Do miracles distort evidence?

Calminian · Apr 9, 2005

I can honestly understand why atheistic scientists would believe in an old earth. In their worldview additions to natural processes don't happen...ever! If they came across a hypothetical bottle of miraculously created wine the day after it was created they would believe it was old. They would test the alcohol content and perhaps some other things and come to a wrong conclusion. They might even find some anomalies they can't explain but in no way would they be able to accept it was one day old. Miracles just don't happen.

If they came across a created man like Adam, the next day, the same thing would happen. The missing bellybutton would definitely be an anomaly, that along with lack of scare tissue, etc., but practically everything else about him would point to an older age. His muscles would be mature, his brain fully developed, everything right down to his trillions of cells would have to be fully developed and functioning.

And if these scientists were transported to a hypothetical miraculously created solar system that was sustaining a planet with life they would also believe it was old. The life forms would be fully developed, the plants fully developed, the soil the plants were growing in and water systems would have to be fully developed. The moon would have to be just in the right place, the orbit of the planet would have to be just right, etc. The Creator would have to do all these things in order to create a fully functioning ecosystem. Thus it seems very obvious to me it would be very difficult to effect a miracle without making the evidence hard to read (using the scientific method, that is).

And heres the kicker. If the majority of scientific dating methods showed the earth to be young, I would have a tough time believing it was miraculously created.

To illustrate, say I came across a bottle of wine reported to be miraculously created the day before. And lets say some scientists tested it and the alcohol content showed it was one day old and every other indicator showed it was one day old. Would I believe a miracle had happened?? No! Or lets say I was lead to a man reported to be miraculously created the day before. But when I see him he is only an infant. Of course I would not accept a miracle in that case. I would accept he was one day old, yes, but naturally made.

The point is, I dont think its possible to miraculously create a fully functioning solar system, planet and ecosystem in a week without confusing atheistic scientists. As I said, if the majority of naturalistic dating methods showed the earth to be young, that would seem to rule out the necessity of a miracle.

So my question: If God really did create the universe in 6 days, how could that NOT make scientific investigation very difficult? In fact, it would seem to make it impossible. Please tell me why you disagree.

gluadys · Apr 9, 2005

Calminian said:
So my question: If God really did create the universe in 6 days, how could that NOT make scientific investigation very difficult? In fact, it would seem to make it impossible. Please tell me why you disagree.

It would not make scientific investigation difficult. Science would still investigate physical events and processes as they appear to be and still tell us they appear to be old. And they would be right, because they do appear to be old.

The only reason their conclusion would be incorrect is because of an undetectable super-natural intervention that renders their exploration of the way things appear moot. Because if the world were created by an undetectable, supernatural action, the appearance is divorced from the reality.

So, scientifically, they are right about the appearance (which is what they are investigating) but wrong about the reality, because the appearance and the reality do not coincide.

And that is why I disagree with it. I do not believe and could never believe that the God to whom scripture bears witness would create a universe in which the appearance of nature does not coincide with the reality of nature.

notto · Apr 9, 2005

There is a difference between appearance of age and appearance of history, as you admit in your OP. The earth shows history, not just age. The earth has scars that show us that the earth was not created in 6 days and that directly falsify the earth being created in six days a few thousand years ago.

Calminian · Apr 9, 2005

notto said:
There is a difference between appearance of age and appearance of history, as you admit in your OP.

I did?

notto said:
The earth shows history, not just age. The earth has scars that show us that the earth was not created in 6 days and that directly falsify the earth being created in six days a few thousand years ago.

I don't understand the distinction. Please share. What are these scares you believe the earth has?

Calminian · Apr 9, 2005

gluadys said:
It would not make scientific investigation difficult. Science would still investigate physical events and processes as they appear to be and still tell us they appear to be old. And they would be right, because they do appear to be old.

The only reason their conclusion would be incorrect is because of an undetectable super-natural intervention that renders their exploration of the way things appear moot. Because if the world were created by an undetectable, supernatural action, the appearance is divorced from the reality

So, scientifically, they are right about the appearance (which is what they are investigating) but wrong about the reality, because the appearance and the reality do not coincide.

Interesting.

gluadys said:
And that is why I disagree with it. I do not believe and could never believe that the God to whom scripture bears witness would create a universe in which the appearance of nature does not coincide with the reality of nature.

This is what I believe most OECs believe but I never thought one would come out and say it. God would never create the world miraculously because that would confuse those investigating it using naturalistic assumptions. Never mind that He gave us a written text that basically said "hey I created this world in six days!" Is it really God's fault if we don't listen to that?

notto · Apr 9, 2005

Calminian said:
I did?

