Do miracles distort evidence?

[gluadys]

Hello gluadys,

Indeed, miracles can distort the evidence.

I am sorry Delta One, but most of your points are PRATTS (points refuted a thousand times --- or more). I and many others have already considered them and found them to be false.

I don't have time to deal with each in detail, but I can direct you to threads where they are discussed.

The Great Flood as recorded in Genesis is testament to this. Landforms that would normally take millions and billions of years to produce like the Grand Canyon could be formed in a matter of days, weeks, or months.

They could not and they did not.

http://www.christianforums.com/t95378
http://www.christianforums.com/t724866
http://www.christianforums.com/t728542

In fact, creationists believe that the amazing landform in the middle of Australia, Uluru (the Aborginal name), or Ayers Rock, was formed as a direct result of the Flood. There is evidence in the rocks that support the assumption.

Do professional geologists in Australia agree with this conclusion? Why not?

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.

Did you know that this so-called scientific investigation is based on an assumption: that things have kept going on just as they are now for billions of years?

That is not an assumption. It is a conclusion. After all, when people first began studying geology the assumption they held was that the earth was only a few thousand years old and that it had once been subjected to a global flood.

It took nearly three centuries (from Steno's discovery of the Law of Superposition to Agassiz' study of glaciation) to convince the scientists that the earth was old and the flood was not global.

Studying the evidence in nature came first. The evidence led to the conclusion that the earth & the universe are very old.

The only assumption required is one the bible itself tells us is true---that God established an order in nature such that similar causes have similar effects.

This is nothing more than an arbitary assumption that can easily proven to be alse in the present! Just take a look at what the erruption of Mount St. Helen's did! The mud flow created a mini-Grand Canyon several metres deep (20 metres?) and several metres wide in a matter of days or something like that. Damn, the book that I got that information out of is packed along with most of the family books while we wait for our new home to be built.

No, it did not create a mini-Grand Canyon. There are a great many differences between the Mt. St. Helen's erosion and the Grand Canyon, in addition to size. For one thing, the erosion at Mt. St. Helen's was through recently deposited volcanic ash. We know volcanic ash can be laid down quickly, and recent deposits can be eroded quickly. But the Grand Canyon was cut through sedimentary deposits, deposits which had lithified (turned into solid stone), deposits which took a long, long time to be deposited in the first place (e.g. limestone and sandstone), deposits which had themselves been eroded (trace fossils show plants and animals had lived on top of these deposits at one time) and non-conformities (which take a long time to form). Furthermore, the erosion pattern is that of a river slowly cutting through these deposits, not a of a flood washing through rapidly.

You will not find anything likethese tight bends between high narrow walls at Mt. St. Helens

All of the natural forces, e.g. floods, earthquakes, volcanic erruptions and so on, can drastically alter the landscape of a given area that geologists assume that would take a long time to do.

Actually, geologists do assume that floods, earthquakes, volcanoes (and one could add meteor strikes) do occur rapidly, whenever they occur. Uniformitarianism does not require that everything happen gradually. Only that a process which happens gradually now, happened gradually in the past, and that a process which happens rapidly now happened rapidly in the past.

In reality, we know that our planet is still very geologically active and that making such an assumption that things have went on forever exactly as they are now is nothing short of ridicious.

Precisely what sort of process do you think did not happen in the past just as it does now? Were volcanoes different in the past? Were varves laid down differently? Was limestone formed differently? Or soil?

And once you have decided what was done differently, please explain how it could have been different.

The earth only looks old to you because of your long age view.

No, the earth looks old because it looks old. There is no question at all that the earth really does look old. Now if you wish to believe that in spite of its appearance it is really young, that's ok by me. But I won't follow you there, because I do not accept that God would create an illusory world that is young but looks old.

With reference to the radiometric dating methods, they have many fallible assumptions that most people are most likely unaware of.

