U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-04-2018, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 3,993,137 times
Reputation: 386

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
This doesn't sound much at all like your other posts.
You mean like this one

The Nativity

When one is looking into historical things small posts don't get the job done.

Quote:
Is this just a big cut and paste job?
No, however just like everyone else that relies on those of the scientific fields I tried my best to word things according to my understanding. So did I use what others have said? Yes, in much the same fashion that everyone else would use what Dawkins says. We all rely on what other say unless of course you have written your paper and even if you did it would be built on what another had already said.

That said the ENCODE project findings was cut and paste.


Quote:
If so, from where?
Why does it matter where I got the information from? Is it so you can attack where the information come from instead of dealing with what the information actually says?



Quote:
Do you even understand all that "you" wrote in the above meandering?
The question is do you.

Either deal with the information given or don't. The claim that Christians cannot defend their belief via science has been answered. We can and this article shows we can.

Now I am not asking anyone to believe what is written, I am just showing the claim that we cannot defend what we believe via science is not correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-04-2018, 05:39 PM
 
34,481 posts, read 8,888,267 times
Reputation: 4788
Well I agree here. We do sneer a bit at cut and paste, but after all I write a heck of a lot off the top of my head, and I'm not surprised if I get asked to validate it and that means cutting and pasting or at least giving a link...and I don't care for links as it is too much like telling the fellow to do your research for you.

So I was fine with you effectively borrowing Creationist apologetics.

What you need to do now is ask - not whether there is a scientific case for Creation, as you say above. Well, now we know - there isn't . It entirely depends on trying to debunk evolution -what you should be doing is looking at the quotemines (Talk Origins has a comprehensive list) misrepresentation and canards, as I have suggested. Bear in mind that the I/D case (which really is argument from complexity with a testable theory) collapsed in scientific terms and was thrown in the bin by a Law court. Scientifically - Creationism has no case. In science or law.

So, rather than slip away or proclaim that you still believe creation, you might now look up the counters. I don't want this to become an Evolution -let alone science - thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2018, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 3,993,137 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Well, mate, you are beaten before you start, because debunking evolution does NOT validate Creation. Creationists only think it does because they believe Creation on Faith and think the argument is 'Creation is the default -theory and unless Evolution can prove it is true, it stands".

So you say, but unless you want to jump to the same conclusion that Crick does that extraterrestrials deposited DNA on earth we are left with one of two conclusions. Either man evolved from the primordial mud or man was created.


Quote:
That is not the way it works. Without some decent evidence you have on a faith -claim. And that is not good enough.
DNA evidence is not faith based and the DNA evidence does not support the evolution of man from the primordial mud. Even the ENCODE project said DNA was*intelligently designed.



Quote:
That said, what arguments did you provide to debunk evolution. Well I see the distinct evidence of cut and paste from Creationist websites, but that's ok. We all cut and paste, even if it's from the Bible. So first presenting science as somehow biased against Creation because it is not a materialist explanation. This is no more boased that forensic evidence in a murder trial not admitting supernatural explanations. In other words, Creation can only be credited if there is some decent evidence for it, and science is the best (indeed only) method of validating such efforts. Creation has tried, and failed. This means it is debunked as a default explanation and evolution is the only one with suportive evidence - of which there is a great deal. Panspermia, for example is a possible explanation that can't be disproven, but there is no more evidence for it than for Creation.
*

DNA tells us otherwise trans. Evolution simply cannot explain it, so an all knew hypothesis is needed. Panspermia, good grief where are you guys going to go next.

Quote:
I'm sorry if you buy that remark of Prof Mark Singham (who if not being quotemined must be some kind of anti -evolutionist) that teaching kids in the science -class what in in accordance with the evidence rather than some religious fairy -tale tale without a shred of scientific support as Indoctrination, but in a science class, you teach science, not ancient legends.
Singham teaches evolution classes so shod know what he is talking about.
You mean like the fairy tale the man evolved from primordial mud?

Quote:
Henry Gee was that fellow who was taken out of context and that led to a 88 page effort to get a Creationist to accept what he actually said, which was that the popular line from blob to Bob with identifiable 'missing links' (ancestors) along the line is a Fairy Tale'. It is because the reality is less clear cut and missing links show evolutionary trends, not specific ancestors. But the fellow simply refused to listen. Don't make the same mistake.
I will look into that.