I don't understand the distinction. Please share. What are these scares you believe the earth has?

Meteor craters throughout the fossil record, dinosaur footprints walking around an intact stand of trees with their roots still in place, all on top of a coal seam with sediment below it, buried by more sediment on top of it.

Things like the grand canyon and devils tower that simply could not have been created in the past few thousand years.

Fully formed oxbow lakes and river beds, with sediment below them, all buried by more sediment.

The lack of short lived isotopes in nature.

Layers of mature soil with root systems in tact, deep inside the crust.

Light from exploding stars that would never have existed if the universe were only a few thousand years old.

These are just a few. These are the same things that led Christian geologists and scientists to accept that the earth is really old when they went looking at it over 200 years ago.

Calminian · Apr 9, 2005

notto said:
Meteor craters throughout the fossil record, dinosaur footprints walking around an intact stand of trees with their roots still in place, all on top of a coal seam with sediment below it, buried by more sediment on top of it.

Don't see why this is a problem. Maybe you could explain.

notto said:
Things like the grand canyon and devils tower that simply could not have been created in the past few thousand years.

You mean couldn't be formed naturally in a few years. I agree! This proves either the earth is old or a supernatural event took place.

notto said:
Fully formed oxbow lakes and river beds, with sediment below them, all buried by more sediment.

Doesn't sound like natural processes could bring that about either.

notto said:
The lack of short lived isotopes in nature.

No idea what these are.

notto said:
Layers of mature soil with root systems in tact, deep inside the crust.

Mature huh? Sounds like you're making my point for me. How could God create a fully functioning ecosystem without mature soil? Deep underground? Doesn't sound like that could have happened naturally either. I guess my belief in a supernaturally caused creation and flood is justified.

notto said:
Light from exploding stars that would never have existed if the universe were only a few thousand years old.

Not a problem with Humphreys model. That was a problem for those holding to the light-in-transit theory. But no where in scripture do you find any evidence that God connected light to starts. While 17 times in scripture it says He stretched out the heavens....miraculously.

notto said:
These are just a few. These are the same things that led Christian geologists and scientists to accept that the earth is really old when they went looking at it over 200 years ago.

Sounds like all of these just prove that either the earth is billions of years old or some additions to natural processes have taken place. If things like this didn't exist I would have trouble believing the creation was a miracle. As I said, if a bottle of wine was reported to be miraculously created the day before, and also had an alcohol content making it appear to be one day old, I wouldn't believe it was miraculously created.

So back to my original question: If God really did create the universe in 6 days, how could that NOT make scientific investigation very difficult?

notto · Apr 9, 2005

Calminian said:
Don't see why this is a problem. Maybe you could explain.

You mean couldn't be formed naturally in a few years. I agree! This proves either the earth is old or a supernatural event took place.

Doesn't sound like natural processes could bring that about either.

No idea what these are.

Mature huh? Sounds like you're making my point for me. How could God create a fully functioning ecosystem without mature soil? Deep underground? Doesn't sound like that could have happened naturally either. I guess my belief in a supernaturally caused creation and flood is justified.

Not a problem with Humphreys model. That was a problem for those holding to the light-in-transit theory. But no where in scripture do you find any evidence that God connected light to starts. While 17 times in scripture it says He stretched out the heavens....miraculously.

Sounds like all of these just prove that either the earth is billions of years old or some additions to natural processes have taken place. If things like this didn't exist I would have trouble believing the creation was a miracle. As I said, if a bottle of wine was reported to be miraculously created the day before, and also had an alcohol content making it appear to be one day old, I wouldn't believe it was miraculously created.

So back to my original question: If God really did create the universe in 6 days, how could that NOT make scientific investigation very difficult?

Your handwaving doesn't change the evidence. We find things in the geologic column that cannot be explained through miracles or through a young earth. They are the scars of natural processes that have been at work for years. The same process we see today. No miraculous changes, except God directly creating them, could account for them. If that is the case, then God put things in place to make us see a history that never happened. Riverbeds where water never flowed. Trees roots where trees never grew. Light from stars where stars never existed. These things don't just look mature due to a sped up chemical pr physical process (such as your wine example), they would look completely different if the processes were sped up (which is why the wine analogy is a poor one).

It seems that you really are not all that familiar with what we see in geology. All of the things I mentioned are real and can be explained only by natural process happening over an extended period of time, unless God purposely put those scars on the earth to fool us. I don't accept that.