So in addition to geology you have studied physics too? Sorry, this is another PRATT.

http://www.christianforums.com/t12083-age.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t12083-age.html

One thing you must learn is that science is not very effecting when extrapolating back into the distant, unobservable past, because of the amount of biased assumptions that must be made to fill the ever present gaps.

I think when you check out some actual science instead of filling your head with creationist nonsense, you will find there are far fewer "gaps" than you have been led to believe. Try this for a starter.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

You're forgetting that this world today is not the original world that God created! This is a cursed world! You are also forgetting the massive effects that a global flood would have on the earth's geology...

First, the flood was not global. That idea was proved false nearly 200 years ago by creationist geologists.

For the rest, I know of nothing in Genesis which says the world was cursed or fundamentally changed from the pre-fall world.

 

[shernren]

Calminian, to be honest, I don't think you're really listening.

Okay, let's start with
Observation 1: The earth looks old, i.e., the earth has an appearance of history.

What can we deduce from there?
Naturalistic deduction 1: The earth was formed a long time ago.
Supernaturalistic deduction 1: The earth was formed 6000 years ago and looks like it was formed a long time ago.

However, supernaturalistic deduction 1 does not follow straightaway from observation 1. You need some observations and assumptions to lead to it:

Observation 2: The Bible says the earth was formed 6000 years ago.
Assumption 1: The Bible is the Word of God.
Assumption 2: The Bible means to be treated as literal history in this case.

Now, two more assumptions:

Assumption 3: God is truth, meaning He does not appear to be something He isn't.
Assumption 4: All His creation that fulfills His purpose should reflect His characteristics.

give you
Supernaturalist Deduction 2: If the earth is created by God it should only appear to have history it has actually experienced.
[Appearance of history, not appearance of age.]

However, Supernaturalist Deduction 1 says that the universe appears to have history it has not actually experienced, and therefore combined with Supernaturalist Deduction 2 gives:
Supernaturalist Deduction 3: The earth is not created by the God of Assumptions 1-4.

Great job. We've just proved that God did not create the world. Note that science is only responsible for giving us Observation 1. You're right: science cannot prove nor disprove a miracle. But logic and the revelation of God can tell us whether or not it would be in God's character to perform a particular miracle to a certain effect.

 

[Calminian]

Calminian, to be honest, I don't think you're really listening.

Or perhaps I'm too dumb to understand. I'm always open to that possibility.

Okay, let's start with
Observation 1: The earth looks old, i.e., the earth has an appearance of history.

Sorry can't go along with the first observation. I think the earth appears old from a naturalistic framework, but not with histories that can only be explained by age.

However, Supernaturalist Deduction 1 says that the universe appears to have history it has not actually experienced,

Yes it does indeed according to you, but I don't agree. I believe the earth has an appearance of age, but not history. This is the part I'm trying to get the OECs to expand on. All their arguments thus far are appearance of age of age arguments (like the alcohol content in wine). I keep making this point over and over. Give me a good argument that the earth shows the appearance of history. Bring up the best one to your knowledge and let's talk about it. IOW don’t just bring up the data, but make the logical connection as to why a miracle either cannot explain it or would make God a deceiver.

 

[shernren]

You yourself admit that the earth looks old from a naturalistic framework. THAT IS MY PRECISE POINT! Science is a naturalistic framework. And there is only one version of the scientific facts. Maybe different frameworks the facts can fit into but only one true set of facts.

This whole thread has been full of the data. And assuming you accept the data (or show your own measurements that falsify them) I have shown the logical connection you requested.

 

[Calminian]

You yourself admit that the earth looks old from a naturalistic framework.

Yes just as miraculously created wine looks old even the next day— just as a created man looks old even the next day.

THAT IS MY PRECISE POINT! Science is a naturalistic framework.

Which is why science is not helpful in determining truths about biblical miracles.

And there is only one version of the scientific facts. Maybe different frameworks the facts can fit into but only one true set of facts. This whole thread has been full of the data. And assuming you accept the data (or show your own measurements that falsify them) I have shown the logical connection you requested.