Quote:
Then what, Yet again we get avoidance of Evolution (origin of species - not origins of Life and argue against the 'evolution' of DNA because of complexity. Sorry, but Biochenicals on a molecular level are complex and on subatomic level work mechanically, which is all that is claimed for DNA. The heavy hints that there is some kind of intelligent computer code in DNA has been exploited to delude people into thinking that this particular Complexity is evidence of a designer. It isn't, and and is no more a code than copper -sulphate molecules operating to produce a crystal requires a computer code.
Again the ENCODE project state DNA was *intelligently designed.

Quote:
Complexity and the basis of life -the ability to self -replicate - is all that you need, and, even if Creation could come up with a better explanation than "Poof..Goddunnit" it would still only be just a theory that could indeed be taught as an alternative. But there is no other counter explanation than "Poof...Goddunit" and that does not debunk evoliution of validate Creation and does NOT deserve a place in the science -class.*
To believe that man evolved from the primordial mud takes just as much faith (I would say more because of all the issues of LIFE) as does belief in creation. Neither can be proven and only one can be disproven and DNA has already started undoing the primordial mud hypothesis.

Quote:
I know - the believers think that if they can just convince people that the natural origin is "Impossible' then Goddunnit will be the default. The argument from complexity is indeed Brainwashing, and moreover, they misrepresent, cheat and lie. Our kids deserve better.
Our kid deserve to be taught both side of the equation on equal footing, not to be brainwashed into believing one side or the other.

Quote:
One such cheat is to leap on Cricks supposed statistical impossibility. But as he appears to admit, there is no parameter for calculating hos possible it is. So it seems that he is playing the Incredulily card in order to make a case for panspermia. But as the Creationists have observed, that life from outer space has to have come from somewhere. Sure - some other place where it evolved, perhaps. Pnaspermia really gets us nowhere.
Ya but it shows the length to which people will go to when they realize evolution from the primordial mud cannot be attained. They would rather go into outer space then believe in creation. Anything but creation.

Quote:
O don't need to go into the lengthy discussion of unexplained puzzles about the Genome. This is unanswered questions about evolution, not any way of debunking it.*
Ya but the more they learn about DNA the more it goes against the evolution of man from the primordial mud.

Quote:
So effectively after big hints of a scientific Bias conspiracy, some argument from incredulity and some cheating by quotemining evolutionists to make it look like they doubted evolution had any evidence, we get the mud puddle struck by lightning canard. Is it any different from being made from a handful of dust struck by divine lightning? But the evidence strongly suggests, doesn't it, that Life evolved in the sea. After all it was all sea -critters through the Pre cambrian and cambrian until after the sea insects and fish of the Silurian and Devonian we got into land in the Carboniferous period.*

Thus must argue against the Genesis account and thus Creation gas to have been done in the sea. But why? And why the long development? If it was true, then it ought to have been done on land and in one go, just as Gene sis says. The evidence is ALLL against that.
So you say, but don't give me anything to look at.

Quote:
Finally you say you accept evolution within species. I ought to ask why you can't accept evolution beyond species, but I already can guess the answer. Because God supposedly created all "Kinds" as they are and Evolution" can only change them within 'Kinds" After all Eohippus the size of a dog and with Paws, to the Horse is only "within species' isn't it?
Because science has proven time and again that evolution does indeed take place within kind. Science does NOT show evolution outside of kind and it CAN"T. Science is the observation of things (empirical ); forensics or historical is only based on hypothesis and cannot be proven scientifically. So why should I trade one hypothesis for another as neither can be proven scientifically.

Quote:
The debunker of that is the What and indeed other sea -living mammals - and even those who still have to get onto land, not having solved the birthing problem, just as Plesiosaurs couldn't back in the Jurassic and the Ichthyosaurs did.*

But that side, the fossil evidence of the cetans back to an amphibious form (with a evolution of the nostril to form a blow -hole) and back to a land creature, with a feature of the skull linking them al, PLUS the evidence hand -bones of the front flippers of Cetans and of course the vestigial hind lims still found in modern whales, debunks the idea that evolution has to stop at where a critter look so different that you have tyo give it a new species.*


"Kinds' even if it made any real sense, is not fied. It changed in the Miocence cetans, and it changed for many (but not all) other evolutionary lines.

The evidence for evolution of specues is compelling.

The arguments are confined to trying to debunk this, with an objection to "Macro' evolution that is a stupid lie really. That an aircraft can fly across America but not to Japan because of some Divine barrier, that despite clear evidence that it happenned.

