An evolutionist, TE, OEC and YEC all walk up to a bar...

[The Lady Kate]

Well, you might want to let God tell you. He did give you a historical record.

So we have, and so He did....penned in His own hand on the face of this planet. Hard to ignore....without effort.

 

[Calminian]

So we have, and so He did....penned in His own hand on the face of this planet. Hard to ignore....without effort.

What should be ignored are the naturalistic assumptions that many of these theories require. The Bible is a book of miracles and the supernatural. Scientists themselves admit that miracles are out of the realm of scientific investigation. Yet you are ignoring that and using naturalistic theories to help you understand that which they cannot understand. Thus naturalistic theories have become your Bible.

 

[Calminian]

Nope. I merely know that it seems a little odd for it to have all these extra bits of pre-history built into it. Why?

If your answer is nope then you're admitting you don't know what these extra bits would look like. This in the next sentence you claim you do. Which is it, do yo are don't you.

In short, if we wish to learn anything about the structure of Creation, we must assume that God is not actively intervening all the time.

Correct and this would be compatible with what the Bible teaches. Miracles are rare. The mistake you're making is, you're assuming God didn't intervene in creation (at least the theories you're esteeming did so).

 

[seebs]

What should be ignored are the naturalistic assumptions that many of these theories require.

Hmm. Maybe you can help me.

How should I know when to use naturalistic theories, and when not to?

In particular, many people tell me to reject the Quran because of its factual errors; however, you tell me that God works miracles. Perhaps the things recounted there are true, and the apparent "evidence" against them is made moot by God's use of miracles?

The Bible is a book of miracles and the supernatural.

And, thus, not a book of science or natural history. Okay. So...

Yet you are ignoring that and using naturalistic theories to help you understand that which they cannot understand.

Why shouldn't they work for this? Science works most of the time. How do I know when to not use it?

Thus naturalistic theories have become your Bible.

This statement is very offensive, as well as false, and I think it shows an unwillingness on your part to learn what the people you're debating with actually believe.

 

[seebs]

If your answer is nope then you're admitting you don't know what these extra bits would look like. This in the next sentence you claim you do. Which is it, do yo are don't you.

I can't be sure of what a created world would look like. But I can tell you, if creation were accomplished via physics and evolution since the Big Bang, what I'd expect to see.

Do you grant that physics and biology are, for the most part, stable? That trees grow the same way today that they did two thousand years ago?

I have a record of history that I can study. I can tell you what it looks like when there's a flood; trees grow differently. So. For some reason, although this flood happened, trees didn't grow the way they normally do during that flood.

Why?

Why wouldn't God let the physical record show the true history?

Correct and this would be compatible with what the Bible teaches. Miracles are rare. The mistake you're making is, you're assuming God didn't intervene in creation (at least the theories you're esteeming did so).

This is not merely an assumption; it is based on the lack of any evidence of intervention.

If the Flood happened, we should see it in tree rings all around the world. We don't. So. Either it didn't happen, or God hid the evidence, changing the trees to hide this record. Why?

 

[The Lady Kate]

What should be ignored are the naturalistic assumptions that many of these theories require.

Do that, and God becomes only one in an infinite number of possibilites...ghosts, ghouls, goblins, spirits, spooks, specters, fairies, pixies, sprites, elves, gnomes, and things going "bump" in the morning, noon, or night all become valid scientific theories which must be given every bit as much consideration as God...

You sure you want to go that route?

The Bible is a book of miracles and the supernatural.

The Bible is not a book. The Bible is several books. Books of miracles and the supernatural...also books of history, poetry, allegory, and morality....but rarely all at the same time.

Scientists themselves admit that miracles are out of the realm of scientific investigation.

Which is no reason to automatically assume they exist. We can hardly fault the scientists for refusing to concede to YEC insistance that the only possible answer is one they cannot test.

They also tend to rule out the fairies, pixies, sprites... etc. Do you fault them for that?

Yet you are ignoring that and using naturalistic theories to help you understand that which they cannot understand. Thus naturalistic theories have become your Bible.

While you can feel free to question my Christianity, the simple fact is that I am not so arrogant to assume that anything I do not understand must automatically be a "miracle."

God is my strength...He is not my excuse.