Here's where you equivocate. Something can be true even if it is not within the realm of scientific investigation. And data cannot be falsified, only interpretations of data can. You yourself admit data can fit into different frameworks. Deciding which framework to use is not a scientific question but a philosophical one.

 

[Vance]

Correct. If naturalism is assumed, the earth looks old.



Incorrect. God can still do miracles even though they will confuse those refusing to accept miracles. In other words, just because someone may test the alcohol levels of created wine, doesn't mean God is obligated not to create it. It's not God's fault if man stubbornly chooses to assume a natural creation even after he is told otherwise.



I see you're not familiar with this subject. The light in transit theory was disproved (IMO) by the fact that we see supernovas that are more than 6,000 light years away. This would mean the light from the explosion we see was just an illusion God created. Understand? It's not that God could not do such a thing, but would He? Therefore if the Bible taught that God created the light in transit, the Bible would have a big problem. But I can say gladly it does not.



If the Bible taught the earth was naturally formed you would be correct. But we both know it doesn't. Sorry I know that pulls the rug from the rest of your post but that's just the way it is. The Creation and Flood are Goddidit events.

Cal, you are talking in circles and not getting to the nub. Even if naturalism is not assumed (since no TE assumes naturalism), the earth shows every evidence of ancient age. It is not just those who reject miracles who see this evidence, but those who accept miracles as a matter of course who recognize this evidence.

So, you need to get past this "naturalistic assumption" issue, since it is not where the issue lies. I will say it plain and clear: Christians who accept evolution do NOT do so because they have naturalistic assumptions or reject miracles. Period. So, knowing that, please don't mischaracterize the issue in that manner again. I know it is an easy strawman to set up, but it is simply false.

As for the light in transit issue, you seem to be dancing around this issue. You agree that God would not have created the light in transit since to do so would be an "illusion" of something in the past which did not exist, which would be creating deceitfully, which God does not do. And, you are right, the Bible does not teach that God created the light in transit, there is no issue there. But what AiG has had to do is find some OTHER explanation for the existence of the light. They HAVE to agree that the supernova existed in time, and have created a convoluted argument for how it could have existed in time, but still not be more than 6,000 years old.

The point is that they recognize that the natural evidence we have IS EVIDENCE that must be addressed, not just hand-waved off as "God just created it in maturity 6,000 years ago, so all that evidence means nothing." They realize that if the evidence, properly read, states that the earth or universe is a given age, you CAN NOT say that God just made it that way recently, even though it looks old. They realize that if the evidence created a false illusion, there is a MAJOR problem.

So, each piece of evidence which tells scientists that the earth is old must be explained in naturalistic terms to NOT be a false illusion, but actually something that fits NATURALLY within a young earth. To fail to do this is to accept either that the earth IS old or God created a false illusion. Since the latter can not be true, the former must be. This is why AiG spends all of its time attempting to provide naturalistic explanations for the evidence that seems to dramatically point to an old earth.

Yes, God's creation of the universe and everything in it is a miracle. We all agree on that. The question for the table is HOW and WHEN God created that miracle, to the extent we can know this. AiG recognizes that, because God will not have created in a way to leave a false history of evidence behind, every piece of evidence that SEEMS to point to an old earth must be explained naturalistically to fit within a young earth, and if they can not do this, then the only other answer is that the earth is old.

And this is the conclusion of both TE's and OEC's.

 

[Calminian]

Cal, you are talking in circles and not getting to the nub.

Oh man. I missed the nub again?

Even if naturalism is not assumed (since no TE assumes naturalism), the earth shows every evidence of ancient age. It is not just those who reject miracles who see this evidence, but those who accept miracles as a matter of course who recognize this evidence.

I would suggest you have nubbular challenges of your own. It has nothing to do with whether or not a scientist accepts miracles in general but whether or not he thinks a miracle was involved in the particular thing he is investigating.

So, you need to get past this "naturalistic assumption" issue, since it is not where the issue lies.

Obviously you don't understand yet what the whole naturalistic assumption issue is about.