Reverting to the origins of Life, which try to say a natural origin is impossible because they can't get their heads around it (or they say they can't) and I won't rehearse all the accusation and dirty tricks. but just say "where is the scientific evidence for Creation?' you know; so do I: there is none.
While I would say the evidence for creation is life itself. Only life can bring forth life and this is seen in everything around us. I or anyone else has yet to see life come from nothing or non-life

Quote:
Now you still have the Trump card to play, old son*

*"Well I'm not convinced! I still believe Creation is the best answer". You may not play it, but if you do, ok. Denial of the evidence and reverting to Faith. But that doesn't alter the fact that Evolution has won the debate, and Creation has nothing.

My post was only answering the claim that Christians cannot defend their belief. I am not asking anyone to change their belief just pointing out the we can defend what we believe and do so scientifically
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2018, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
18,895 posts, read 8,873,507 times
Reputation: 18302
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
...

Why does it matter where I got the information from? Is it so you can attack where the information come from instead of dealing with what the information actually says?

...

Now I am not asking anyone to believe what is written, I am just showing the claim that we cannot defend what we believe via science is not correct.
1. It always matters where information -- and particularly conclusions -- come from. Ever heard of fake news?

2. I'm glad you're not thinking that you've changed even one mind of this forum. You haven't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2018, 06:06 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,070 posts, read 8,562,897 times
Reputation: 6003
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
I know that this is not goi
A professor of Biology at Kansas State University says:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423.

So with statement like; it is not the science that compels evolutionist to accept a material explanation but their own worldview to adhere to material causes and even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer they are excluded because they are not naturalistic how are we then expected to believe anything they tell us?
The actual question is exactly backwards from what you're saying here.

All the prof is saying is that science can only address the natural, not the supernatural.

What he didn't bother to point out (at least in the quote) is that the supernatural is an illogical and useless concept anyway.

So the real question is, with theists saying that even if all evidence points away from an intelligent designer, they are going to ignore it because god says to -- how are we then expected to believe anything they tell us?

If something is supernatural than NOTHING can be said concerning it because information about it is unobtanium. As SOON as you say something about it, as soon as it influences the natural world, then it's natural, by definition.

Now ... the actual situation of course is that "all the data do NOT point to an intelligent designer" so the professor's hyperbole is beside the point. If all the data DID point that way, then it would be pointing to a natural phenomenon, not a supernatural phenomenon / cause.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2018, 06:07 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 3,993,137 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Well I agree here. We do sneer a bit at cut and paste, but after all I write a heck of a lot off the top of my head, and I'm not surprised if I get asked to validate it and that means cutting and pasting or at least giving a link...and I don't care for links as it is too much like telling the fellow to do your research for you.

So I was fine with you effectively borrowing Creationist apologetics.

What you need to do now is ask - not whether there is a scientific case for Creation, as you say above. Well, now we know - there isn't . It entirely depends on trying to debunk evolution -what you should be doing is looking at the quotemines (Talk Origins has a comprehensive list) misrepresentation and canards, as I have suggested. Bear in mind that the I/D case (which really is argument from complexity with a testable theory) collapsed in scientific terms and was thrown in the bin by a Law court. Scientifically - Creationism has no case. In science or law.

So, rather than slip away or proclaim that you still believe creation, you might now look up the counters. I don't want this to become an Evolution -let alone science - thread.
I will check that misrepresentation list trans as I do not want to misrepresent either side. Like I said before I like to see all the cards on the table and everyone can choose for themselves which way those cards fall.

So far I have not seen anything that would cause me to believe in the primordial mud hypothesis, but I am still looking. Either what I believe will stand my investigation or it won't. we will see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2018, 06:52 PM
 
34,481 posts, read 8,888,267 times
Reputation: 4788
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
So you say, but unless you want to jump to the same conclusion that Crick does that extraterrestrials deposited DNA on earth we are left with one of two conclusions. Either man evolved from the primordial mud or man was created.




DNA evidence is not faith based and the DNA evidence does not support the evolution of man from the primordial mud. Even the ENCODE project said DNA was*intelligently designed.



*

DNA tells us otherwise trans. Evolution simply cannot explain it, so an all knew hypothesis is needed. Panspermia, good grief where are you guys going to go next.



Singham teaches evolution classes so shod know what he is talking about.
You mean like the fairy tale the man evolved from primordial mud?



I will look into that.



Again the ENCODE project state DNA was *intelligently designed.



To believe that man evolved from the primordial mud takes just as much faith (I would say more because of all the issues of LIFE) as does belief in creation. Neither can be proven and only one can be disproven and DNA has already started undoing the primordial mud hypothesis.



Our kid deserve to be taught both side of the equation on equal footing, not to be brainwashed into believing one side or the other.