SBG · Apr 9, 2005

Are you saying the ONLY explanation could be by natural processes happening over an extended period of time? Your other explanation you rule out with 'I don't accept that.' I have seen many te's say either this or God is a liar, is that your stance as well?

Honestly, if you looked at what Calminian said, it makes a lot sense. I suppose you would have to look at it without a biased view point that doesn't want to consider anything else.

notto · Apr 9, 2005

SBG said:
Are you saying the ONLY explanation could be by natural processes happening over an extended period of time? Your other explanation you rule out with 'I don't accept that.' I have seen many te's say either this or God is a liar, is that your stance as well?

Honestly, if you looked at what Calminian said, it makes a lot sense. I suppose you would have to look at it without a biased view point that doesn't want to consider anything else.

I have looked at it with an unbiased view. My faith is not dependent on what we find there. If the earth looked young, I would admit that the earth looked young. It doesn't. I have no problem considering anything else and I have. Have you?

What Calminian said doesn't make a lot of sense when one understands the actual evidence we find and when one takes the time to actually research and look at all of the things we do find in nature that can't simply be explained away with the flood or the fall.

Calminian · Apr 9, 2005

notto said:
Your handwaving doesn't change the evidence.

notto said:
We find things in the geologic column that cannot be explained through miracles or through a young earth. They are the scars of natural processes that have been at work for years.

So you're of the opinion that the scientific method can investigate miracles?

But would alcohol in the wine also be considered a scar? What's the difference?

notto said:
The same process we see today. No miraculous changes, except God directly creating them, could account for them.

I suppose it depends on the details of the miracle God chose to use. Not knowing the details is a big problem don't you agree?

notto said:
If that is the case, then God put things in place to make us see a history that never happened. Riverbeds where water never flowed. Trees roots where trees never grew. Light from stars where stars never existed. These things don't just look mature due to a sped up chemical pr physical process (such as your wine example), they would look completely different if the processes were sped up (which is why the wine analogy is a poor one).

I'm most familiar with the light-in-transit strawman you keep bringing up. I'm assuming the other examples are similar. No YEC believes the light was connected. There are much better theories I'm sure you're aware of.

notto said:
It seems that you really are not all that familiar with what we see in geology. All of the things I mentioned are real and can be explained only by natural process happening over an extended period of time,

Yes they can be explained by time and natural processes. But not only by that.

notto said:
unless God purposely put those scars on the earth to fool us. I don't accept that.

It's seems you're calling everything that looks old a scar. That would mean Adam's fully developed body would be a scar and the alcohol in the wine would be a scar. I'm trying to get you to make a distinction. Was Christ being deceptive by putting alcohol in the wine? Are you in agreement with gluadays that God would never create an instantaneous universe because that in and of itself would be deceptive?

Calminian · Apr 9, 2005

notto said:
I have looked at it with an unbiased view. My faith is not dependent on what we find there. If the earth looked young, I would admit that the earth looked young.

This statement shows though, you're not totally grasping where I'm coming from. If the earth looked young according to naturalistic measurements, that would indicate a creative miracle did not happen and thus would not be compatible with the YEC interpretation of Genesis. I tried to illustrate this in my OP.

notto · Apr 9, 2005

Calminian said:
So you're of the opinion that the scientific method can investigate miracles?

But would alcohol in the wine also be considered a scar? What's the difference?

I'm most familiar with the light-in-transit strawman you keep bringing up. I'm assuming the other examples are similar. No YEC believes the light was connected. There are much better theories I'm sure you're aware of.

Yes they can be explained by time and natural processes. But not only by that.

It's seems you're calling everything that looks old a scar. That would mean Adam's fully developed body would be a scar and the alcohol in the wine would be a scar. I'm trying to get you to make a distinction. Was Christ being deceptive by putting alcohol in the wine? Are you in agreement with gluadays that God would never create an instantaneous universe because that in and of itself would be deceptive?

Your still not seeing the difference between appearance of age and appearnce of history. Soil and deposits and much of what we find look old because of what we find in them. The history of the life that is played out in the fossil record and by what we find about life on this planet must have actually happened. The trees grew, the dinosaur eggs were laid, the streams created the oxbow lakes we find, the volcanoes erupted, and the meteors fell. To suggest that all of the history we find there could have happened in a few thousand years or that God created what we find their mature doesn't explain what we find. God can certainly create with an appearance of age. The example of adam being created mature and Jesus and the wine are examples of this. The appearance of a history that never happened is something completely different.

Did God create river beds where water never ran?

