant
Forgive me, I jumped the gun.
Let me start perhaps with a simple question.
Can any individual from any religious background attest to a specific encounter that defies say, the laws of Physics or the disappearance of celular defections, such as cancer or other bodily diseases.
Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:26 pm
by sandy_mcd
tyler_demerhcant wrote:Can any individual from any religious background attest to a specific encounter that defies say, the laws of Physics or the disappearance of celular defections, such as cancer or other bodily diseases.
1) Yes, many individuals can attest to such things.
2) The problem is that it will basically just be their word.
a) The nature of miracles is that they are very difficult or impossible to study scientifically. In the case of cancer, there are certainly cases where it spontaneously goes away, but scientists will say they don't know enough about the disease to say it couldn't happen naturally. People are also conditioned by what they believe. If someone pulls a rabbit from a hat, is that abiogenesis or a magic trick?
b) The nature of science is that if something seems to defy the laws, it is attributed to an error somewhere or else the laws are changed to incorporate the new findings or the oddity is (temporarily) ignored. Bohr's atom model of electrons in fixed orbits circling a nucleus explained some spectroscopic observations. However, that is a classically impossible explanation; the electrons would give off radiation and crash into the nucleus. Miracle or a better model needed?
Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:16 pm
by tyler_demerhcant
This is very interesting.
One method of recorded miricle I am highly aware of, is prophisy.
Often in recorded history, whether believed or not believed (such as the bible), an old text refers to things that happen in younger text.
Any explenation or comment or perhaps why this phenomina is ignored.
Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:28 pm
by BGoodForGoodSake
tyler_demerhcant wrote:This is very interesting.
One method of recorded miricle I am highly aware of, is prophisy.
Often in recorded history, whether believed or not believed (such as the bible), an old text refers to things that happen in younger text.
Any explenation or comment or perhaps why this phenomina is ignored.
Tyler,
Nice to meet your acquaintance. If you don't mind me asking, where are you from?
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:08 am
by tyler_demerhcant
I can't give a formative description for my own reasons.
An attempt to google me or use the phone books will prove useless as well. However said, I glad you have taken interest in my topic.
Is anyone willing to coment on prophisy...
Also, I do believe that when scientist claim there is no evidence of miricles or the supernatural, they are blaintently wrong. I will elaborate on this further throughout the topic.
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:12 am
by thereal
One method of recorded miricle I am highly aware of, is prophisy.
Often in recorded history, whether believed or not believed (such as the bible), an old text refers to things that happen in younger text.
Any explenation or comment or perhaps why this phenomina is ignored.
I'm sure part of this has to do with the fact that for every one thing that is prophesized and later does occur, there are one hundred things that are prophesized and do not occur. It's a factor of probability that if enough things are predicted to happen in the future, some of them actually will...and then one looks at those things and says "it's a miracle".
I believe another reason that prophecies in the Bible are "ignored", as you put it, is that the Bible is not universally accepted as a legitimate, accurate, and truthful historical document. One of the first things you must do in science when you are given a piece of information, before you decide whether or not you believe that information, is to consider the validity of the source.
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:08 am
by bizzt
thereal wrote:
I believe another reason that prophecies in the Bible are "ignored", as you put it, is that the Bible is not universally accepted as a legitimate, accurate, and truthful historical document. One of the first things you must do in science when you are given a piece of information, before you decide whether or not you believe that information, is to consider the validity of the source.
And that is the main problem right there. You have People with authority, Churches, etc... that say that the Bible is no longer an Accepted or Accurate document. However there has not been any proof to confirm it is no longer one but in fact the Bible has been confirmed even more to be an accurate Historical Document.
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:06 pm
by tyler_demerhcant
These are good comments.
If we are discussing the legitimacy of the bible, as christians, we believe it to be truth. It is obvious that the bible was written because it is contained in written text. However, as soon as you attach religion to the text, the literature becomes questionable.
Moses wrote the Torah( the books of law), which both Jewish and Christian based religions agree on. The exodus from Eqypt is a fact, but it is the Phenomina involved that draws questions.
The bible does not have contradictions in the context of Prophisy, all proficies written in the bible are fullfilled. The Gospels, which were written by four different people, can not be questioned that they were written. The real contriversy becomes, did the early theologines select the correct books for the bible. Canonization was a very serious thing, and even the ancient original text has long sence been lost so the closest we can get to interpriting the bible is with knowledge of Hebrew translation.
However, we are not here to comment on the legitimacy of the bible.
Keeping the discussion of prophicy open, let's consider again cellular defections as well as the breaking of the laws of Physics.
In my many discussions with athiests and scientists, they almost always turn away from these debates. However, I am thorouly conviced that "miricles" can be documented and studied.
Let's here some examples of witness or documentation:
Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 12:03 am
by tyler_demerhcant
sandy_mcd wrote:tyler_demerhcant wrote:Can any individual from any religious background attest to a specific encounter that defies say, the laws of Physics or the disappearance of celular defections, such as cancer or other bodily diseases.
1) Yes, many individuals can attest to such things.
2) The problem is that it will basically just be their word.
a) The nature of miracles is that they are very difficult or impossible to study scientifically. In the case of cancer, there are certainly cases where it spontaneously goes away, but scientists will say they don't know enough about the disease to say it couldn't happen naturally. People are also conditioned by what they believe. If someone pulls a rabbit from a hat, is that abiogenesis or a magic trick?
b) The nature of science is that if something seems to defy the laws, it is attributed to an error somewhere or else the laws are changed to incorporate the new findings or the oddity is (temporarily) ignored. Bohr's atom model of electrons in fixed orbits circling a nucleus explained some spectroscopic observations. However, that is a classically impossible explanation; the electrons would give off radiation and crash into the nucleus. Miracle or a better model needed?
Scientists claim that miricles can not be studied when they should be. If perhaps people would study the effects of millecular reguvination of the spinal chord in an individual who has been parrilized from birth by words of prayer, perhaps they would learn that the brain has the power to heal any physical condition dispite circumstances. Or of course, they would learn that there is a God who has the power to divinely intervene.
The reason why man does not see God in the ways that people did in the bible is because of the distancing between man and God. Science plays a large role in bringing doubt into the hearts of even believers. If we would document and study phenomina, then we would learn that God is ver much still devinely intervening.
Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 12:06 am
by tyler_demerhcant
The reason I find it doubtful that Cancer would leave instantaniouisly without warning is because it is an example of microevolution and mutation of the human body. The cells are completely destroyed and there is no possible means by which those cells can be repaired or removed in a very short ammount of time.
Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 9:08 am
by BGoodForGoodSake
tyler_demerhcant wrote:The reason I find it doubtful that Cancer would leave instantaniouisly without warning is because it is an example of microevolution and mutation of the human body. The cells are completely destroyed and there is no possible means by which those cells can be repaired or removed in a very short ammount of time.
How is cancer suddenly regressing an example of microevolution?
Are you sure there are no possible means of cancer suddenly dissapearing?
Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 12:04 pm
by ryo dokomi
tyler_demerhcant wrote:The reason I find it doubtful that Cancer would leave instantaniouisly without warning is because it is an example of microevolution and mutation of the human body. The cells are completely destroyed and there is no possible means by which those cells can be repaired or removed in a very short ammount of time.
matthew 19:26
Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 3:01 pm
by tyler_demerhcant
exactly, but these instances should be explored not cast aside as acts of God.
I am currently searching for documentation on a specific case that I will post about very soon.