Ya but it shows the length to which people will go to when they realize evolution from the primordial mud cannot be attained. They would rather go into outer space then believe in creation. Anything but creation.



Ya but the more they learn about DNA the more it goes against the evolution of man from the primordial mud.



So you say, but don't give me anything to look at.



Because science has proven time and again that evolution does indeed take place within kind. Science does NOT show evolution outside of kind and it CAN"T. Science is the observation of things (empirical ); forensics or historical is only based on hypothesis and cannot be proven scientifically. So why should I trade one hypothesis for another as neither can be proven scientifically.



While I would say the evidence for creation is life itself. Only life can bring forth life and this is seen in everything around us. I or anyone else has yet to see life come from nothing or non-life




My post was only answering the claim that Christians cannot defend their belief. I am not asking anyone to change their belief just pointing out the we can defend what we believe and do so scientifically
I can give you something to look at - just the types of critters in the world before the Camoniferous. All sea -creatures.

I don't know of the ENCODE project but 'encode' suggests that it is pushing the 'comnputer -code' argument fro DNA which is rejected as pushing onto biological development a design and plan that is not scientifically valid. If you reject that, you reject the science.

Ok, this is just me saying because the debate has gone on for a long time, but essentially it is the argument from complexity and, as I explained, that is simply Creationists saying they can't believe it.

The mud puddle argument is irrelevant to evolution, as such. Development of species is another matter, no matter how Life began.

As to how it began, the mud puddle (or biochemical mix) has some theoretical mechanisms while Creation has nothing but a miracle.

The use of the term 'Miracle' by the way is a bit of a cheat. It is a very lucky chance, but after al, with a complex biochemical mix and billions of years, is it so impossible?

It doesn't alter the fact that evolution and abiogenesis has all the evidence and at least hypotheses. Ctration has nothing but incredulity - and Faith -based at that.

PS. ENCODE is a science project loojing into DNA. It is not a Creationist Front Group. I withdraw that. But the Creationists can pick bits of it and claim that it is too complex, it t has too many puzzles and has to be Designed (and leaping on the shorthant term 'Code' as a claim that it was Written.

The claim is debunked here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2018, 06:59 PM
 
34,481 posts, read 8,888,267 times
Reputation: 4788
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
I will check that misrepresentation list trans as I do not want to misrepresent either side. Like I said before I like to see all the cards on the table and everyone can choose for themselves which way those cards fall.

So far I have not seen anything that would cause me to believe in the primordial mud hypothesis, but I am still looking. Either what I believe will stand my investigation or it won't. we will see.
Can't ask for any more than that.

I'll see if I can find the explanation of Henry Gee's remarks.

The quoted text follows immediate from this. Clearly Gee is not saying that evolution is a pre-existing story, but the popular and non-paleontological views of human evolution is. And he is right - these ideas took a long time to overcome. Stephen Jay Gould discusses this nicely in his essay "Evolution by Walking" in Dinosaur in a Haystack, 1995 (New York: Harmony Books). (See also the essay in that book "Lucy on the earth in stasis").

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quot...html#quote4.14
There' also an eplanation of the misuse of Goul'd remarks.

This is a spectacular case of dishonesty or a spectacular case of a failure of reading comprehension. Here is the context:

"Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism's leading intellectual, Duane Gish, Ph.D. from his recent (1978) book, Evolution? The Fossils Say No! "By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what process He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish's italics]. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." Pray tell, Dr. Gish, in the light of your last sentence, what then is scientific creationism?

Note that all of the above sites present the quote with a period at the end that does not appear in the text. This avoids tipping the reader off to the very significant phrase that follows the quoted bit.

But, beyond that, there is a clear attempt to confuse "disprovable" with "disproved" and represent this snippet as an admission of problems in evolution. Gould's statement is, instead, a strong argument for the health of evolutionary theory and against creationism masquerading as science, making this one of the worst examples of quote mining in our collection.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quot...html#quote3.15

we can look at any particular point you referenced - and the Creationists counters if need be. We do have to give each side a fair whack.


Also the quotemining of Gould to make it seem that he is saying...