 

[Calminian]

Do that, and God becomes only one in an infinite number of possibilites...ghosts, ghouls, goblins, spirits, spooks, specters, fairies, pixies, sprites, elves, gnomes, and things going "bump" in the morning, noon, or night all become valid scientific theories which must be given every bit as much consideration as God...

You sure you want to go that route?

Seems like this debate has embittered you a great deal. You remind me of someone.

The Bible is not a book. The Bible is several books. Books of miracles and the supernatural...also books of history, poetry, allegory, and morality....but rarely all at the same time.

Yes it is a book that contains books. You really feel you needed to clarify this?

Which is no reason to automatically assume they exist. We can hardly fault the scientists for refusing to concede to YEC insistance that the only possible answer is one they cannot test.

They also tend to rule out the fairies, pixies, sprites... etc. Do you fault them for that?

Sounds like I'm talking to an atheist. So you're saying scientists should also reject the virgin birth and resurrection at the risk of lending credence to the tooth fairy?

While you can feel free to question my Christianity, the simple fact is that I am not so arrogant to assume that anything I do not understand must automatically be a "miracle."

God is my strength...He is not my excuse.

Again with this same argument. Who has claimed that everything not understood by science is a miracle? If I were you I'd take a long vacation from this subject. Honestly this is the most bizarre reply I've ever heard.

God is my strength...He is not my excuse.

Then stop making excuses for Him. Sounds to me like modern naturalistic theories are your strength.

 

[Calminian]

This is not merely an assumption; it is based on the lack of any evidence of intervention.

Here we go. Evidence for supernatural interventions? You still don't realize such evidence is logically impossible. Science cannot investigate the supernatural.

 

[seebs]

Here we go. Evidence for supernatural interventions? You still don't realize such evidence is logically impossible. Science cannot investigate the supernatural.

I think I have a pretty good handle on what's possible or impossible.

If God were to supernaturally create 20 gallons of water over me, soaking me thoroughly, science could show that I was wet.

The question here is why God has carefully created a world which looks exactly as we would predict if no miracles had occurred.

The limitations of science don't get us out of this one; they still leave us with the question of why we have been given a world with such a rich and long history, if it isn't actually that old.

You're right that science cannot investigate the supernatural... But science can tell you whether or not your observations can be explained without it. If they can, then asserting that a miracle occurred, but left no traces, seems a little strange. Why not just declare that Jesus resurrects about six billion people a day so quickly and suddenly that we don't even notice we've died?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

So you are unable to see a parallel between the age of the wine and the age of the earth?

Yup, but it doesn't hold up.

It seems for the many statements here, that theistic evolutionists do look at natural evidence first and then from that decide how to interpret the Bible when it concerns miracles.

Sort of.

The odd thing is that I cannot seem to understand from you all - maybe you can help me out here - is why you subject creation to being perceived through interpretation of natural evidence, but yet you don't do the same with Jesus' miracles.

Is Jesus the liar because He made wine that tastes as if it has aged?

Jesus making wine that tastes like aged wine is like God making Adam fully grown, it makes sense and there is no deception involved.

Giving Adam scars that made it look like he fell from the tree as a child would be deceptive.

Creating a universe in which there are no* short-lived radioactive elements near us but there are in remnants of supernovas, creating a world in which you have a 5000 foot deep canyon with the tracks from a spider and other small creatures in the middle of the sediment, ... that would be deceptive.

* There are a few short-lived radioactive elements (i.e. C14) but they are all being continuously created.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Here we go. Evidence for supernatural interventions? You still don't realize such evidence is logically impossible. Science cannot investigate the supernatural.

If a sect of healers start getting 70% spontaneous remission of confirmed cancers within a week of laying on of hands you would have a pile of scientists with every concievable sensor gathered around them. and if they found nothing except the faith of the healers and the patients, then, in view of the lack of any prior evidence that the placebo effect or good mental outlook is effective once cancer has taken hold, you would have evidence of a supernatural intervention.

Many scientists would deny this, all would leave open the posibility that a natural explanation would be found, but a fairly large number would acknowledge that the best explanation is that a miracle is occuring.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but such evidence is possible to come up with, and God could,if he choose to, provide it. Similarily if he chooses not to be detected by science we won't find him.

 

[Calminian]

The question here is why God has carefully created a world which looks exactly as we would predict if no miracles had occurred.