Calminian · Apr 9, 2005

notto said:
Your still not seeing the difference between appearance of age and appearnce of history. Soil and deposits and much of what we find look old because of what we find in them. The history of the life that is played out in the fossil record and by what we find about life on this planet must have actually happened. The trees grew, the dinosaur eggs were laid, the streams created the oxbow lakes we find, the volcanoes erupted, and the meteors fell. To suggest that all of the history we find there could have happened in a few thousand years or that God created what we find their mature doesn't explain what we find. God can certainly create with an appearance of age. The example of adam being created mature and Jesus and the wine are examples of this. The appearance of a history that never happened is something completely different.

Did God create river beds where water never ran?

No. Nor does He create a false history. No YECs claim this. You're being very vague. Why not just clearly explain your argument so I can respond.

notto · Apr 9, 2005

Calminian said:
No. Nor does He create a false history. No YECs claim this. You're being very vague. Why not just clearly explain your argument so I can respond.

I really don't know how I could be any clearer. As far as YEC's go, they simply ignore the history as played out in the evidence we find in the earth. When they can't explain something, they simply avoid it. There are plenty of examples of this.

For instance, in the middle of the geologic column (covered by sediment and on top of more sediment) are riverbeds complete with oxbow lakes and runoff fans. We know how these form. Speeding up any of the paricular processes as an explaination doesn't explain how these could form rapidly or be where they are because if the processes in place were sped up, the signature of the river would be completely different. We know this river flowed on top of sediment for quite awhile. We know this river only flowed there after the sediment below it was laid down. We know this river was then covered by much more sediment.

This history is not explained with an appearance of age unless God created a riverbed where water never flowed.

Another good example is dinosaur tracks on top of a coal seam. These tracks are on top of the seam an are again, covered with much more sediment. Around the tracks are trees with the roots still embedded in the coal seam. The dinosaur tracks go around the trees and actually show a picture of dinosaurs grazing on the trees. These treese and the dinosaurs that made the tracks existed and the trees grew, which we know take a bit of time. Again, sped up or catastrophic explanations can't explain what these tracks and trees are doing in the middle of the geologic column, on top of sediment that was turned to coal, yet under several feet of other sediment.

These are appearance of a history, not just an appearance of age. We know that these things appear old because we understand the processes that formed them. Miraculous changes to physical constants wouldn't affect these evidences and would distort them in different ways than what we see. Miraculous creation of these things would be the creation of evidence of a history that never happened. This is different that creating wine or a fully formed human.

In your OP, you said that Adam would be free of scars. I would agree but the evidence we find in creation of things we think are old are not free of these scars. They are not simply mature, they lived a history that can be shown but the evidence there.

gluadys · Apr 9, 2005

Calminian said:
Interesting.

This is what I believe most OECs believe but I never thought one would come out and say it. God would never create the world miraculously because that would confuse those investigating it using naturalistic assumptions. Never mind that He gave us a written text that basically said "hey I created this world in six days!" Is it really God's fault if we don't listen to that?

The only "naturalistic assumption" here is that God made a real world not a virtual world. Why wouldn't I come right out and state what I believe is sound Christian theology?

I think the rejection of a real world in favour of a world of mere appearance unconnected with reality is also a rejection of the biblical doctrine of creation in favour of something like the Hindu/Buddhist doctrine that this world is an illusion and reality is something quite different.

gluadys · Apr 9, 2005

Calminian said:
Are you in agreement with gluadays that God would never create an instantaneous universe because that in and of itself would be deceptive?

Calminian, that is not what I said. I don't say God would never create an instantaneous universe. I do say that however God created, the world is real and its appearance is consistent with how it was created.

If God chose to create the universe instantaneously, it would appear to be created instantaneously. Even if it had an aura of maturity, it would not have evidence of a history. Adam, for example, would have no memory of a time before he was created, no memory of being a little boy, of swinging on a tree branch and skinning his knee when it broke and he fell, no scar tissue from the wound. Because those things never happened.

The earth would have no fossils in it of creatures that became extinct apparently before the creation of the world. There would be no pre-human hominid fossils at all because they never existed.

Do you begin to get what notto and I mean by the difference between apparent age and history?

So since the earth does have evidence of a history, not just an appearance of age, then given the reality of what God creates, I am compelled to believe the history is real.

And it has nothing to do with whether God worked a miracle or not. For all I know the big bang was a supernatural miracle. And there may have been miracles since. But there was also a real history, because God doesn't make fake worlds.