Quote #3.1

[Transitional forms do not exist and the evidence fits creation better than evolution]

"This notion of species as 'natural kinds' fits splendidly with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian age. Louis Agassiz, even argued that species are God's individual thoughts, made incarnate so that we might perceive both His majesty and His message. Species, Agassiz wrote, are "instituted by Divine Intelligence as the categories of His mode of thinking. But how could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the fundamental fact of nature?" - (Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'A quahog is a quahog', Natural History vol LXXXVIII(7), August-September, 1979, pg. 18)

It is clear from this that Gould is not saying, as the creationists would have it, that creationism better explains the evidence. While the "common sense" notion that species are real "natural kinds" is well suited to creationism, there are at least three possible resolutions of the apparent (but not substantial) difficulty with evolutionary theory that arises when it is viewed as requiring constant change. Gould declares himself to be "a partisan of Mayr's view" and proceeds to spend the next five-plus pages discussing non-Western folk taxonomies in support of that position.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html


Talk origins is also handy in dealing with the 'Mud puddle' objection

Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

I will try and walk people through these various errors, and show why it is not possible to do a "probability of abiogenesis" calculation in any meaningful way.

.....'

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont [8] and Woese calls a progenote [4]), but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms [2, 5, 10, 15, 28]. An illustration comparing a hypothetical protobiont and a modern bacteria is given below.

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

As I mentioned before. If "Life' has an origin, it is when biochemical complexes became self -replicating.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-04-2018 at 07:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2018, 07:54 PM
 
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
5,509 posts, read 2,591,975 times
Reputation: 2785
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
I will check that misrepresentation list trans as I do not want to misrepresent either side. Like I said before I like to see all the cards on the table and everyone can choose for themselves which way those cards fall.

So far I have not seen anything that would cause me to believe in the primordial mud hypothesis, but I am still looking. Either what I believe will stand my investigation or it won't. we will see.
Quote:
Either man evolved from the primordial mud or man was created.
I have no problem with the primordial mud hypothesis. Neither should any creationist. Mud is wet clay or dirt or whatever God allegedly created Adam out of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2018, 11:17 PM
 
2,269 posts, read 2,212,966 times
Reputation: 2637
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
The actual question is exactly backwards from what you're saying here.

All the prof is saying is that science can only address the natural, not the supernatural.

What he didn't bother to point out (at least in the quote) is that the supernatural is an illogical and useless concept anyway.

So the real question is, with theists saying that even if all evidence points away from an intelligent designer, they are going to ignore it because god says to -- how are we then expected to believe anything they tell us?

If something is supernatural than NOTHING can be said concerning it because information about it is unobtanium. As SOON as you say something about it, as soon as it influences the natural world, then it's natural, by definition.

Now ... the actual situation of course is that "all the data do NOT point to an intelligent designer" so the professor's hyperbole is beside the point. If all the data DID point that way, then it would be pointing to a natural phenomenon, not a supernatural phenomenon / cause.

Another way of stating your boldfaced and underlined point above more verbosely (fleshing it out) is as such:

There is no such thing as the so-called "supernatural" but only the natural order ("nature" for short) and all that occurs within it. Nothing is or can be "super"-natural (beyond the natural). That is, whatever occurs within the cosmos (i.e., "cosmos" means the entirety of all existence, whether there is a singular universe or a multiplicity of universes) is a natural event . . . because nature (i.e., the natural order) allows it to happen at all -- so hence, it is, by definition a natural (not a "supernatural") event or phenomenon. An event or phenomenon that does happen to occur which contradicts our present scientific understanding of the workings of the cosmos doesn't mean it is a "supernatural" event that occurred; it just means that our supposed scientific understanding of the workings of the cosmos was somewhat incorrect or incomplete and hence we (science) then need to correct our previous ideas about the workings of the cosmos regarding that particular event or phenomenon that occured.

In summary: If anything (an event or phenomenon) can, in fact, prevail in the entirely of existence (i.e., the cosmos), it, by definition, is a natural event or phenomenon . . . because the natural order allows it to occur in the first place. Hence, the whole idea of a "supernatural" realm is invalid. If it were true that, in fact, a very aged and frail senior human in his 90s ruled to be "medically dead" by a large team of experts was embalmed and then interred in a cemetery but then comes back to life a week later, busts out of his burial place or mausoleum crypt, heals all his cancerous damages and wounds and reverts back to his 20s in looks and physiology, this would, in fact, be a natural event. Yes, it would most certainly defy what we thought to be our latest scientific understanding of what was possible and what wasn't possible within the realm of the natural order BUT, if it did occur, science would have to revise its understanding to encompass the idea that some living beings who become deceased can, in some circumstances, regain their life back, heal themselves to "normal", and revert in physical age to an earler time in their life such as their teens or 20s. It wouldn't be a case of a "supernatural" event, for nature (the natural order) allowed it to occur instead of not allowing it to occur . . . so therefore it is a natural event.

Is my explanation and reasoning clear and understandable to all who took the time to read it all?

Last edited by UsAll; 01-04-2018 at 11:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top