I will say it plain and clear: Christians who accept evolution do NOT do so because they have naturalistic assumptions or reject miracles. Period. So, knowing that, please don't mischaracterize the issue in that manner again. I know it is an easy strawman to set up, but it is simply false.

No one ever made this claim. It's a stubborn figment of you imagination.

As for the light in transit issue, you seem to be dancing around this issue. You agree that God would not have created the light in transit since to do so would be an "illusion" of something in the past which did not exist, which would be creating deceitfully, which God does not do. And, you are right, the Bible does not teach that God created the light in transit, there is no issue there.

The LIT theory was merely a speculation. It was flawed. What's the big deal?

But what AiG has had to do is find some OTHER explanation for the existence of the light. They HAVE to agree that the supernova existed in time, and have created a convoluted argument for how it could have existed in time, but still not be more than 6,000 years old.

Humphreys' theory is widely accepted among YECs. The idea of God stretching out the heavens in expressed in 17 passages of the Bible. But it is still just a speculation since the Bible doesn't give us the details of how that stretching occured. Humphreys is very careful to make this point in his book.

The point is that they recognize that the natural evidence we have IS EVIDENCE that must be addressed, not just hand-waved off as "God just created it in maturity 6,000 years ago, so all that evidence means nothing."

You're just not getting it Vance. The supernova argument was a philosophical/theological argument. It had nothing to do with naturalist assumptions about miracles or the absence thereof.

They realize that if the evidence, properly read, states that the earth or universe is a given age, you CAN NOT say that God just made it that way recently, even though it looks old. They realize that if the evidence created a false illusion, there is a MAJOR problem.

You're mixing together two totally different arguments. Just because something looks old, doesn't mean it is old. The supernova argument had nothing to do with appearance of age through a naturalistic framework. It's so easy to understand I'm not sure why you're not getting it.

So, each piece of evidence which tells scientists that the earth is old must be explained in naturalistic terms to NOT be a false illusion, but actually something that fits NATURALLY within a young earth.

Then it would follow that miraculously created wine must be assumed old because naturalistic assumptions can never be doubted.

To fail to do this is to accept either that the earth IS old or God created a false illusion. Since the latter can not be true, the former must be. This is why AiG spends all of its time attempting to provide naturalistic explanations for the evidence that seems to dramatically point to an old earth.

Apparently you're not able to grasp what AiG nor I am saying. By the logic you're using you're basically saying God can't do miracles at all lest someone like you become confused. The supernova argument shows if God created the LIT, He would have created the illusion of explosions for the purpose of deception. The concepts of purpose and deception are not scientific conclusions, they are philosophical ones. But in the case of the created wine, no purpose of deception would exist. The fault lies solely on the investigator for making faulty assumptions. Please tell me you're starting to grasp this.

Yes, God's creation of the universe and everything in it is a miracle. We all agree on that. The question for the table is HOW and WHEN God created that miracle, to the extent we can know this.

The HOW is up for speculation. The WHEN and the duration of the process are revealed in scripture.

AiG recognizes that, because God will not have created in a way to leave a false history of evidence behind, every piece of evidence that SEEMS to point to an old earth must be explained naturalistically to fit within a young earth, and if they can not do this, then the only other answer is that the earth is old.

Vance I really don't think you've understood my OP. An earth that appeared young according to a naturalistic framework would contradict your admission that the world the created supernaturally.

 

[Vance]

Who said God can't do miracles?! I have said at least a dozen times to you alone that all TE's accept that God can do miracles. The question is whether He would do a miracle in a way that would mean He was deceiving. This, AiG and TE's both agree God would not do. Period. This does not man He can't or doesn't do miracles. But when He does them, He doesn't leave behind unecessary evidence (NATURAL evidence) that He did it one way when He did it another way.

