Evidence for Miracles?

[philadiddle]

They do, but virtually all of them admit they do so because of modern science. I can give you numerous quotes.[/quotes]Even St. Augustine knew that the creation account didn't need to be taken literally, and that had nothing to do with modern science.

How do you explain Paul Seeley's paper on the firmament? Did he relate the creation account to ancient cosmology because of modern science? What about NT Wright, Peter Ens, etc? You could give me quotes if you want, but I can give you essays and articles written by scholars explaining why genesis is not literal, and it has nothing to do with modern science.

Medical science states that people dead for three days cannot under any circumstances be revived, let alone be walking around preaching. If you go and see a doctor, he's going to treat you based on the science they've conducted with all the patients that come before you. That's how medical science works.

We already know that a miralce goes against the laws of nature as we know them. That's what a miracle is. My question was, is there any evidence that contradicts the story of Jesus rising from the dead?

Actually, I've heard of dating methods varying wildly. Then again, even if there is agreement with some methods that's also be expected, if indeed a miracle happened. If Jesus created wine instantly, there would be several factors that may lead one to a false view of its age. There would also be other anomalies that may suggest it is not old. Creation scientists point these out all the time:

1. Receding Moon - 750 m.y.a. max
2. Oil Pressure - 5,000 - 10,000 years
3. The Sun - 1,000,000 years max
4. The Oldest Living Thing - 4,900 years max
5. Helium in the Atmosphere- 1,750,000 years max
6. Short Period Comets - 5,000 - 10,000 years
7. The Earth's Magnetic Field - 10,000 years max
8. C-14 Dating of Dino Bones - 10,000 - 50,000 years
9A. Dinosaur Blood and Ancient DNA - 5,000 - 50,000 years
9B. Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones - 5,000 - 50,000 years
9C. 165 Million Year Old Ligaments - 5,000 - 50,000 years
10. Axel Heiberg Island - 5,000 - 10,000 years
11. Carbon-14 in Atmosphere - 10,000 years max
12. The Dead Sea - 13,000 years max
13. Niagara Falls - 5,000 - 8,800 years max
14. Historical Records - 5,000 years max
15. The San Andreas Fault - 5,000 - 10,000 years
16. Mitochondrial Eve - 6,500 years
17. Population Growth - 10,000 years max
18. Minerals in the Oceans - Various (mostly young) Ages
19. Rapid Mountain Uplift Less than 10 million years
20. Carbon 14 from "Old" Sources - 10,000 to 50,000 years
21. Dark Matter and Spiral Galaxies -100 - 500 million years (max)
22. Helium and lead in Zircons - 6,000 years

Source

Pick one of these that you would like to defend and I'll show you why it's a farse.

Naturalists then counter with alternative explanations for the anomalies and insist there's must be preferred. I've heard alternative explanations for all of these. That' doesn't mean they are correct.

The difference is that alternative explanations are rooted in facts and observations, instead of a misunderstanding of the natural sciences. Like I said, pick any one you want and I'll show you why it's a farse.

If the earth really is young via a miracle of God (creation) then we would expect to see data that shows an apparently older than actual age. We would also expect to see anomalies like the ones listed above.

If they are in fact anomolies. Pick one.

 

[Calminian]

...How do you explain Paul Seeley's paper on the firmament?....

I don't know about Seeley per se on that issue, but I am familiar with his paper. It was thoroughly refuted by JP Holding. In fact Holding thumped him on the issue of the firmament not being heaven—an issue I bring up a lot. Seeley tried to claim that the firmament was a barrier between the heavens and the earth. Yet, scripture says the firmament is the heavens.

Seeley also has a fallacious paper on the 3 tiered universe theory—heaven, earth, under the earth. This is of course in conflict with scripture that describes the world as heaven earth and sea. Even Seeley is all his prestige didn't understand the translation of erets.

We already know that a miralce goes against the laws of nature as we know them. That's what a miracle is. My question was, is there any evidence that contradicts the story of Jesus rising from the dead?

So your taking scientific evidence off the table? Interesting.

Pick one of these that you would like to defend and I'll show you why it's a farse.

You missed the point.

The difference is that alternative explanations are rooted in facts and observations, instead of a misunderstanding of the natural sciences. Like I said, pick any one you want and I'll show you why it's a farse.

IOW's you'll show an alternative natural explanation. We get it.

They skeptics would have done the same with the wine Christ created.

 

[philadiddle]

I don't know about Seeley per se on that issue, but I am familiar with his paper. It was thoroughly refuted by JP Holding. In fact Holding thumped him on the issue of the firmament not being heaven—an issue I bring up a lot. Seeley tried to claim that the firmament was a barrier between the heavens and the earth. Yet, scripture says the firmament is the heavens.

You don't know about Seeley on that issue but you're familiar with his paper on that issue? That seems to be a contradiction.

For the record, I have read AiGs refutation of his paper and it's terrible, but there's no point in arguing over it with you. My point was this:

1) You said theologians interpret Genesis differently because of modern science.
2) I showed you examples of where it was based purely on theology and an understanding of the cultural context. I also showed you that theologians interpretted it in a non-literal way long before modern science came around.
3) Logically from 2 you are wrong about 1.

So your taking scientific evidence off the table? Interesting.

No, I'm taking scientific laws off the table because that is what a miracle is. Do you understand that?

Why can't you just answer a question for once? Are there any facts that contradict Jesus rising from the dead? For example, are there other books written from that era that say they saw Jesus body in the tomb 5 days after his execution?

You missed the point.

Your point is only meaningful if those are legitimate facts. Since they are not, your point is moot.

 

[shernren]

When walking on the beach and you come across a sand castle or sand sculpture, do you conclude it to be a miracle?

Do you conclude it to have formed via naturalistic processes?

(Think a bit harder about that, actually, and you'll be well on your way to understanding the grave flaws in the watchmaker argument.)

If the earth really is young via a miracle of God (creation) then we would expect to see data that shows an apparently older than actual age. We would also expect to see anomalies like the ones listed above.

Honestly, now. Suppose all imaginable dating mechanisms pointed, by conventional scientific analysis, to the earth being anywhere between 6,000 to 10,000 years old. By your own words, if the earth really is young via a miracle of God (creation), then we would expect to see data that shows an apparently older than actual age - so if all the data points to it being a few thousand years old, it can't have been miraculously formed and the Bible is wrong!

Your own reasoning leads us into the absurdity of making evidence for a young earth evidence against YECism. One might as well believe more that a miraculous cure has occurred the more symptoms of the original disease remain - that the lame are most healed when they still limp and the blind most healed when they can't yet see.

Once we put it that way, it's quite clear that you don't actually believe that miracles in general don't leave scientific evidence. Rather, you're busy trying to justify just this one miracle which you don't have scientific evidence for.

 

[Calminian]

Do you conclude it to have formed via naturalistic processes?

(Think a bit harder about that, actually, and you'll be well on your way to understanding the grave flaws in the watchmaker argument.)



Honestly, now. Suppose all imaginable dating mechanisms pointed, by conventional scientific analysis, to the earth being anywhere between 6,000 to 10,000 years old. By your own words, if the earth really is young via a miracle of God (creation), then we would expect to see data that shows an apparently older than actual age - so if all the data points to it being a few thousand years old, it can't have been miraculously formed and the Bible is wrong!

All I can say is you completely misunderstood..... again!

It' not a hard concept, but I can't force someone to understand it.