Now you're claiming to know what a world created through a miracle would have looked like? You just admitted you didn't a while back. Have you observe naturally and supernaturally created universes to compare?

You're right that science cannot investigate the supernatural... But science can tell you whether or not your observations can be explained without it.

Yes you are right. Back to my illustration. The scientists came up with a perfectly reasonable explanation for the existence of the wine. It was not created, it was made by men via squeezing grapes 5 years ago just as it normally is. So does the fact that they came up with a viable alternative explanation prove the miracle didn't happen? Nor does the fact that modern naturalists have come up with (ostensibly) viable models for our own universe, disprove the miracle of the six day creation.

If they can, then asserting that a miracle occurred, but left no traces, seems a little strange. Why not just declare that Jesus resurrects about six billion people a day so quickly and suddenly that we don't even notice we've died?

Now you're claiming to know what miracle traces look like. Have you observed a miracle to know and compare its traces to naturalistic traces?

 

[Calminian]

Hmm. Maybe you can help me.

How should I know when to use naturalistic theories, and when not to?

The fathers of science had no problem with this. They know miracles were rare usually performed to authenticate a prophet or his writings. If you are a christian you should believe in miracles with the Bible conveys one. Obviously you want to pick and choose which miracles to believe.

But for certain you should never let science influence which ones you believe. Science can't verify supernatural events.

In particular, many people tell me to reject the Quran because of its factual errors; however, you tell me that God works miracles. Perhaps the things recounted there are true, and the apparent "evidence" against them is made moot by God's use of miracles?

The Quran does not contain any miracles as far as I know. Factual errors are a different subject. Do you believe the Bible contains factual errors?

And, thus, not a book of science or natural history. Okay. So...

Yes but the author had a perfect knowledge of history and natural processes. Perhaps you disagree. That would explain a lot.

Why shouldn't they work for this? Science works most of the time. How do I know when to not use it?

You don't use it to investigate miracles nor to shape your theology about miracles.

This statement is very offensive, as well as false, and I think it shows an unwillingness on your part to learn what the people you're debating with actually believe.

It was not meant to be offensive. And I know it's not what you (or other OECs) believe. I'm simply saying that your view logically leads to the conclusion that naturalism is to be believed over the Bible in some areas. It is a comment on your logic, not beliefs.

 

[Calminian]

If a sect of healers start getting 70% spontaneous remission of confirmed cancers within a week of laying on of hands you would have a pile of scientists with every concievable sensor gathered around them. and if they found nothing except the faith of the healers and the patients, then, in view of the lack of any prior evidence that the placebo effect or good mental outlook is effective once cancer has taken hold, you would have evidence of a supernatural intervention.

You are right but you would not have scientific evidence. But I think you are mistaken that all those scientists would cry miracle. They would simply say what they always do when a anomaly comes about. "We have no naturalistic answer for how this happened.......yet!"

Many scientists would deny this, all would leave open the posibility that a natural explanation would be found, but a fairly large number would acknowledge that the best explanation is that a miracle is occurring.

Wishful thinking on your part. You really think the science journals would be filled with arguments for an act outside of nature? It would never happen, not in a million years. Naturalism is a religion a belief system. Very few scientists will veer from it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but such evidence is possible to come up with, and God could,if he choose to, provide it. Similarily if he chooses not to be detected by science we won't find him.

You over estimate people and underestimate the blind faith people have in naturalism. The rich man was told by Abraham that even a resurrection would not sway people to change their current belief system. The miraculous future disasters in Revelation won't even be enough. Scientists (in general) will always wait for the naturalistic explanation to be discovered. If all of the sudden the Big Bang and Evolution fall short, another naturalistic model will take over in no time flat. That's the way the belief system works.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Yes you are right. Back to my illustration. The scientists came up with a perfectly reasonable explanation for the existence of the wine. It was not created, it was made by men via squeezing grapes 5 years ago just as it normally is. So does the fact that they came up with a viable alternative explanation prove the miracle didn't happen?

There was no wine in the house previously, the host did not bring out the good wine first. There is positive evidence that a miracle did occur.

Did the containers show signs of containing wine for five years?
Did they show signs of having contained water recently?

Nor does the fact that modern naturalists have come up with (ostensibly) viable models for our own universe, disprove the miracle of the six day creation.

The utter lack of expected evidence for a world wide flood indicates that no such flood occured.

The substantial evidence for age:

• tree rings, lake varves, ice layers, the correlation of all those together using C14 dating

• lack of short lived radioisotopes

• presense of deep canyons and layers of sediment with footprints and other fossils indicating those layers had existed in situ over time

all indicates that the world has existed with ongoing physical and chemical and biological processes for substantially longer than the 6000 years a literal reading of the bible requires.

The correlation of molecular evidence for descent with modification with the preexisting morphological models provides very substantial evidence that biodiversity occured because of evolution, not because of special creation.

Which brings us just about full circle, if you want to believe in a literal reading, go for it. But the physical evidence contradicts that reading.

If you want to discuss absolute proof, well an omnipotent creator could have created the universe last Tuesday.

 

[Calminian]

There was no wine in the house previously, the host did not bring out the good wine first. There is positive evidence that a miracle did occur.

I don't think you read my illustration carefully. The scientists arrived the next day. They weren't there to witness the miracle. Now make your argument.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Scientists (in general) will always wait for the naturalistic explanation to be discovered.

Scientists in general understand from long experience that only a fool declares that it will always be impossible to explain an ongoing phenominom (sp?).

In the meantime 1/3rd of scientists believe in an afterlife and in a personal God who answers prayers.

You can beleive what you wish.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I don't think you read my illustration carefully. The scientists arrived the next day. They weren't there to witness the miracle. Now make your argument.

Interview witnesses just like the police do, so that the forensic pathologists have a framework to do their work in.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Seems like this debate has embittered you a great deal. You remind me of someone.

Having my faith questioned tends to irritate me.

Yes it is a book that contains books. You really feel you needed to clarify this?

Multiple books, multiple authors, multiple purposes... yes, sadly, I did feel the need to clarify this

Sounds like I'm talking to an atheist.

Sounds like you're questioning my faith...again.

So you're saying scientists should also reject the virgin birth and resurrection at the risk of lending credence to the tooth fairy?

So you're saying that scientists should accept these things? I can hardly hold them to blame if they choose not to.

We accept them as matters of faith... they cannot be tested or challenged in any objective way. Sceintists cannot put God in a test tube...and I am thakful for that...so they do not run scurrying to him when there's something they do not understand...yet.

Again with this same argument. Who has claimed that everything not understood by science is a miracle? If I were you I'd take a long vacation from this subject. Honestly this is the most bizarre reply I've ever heard.

Where then is the line between "We don't know" and "it's a miracle?"

Then stop making excuses for Him. Sounds to me like modern naturalistic theories are your strength.

I make no excuses for God. He does what He does in ways and for reasons known only to Him. I leave the mindbending excuses to the YECs.

 

[Calminian]

Having my faith questioned tends to irritate me.

Nobody questioned your faith. There were merely inquiries.

Multiple books, multiple authors, multiple purposes... yes, sadly, I did feel the need to clarify this

Sadly? Try madly.

Sounds like you're questioning my faith...again.

I didn't know you made a profession of faith to question. I asked if you were atheist. If someone asked me the same thing I would just answer them. I don't question the faith of OECs (if that's indeed what you are). They may well be better christians than I am. I'm questing their approach to Genesis. I'm questioning their logic not their faith.

So you're saying that scientists should accept these things? I can hardly hold them to blame if they choose not to.

We accept them as matters of faith... they cannot be tested or challenged in any objective way. Sceintists cannot put God in a test tube...and I am thakful for that...so they do not run scurrying to him when there's something they do not understand...yet.

I think scientists, as all, should believe these things, yes, but of course not for scientific reasons. This does not mean blind faith is necessary either. The YEC in my illustration realized how limited science was in investigating a miracle and therefore looked to other means to learn the truth. To many scientists have limited themselves to only finding naturalistic truths. Thus they will never discover the great truth of the Resurrection, nor the Creation.

Where then is the line between "We don't know" and "it's a miracle?"

Well now TLK, I would think you’d be more qualified to answer that than I. After all, you are picking and choosing which miracles to believe. Why do you believe the miracle of the virgin birth, but not the miracle of creation? Personally I believe all the biblical miracles. Atheists believe non of them. Only we are consistent. You seem to have a system for deciding which ones are valid and which ones are not. Please share.