Please explain what you mean by naturalistic assumptions if you think I have it wrong. What I have gathered from your posts is that you think a naturalistic assumption is when you assume there is a naturalistic explanation for everything. If this is what you mean, then you are wrong about TE's holding such a view. I look at each phenomenon and am perfectly willing to accept that God did it miraculously, overriding the natural processes He put in place. But, since God can't deceive, if he leaves behind specific evidence that He did it one way, I am going to assume He did it that way, rather than assume He did it some other way which does NOT match the evidence. That is ONLY if He has left behind specific evidence which speaks to the way He did it. If it speaks to way He did it, then the degree to which it is convincing on that point is the degree to which I am convinced that He did it that way.

When a Christian scientist looks at an event, he assumes that the event could be natural or supernatural. No problem and there is no assumption that it has to be natural. He views the evidence from that perspective, either is a possibility. But when the natural evidence points straight to an old earth and universe, that Christian scientist accepts that God would not leave behind false evidence, and so he accepts what the natural evidence tells him. If the natural evidence is inconclusive or doesn't give an answer, then he continues to leave both options open. That is how someone like Hugh Ross, who definitely does NOT have any naturalistic assumptions, concludes that the earth and universe are old.

The bottom line is that God would not leave behind naturalistic evidence that the universe and this planet are old unless they were old. The fact that the creation was a miracle does not get around this fact. If God created supernaturally, the event would not leave behind naturalistic evidence to the contrary. God would not let that happen. Now, this is not at all based on the assumption that there must be a naturalistic explanation.

 

[Calminian]

Who said God can't do miracles?! I have said at least a dozen times to you alone that all TE's accept that God can do miracles.

Vance just this statement alone shows you're not reading my posts carefully. These are silly accusations. I specifically stated TE's do accept miracles and qualified my statement very carefully.

The fact that you're not actually posting quotes of mine shows you're not paying attention to the points I'm making in context. If you're not willing to have a point counterpoint the discussion is going to become a waste of time.

 

[Vance]

"By the logic you're using you're basically saying God can't do miracles at all lest someone like you become confused."

Did I misunderstand this?

 

[Calminian]

"By the logic you're using you're basically saying God can't do miracles at all lest someone like you become confused."

Did I misunderstand this?

Yes! The statement was not about TEs it was about you. And it was not about your belief in miracles but about your bad logic. I suggest you actually read the entire post.

 

[Vance]

Yes! The statement was not about TEs it was about you. And it was not about your belief in miracles but about your bad logic. I suggest you actually read the entire post.

But that says that I am basically saying that God can't do miracles lest someone be confused. This is not anything like what I have ever said.

Again, God can do whatever miracles He likes, and He does them all the time. But when He does them, He will not leave behind natural evidence pointing to something else happening.

Let's take a particular example or two. Varves and embedded meteor craters like Glenn is discussing on the other forum here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1452477-meteor-craters-and-the-flood-year.html

If God created six thousand years ago, He would have had to embed those meteor craters even though a meteor never caused them, since it is impossible for those meteors to have hit the earth within the last 6,000 years. Same with varves, as in my other thread. Now, it is not based on a naturalistic assumption to say that the meteors hit the earth at some point, since both those who accept miracles and those who deny them both agree that this is what that data tells us plain as day. Same with the varves. They are yearly calendars, going back more than 6,000 years.

God would not have embedded this evidence without the event having happened which caused the evidence. I would think we both agree on that, since we both agree with AiG that this type of creation would be deceptive. So, what is the alternative for YEC's? That the events causing the data CAN have happened within the last 6,000 years. So, we are back to the natural review evidence and the natural science again. We can't get around that point. So, it is up to the Creationist to show that the natural reading of the evidence can be explained within a young earth framework.

There might be some miracles which leave no evidence one way or the other, and there might be some miracles that leave evidence that can be interpreted more than one way. That is fine. But this still means the evidence has to be interpreted to show how it fits within a young earth naturally.

 

[Calminian]

But that says that I am basically saying that God can't do miracles lest someone be confused. This is not anything like what I have ever said.

I agree it's not what you say. I never claimed it's what you said. I claimed it's what you're position logically leads to. Hopefully you can see the difference.

Vance I'm noticing a pattern where you're not responding to my direct arguments. Is there any reason why?

 

[Vance]

Oh, no I do respond to each of the points I can see. What I do is just post responses in the rough order I see them, using the Quick Reply window on the bottom. Sometimes I get very lazy with the whole quoting process. But I can assure you that I am providing the same response I would otherwise.

But as for your point, it is not at all what my position leads to. Not in the least, as I explained earlier. AiG says that God can not create in a way that would be deceptive. As an example, they say that God could not have created light in the process of getting to earth, since that would imply an event in the past which never happened.

Now, you seem to agree with the idea that God would not create in a deceptive way, so what does this idea specifically mean to you? What kinds of things would God NOT do?

And, again, we should look to the whole panoply of evidences I have shown you for the earth being old. There are many, many instances of data which indicate events which could not have happened in the last 6,000 years. YEC's might get around some of them by arguing that God had to create a functional planet, creating "in maturity", as they say. Fine. But what about all those evidences of events that can not have occured in the last 6,000 years which have nothing to do with maturity, but are simply the "scars" of past events. YEC's can't just say that God miraculously created it that way, since this does not address the issue AiG raises that God can not create in a deceptive way, and thus can not just implant stuff like that. This is why AiG spends all of its time trying to come up with NATURAL explanations for this evidence. At least they Creationists must explain how all the evidence we have can be naturally consistent with a young earth scenario.

The problem is that no "young earth" model has been presented which fits the data.

 

[Calminian]

Oh, no I do respond to each of the points I can see. What I do is just post responses in the rough order I see them, using the Quick Reply window on the bottom. Sometimes I get very lazy with the whole quoting process. But I can assure you that I am providing the same response I would otherwise.

It's too bad you've chosen to do this. Unfortunately you're missing a lot of points which I have to go back and explain over and over. If you cite a quote you may actually read them more carefully and realize you're misunderstanding (regardless of whether you agree with the point or not).

It appears from your remaining comments you're just ignoring my responses and repeating the same arguments. Most of my posts are still there if you're interested in responding to them. They fully address every point you've made in this post.

I rarely agree with gluadays and notto, but at least they read the posts and respond. You may want to look to them as an example.

And trust me on this one, just as one cannot listen if he's always talking, so one cannot read if he's always typing. Take it or leave it.

 

[shernren]

Calminian, it's simple: you're overwhelming Vance with a voluminous flood of half-baked arguments. I'm having trouble even understanding how everything you're saying coheres properly. I think there must be a relativity of thought. When two people move past each other at relativistic speeds each person sees the other contract. Maybe, when two people miss each other in high-spirited intellectual debate, each person sees the other's intelligence diminish. And they might both be absolutely right. XD

Anyway.

Here's where you equivocate. Something can be true even if it is not within the realm of scientific investigation. And data cannot be falsified, only interpretations of data can. You yourself admit data can fit into different frameworks. Deciding which framework to use is not a scientific question but a philosophical one.

There's a wealth of counters to be mined, man!

1. Genesis can be true even if it is not within the realm of historical verification, or even of having historically happened literally as it was described.
2. Interpretations of data can be falsified? Read on...
3. Different scientific data can fit into different frameworks. But can different philosophical "data" fit into different frameworks? Can the "philosophical data" that God is truth, fit into the framework of Him creating imaginary histories? This is precisely what everybody here has been doing to falsify your framework.

Now, this does not necessarily lead to an argument that "God never does miracles lest anyone be confused". God can perform miracles which leave anachronistic effects. For example, creating wine from water or Adam the full-grown 1-day-old human. But, in each case God does not necessarily have to create an appearance of history.

And I'm glad that you respond, even if you seem illogical. At least you're not asleep.

 

[Vance]

Yes, that is the case, Shenren. I go through and try to distill what is being said among the whole. When I can pull together a point which needs a response, then I respond to it. Cal, if there is any particular point you think is being ignored, feel free to point it out.