Calminian · Apr 10, 2005

Notto I'm not a scientist so there may be things in your post I'd need more of a background to understand. But as I see it nothing you've mentioned requires millions of years. There was a miraculous flood that occurred about 4,000 years ago according to the Bible. We have no details on how God brought it about. He could have used triggers like meteors comets, etc.. He could have just made it happen, who knows. The fact that we have buried dinosaurs and trees just doesn't strike me as a non scientist very convincing. Is that the best scar you can come up with? If so, go into it a little deeper and explain to us why millions of years in the only possibility.

gluadys said:
Calminian, that is not what I said. I don't say God would never create an instantaneous universe. I do say that however God created, the world is real and its appearance is consistent with how it was created.

Right and an earth that tested young according to naturalistic dating methods would not be consistent with a 6 day miracle. Do you at least agree with that?

gluadys said:
If God chose to create the universe instantaneously, it would appear to be created instantaneously.

And in your mind, exactly what would that look like? If you can't answer the above statement is meaningless.

gluadys said:
Even if it had an aura of maturity, it would not have evidence of a history.

I only see evidence for a 6,000 year history.

gluadys said:
Adam, for example, would have no memory of a time before he was created, no memory of being a little boy, of swinging on a tree branch and skinning his knee when it broke and he fell, no scar tissue from the wound. Because those things never happened.

I've yet to see you point out one scar.

gluadys said:
The earth would have no fossils in it of creatures that became extinct apparently before the creation of the world.

Oh come on guys this is circular reasoning. That's a big "apparently" because it's only apparent if you believe no miracle has taken place. Like I said, an instantaneous fully mature function planet should appear old using naturalistic dating methods. You keep ignoring this point.

gluadys said:
There would be no pre-human hominid fossils at all because they never existed.

Guys I've looked at these ostensible hominids. I'm not a scientist but don't find them convincing at all.

gluadys said:
Do you begin to get what notto and I mean by the difference between apparent age and history?

I do understand it better now, yes. But I think your both doing a poor job in showing examples. Granted I don't have the background you both but you should be able to make a better case nevertheless.

gluadys · Apr 10, 2005

Calminian said:
Right and an earth that tested young according to naturalistic dating methods would not be consistent with a 6 day miracle. Do you at least agree with that?

No, I would say the opposite.

And in your mind, exactly what would that look like? If you can't answer the above statement is meaningless.

Keep reading.

I only see evidence for a 6,000 year history.

Which means there is a lot of history you haven't looked at yet.

I've yet to see you point out one scar.

That's the point. There wouldn't be one, because there was no historical event that would create one.

Oh come on guys this is circular reasoning. That's a big "apparently" because it's only apparent if you believe no miracle has taken place.

How is it circular reasoning? If the world was miraculously and instantaneously (well not quite--in six days) created about 6,000 years ago, then nothing was alive before that. Therefore we should have no fossils of animals that went extinct 60 million years ago. Or even 6500 years ago. We should have no archeological sites of human habitation that date back to 20,000 years ago, and no cave paintings 35,000 years old, because there were no people to live in that village and no artist to paint that bison on the cave wall.

Like I said, an instantaneous fully mature function planet should appear old using naturalistic dating methods. You keep ignoring this point.

Quite the contrary. It should appear to be as young as it is. Otherwise you are getting into illusion.

Guys I've looked at these ostensible hominids. I'm not a scientist but don't find them convincing at all.

If you were a scientist, you would find them convincing. But that is not the point here. If the world is only 6,000 years old, these hominid fossils should not exist at all. They are in no way necessary to an appearance of age. Their presence tells us that there was a real history that goes back more than 6,000 years.

notto · Apr 10, 2005

Calminian said:
Notto I'm not a scientist so there may be things in your post I'd need more of a background to understand. But as I see it nothing you've mentioned requires millions of years. There was a miraculous flood that occurred about 4,000 years ago according to the Bible. We have no details on how God brought it about. He could have used triggers like meteors comets, etc.. He could have just made it happen, who knows. The fact that we have buried dinosaurs and trees just doesn't strike me as a non scientist very convincing. Is that the best scar you can come up with? If so, go into it a little deeper and explain to us why millions of years in the only possibility.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1161676-the-ce-thread-archive.html

If you look at the second post here, there are thread with lots of information on these scars that falsify a young earth and a worldwide flood.

The history of the earth goes back well over 4,000 or 10,000 years. There is no young earth explanation for what we find as we look at this history (not just age).

Do miracles distort evidence?

Senior Veteran

Legend

Legend

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Legend

Senior Veteran

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Legend

Senior Veteran

Legend

Legend

Legend

Senior Veteran

Legend

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency