Evidence for Miracles?

[philadiddle]

In the very strictest sense, no. I think the sciences can be valuable, but the inferences cannot strictly be called scientific conclusions which point to a Biblical miracle.

So if we study the DNA of all the species on earth, and do a comparative chart, we wouldn't be able to trace their history to their common ancestors that came off the ark 4400 years ago?

If we look at the layers of strata and the signs in them that show us how they formed, we won't be able to show that they formed in the last 6,000 years?

 

[Calminian]

Okay, so I take by your silence on the issue of your resurrection evidences, that you admit, you can't support the resurrection by using the sciences. Let's move on.

So if we study the DNA of all the species on earth, and do a comparative chart, we wouldn't be able to trace their history to their common ancestors that came off the ark 4400 years ago?

How do you trace DNA to an ark you don't have? And even if you did have it, why would you find DNA there hanging out, shocked that you finally found them? :0

All DNA we look at today is in the present. All evidence we look at period are in the present. We then make assumptions about natural processes in the future and the past followed by predictions about the future, and postdictions about the past. (Okay, I admit i just made up that word, but hopefully you get the point)

If we look at the layers of strata and the signs in them that show us how they formed, we won't be able to show that they formed in the last 6,000 years?

Can layers of strata be formed by other methods than annual time passage? Can they be formed suddenly by some natural event, let alone a supernatural one?

See here's the problem. In Genesis 1, we have a brief general description of what happened, but the details are left out. We know what God accomplished, but aren't given the mechanisms He used, therefore cannot be sure of the footprints they may have left. The same is true with the Curse at which time God supernaturally made some radical adjustments to the original world. Same is true with the Flood. There could have been hundreds of interventions by God to accomplish a flood that naturally would have never happened.

So to answer your question, yes, layers can tell us a lot about the past, assuming all of our assumptions about how things worked in the past were correct.

But I would still like you to come up with a hypothetical miracle that we could examine together and see if we can agree on a criteria for approaching evidence. I'm not against the concept of evidence, and let's face it, God often used miracles themselves in an evidential way.

 

[philadiddle]

I had already responded to this but my post is gone, maybe I hit preview instead of submit.....I'm gonna sum it up because I don't want to type out the long response I had before.

How do you trace DNA to an ark you don't have? And even if you did have it, why would you find DNA there hanging out, shocked that you finally found them? :0

All DNA we look at today is in the present. All evidence we look at period are in the present. We then make assumptions about natural processes in the future and the past followed by predictions about the future, and postdictions about the past. (Okay, I admit i just made up that word, but hopefully you get the point)

We can use the DNA of two people in the present to determine that they are cousins. We don't need the DNA of their common grandparent to know that. We can also use DNA to determine which species of dogs are more closely related to each other. We don't need the DNA of the common ancestor to know that. We can even use mutation rates to determine approximately when the dog species split.

We should be able to take groups of species, such as dogs, and determin that they have a common ancestor about 4,400 years ago. We would also be able to tell where to draw the line. For example do we include wolves with domestic dogs? What about foxes? How about raccoons? What about bears? How long ago did each species split off?

This is perfectly legitimate evidence that should fit the flood model. Can you tell me what happens when we run these kind of phylogenetic tests?

Can layers of strata be formed by other methods than annual time passage? Can they be formed suddenly by some natural event, let alone a supernatural one?

Yes they can be formed suddenly, but were they?

There could have been hundreds of interventions by God to accomplish a flood that naturally would have never happened.

But if that were the case, wouldn't we study the rocks and conclude that they weren't formed by normal processes?

But I would still like you to come up with a hypothetical miracle that we could examine together and see if we can agree on a criteria for approaching evidence. I'm not against the concept of evidence, and let's face it, God often used miracles themselves in an evidential way.

Let's just skip the analogies and discuss creation itself.

 

[Calminian]

..We should be able to take groups of species, such as dogs, and determin that they have a common ancestor about 4,400 years ago.

how would you establish the timelines with out making any assumptions whatsoever about processes in the past?

We would also be able to tell where to draw the line. For example do we include wolves with domestic dogs? What about foxes? How about raccoons? What about bears? How long ago did each species split off?

Anytime you use the present to discern the past, you have to make assumptions. What assumptions about the past would you have to make, in order for your prediction to be accurate?

This is perfectly legitimate evidence that should fit the flood model. Can you tell me what happens when we run these kind of phylogenetic tests?

Well I would imagine if you picked the example, you must know there an issue with it. But I still think you're missing the point of your own thread.

But if that were the case, wouldn't we study the rocks and conclude that they weren't formed by normal processes?

Study them in the present? Yes. Learn about the past? Possibly. But what assumptions would you have to make.

I'm noticing we're getting away from the original topic of evidence for miracles. I was hoping you could pick a hypothetical miracle so that we could look at its possible impact in the future, and then hypothetically put ourselves in the future and determine how we could logically extrapolate back to it. I doesn't seem like you want to go there anymore.

Right now we're talking about dogs on the ark with absolutely no criteria for evaluating evidence. I bummed because I feel like we're getting into a debate, and I just wanted to sort of share with you the problem of miracles for science.

 

[philadiddle]

how would you establish the timelines with out making any assumptions whatsoever about processes in the past?

You are confusing "assumption" with "observation". We observe mutation rates, and apply our observations to what we study. The only way to change the results is to make the assumption that things were different in the past.

Anytime you use the present to discern the past, you have to make assumptions. What assumptions about the past would you have to make, in order for your prediction to be accurate?

I use my observations of how the world works and apply that to the past. I have no reason to assume that things were different.

Well I would imagine if you picked the example, you must know there an issue with it. But I still think you're missing the point of your own thread.

The point is that we can use evidence to determine if the history of the world fits a flood model. Using phylogenetics, we DON'T find that there is a common ancestor for different groups that date back 4,400 years. Why don't we see that? What happens when we run the phylogentic statistics? What is the best explanation for those results?

Study them in the present? Yes. Learn about the past? Possibly. But what assumptions would you have to make.

Here is a quote from me from a post I made over two years ago. It seems relevant here:

Creationists say "Assumptions" like how magicians say "Abracadabra." When a lot of research, experiments, and empirical evidence are presented, the creationists say "assumptions" to magically make it all go away. Why argue the actual data when you can convince your audience it is wrong with one simple word? I've been noticing this more and more as I discuss science and Christianity on other forums and read some creationist literature. It's always "they are basing it on assumptions" or "take away their assumptions and it all falls apart".


​

I'm noticing we're getting away from the original topic of evidence for miracles. I was hoping you could pick a hypothetical miracle so that we could look at its possible impact in the future, and then hypothetically put ourselves in the future and determine how we could logically extrapolate back to it. I doesn't seem like you want to go there anymore.

I am going there using the flood as a miracle. We would have DNA evidence of a divergence 4,400 years ago, and we would have strata that were laid down by a global flood. Yet when we study DNA and strata, they don't paint that picture.

Right now we're talking about dogs on the ark with absolutely no criteria for evaluating evidence. I bummed because I feel like we're getting into a debate, and I just wanted to sort of share with you the problem of miracles for science.

All I'm doing is explaining why TEs ask for evidence for creationism and why it is not reasonable to say "but we can't have evidence because it's a miracle". We are looking for the evidence of the history of the earth, which is evidence that we can gather, to show how it supports the creationist model. That is the point of this thread.

 

[Calminian]

You are confusing "assumption" with "observation". We observe mutation rates, and apply our observations to what we study. The only way to change the results is to make the assumption that things were different in the past.

Exactly. Miracles by definition are changes or additions to normal processes.

I use my observations of how the world works and apply that to the past. I have no reason to assume that things were different.

So conversely you're are assuming the biblical record of past creative miracles is incorrect. I have no reason to do that.

The point is that we can use evidence to determine if the history of the world fits a flood model.

What flood model. We don't have the exact details. That's the problem. Take a look at this excerpt from an article I wrote on the issue of science and miracles.

There is another biblical event that is obviously relevant to this discussion. I cited Antony Flew earlier describing a miracle as “something which would never have happened had nature, as it were, been left to its own devices.”3 The text does not allow the Genesis flood to be anything short of a direct supernatural act of God. Certainly natural processes were at work. Gravity and various hydrological processes were still in effect. But this event never would have happened had God not caused it. This was not the result of natural mechanisms, but God’s judgement on sin. Perhaps several supernatural acts were necessary to bring it about, several more to sustain it for an entire year, and several more to cause the waters to recede. And perhaps several more were necessary to rearrange the land mass so as to sustain life again. The implicit miracles are impossible to ignore. The scientific community seems sure this event never happened, based on uniformitarian extrapolations, but, again, this was not a uniform event. We know what kind of footprints are left by natural floods, but not those which arise and recede supernaturally. It’s easy to see how a uniformitarian mindset could misinterpret the present evidence.

And the post-creation modifications don’t stop there. What of the rainbow and the changes in animal behavior immediately after the flood? (Gen. 9:2, 11-17) What modifications did God effect to bring these about? What change occurred in human brains to achieve the multiplying of the languages at Babel? The implications boggle the mind. If the record is accurate (as I believe it is), science will have very little insight for us.​

Here is a quote from me from a post I made over two years ago. It seems relevant here:

Creationists say "Assumptions" like how magicians say "Abracadabra." When a lot of research, experiments, and empirical evidence are presented, the creationists say "assumptions" to magically make it all go away. Why argue the actual data when you can convince your audience it is wrong with one simple word? I've been noticing this more and more as I discuss science and Christianity on other forums and read some creationist literature. It's always "they are basing it on assumptions" or "take away their assumptions and it all falls apart".​

I thank for the quote but it only goes to show and little you know about the presuppositions of science.

​

I am going there using the flood as a miracle. We would have DNA evidence of a divergence 4,400 years ago, and we would have strata that were laid down by a global flood. Yet when we study DNA and strata, they don't paint that picture.

Yet creationists and creation scientists see very clear evidence that points to a flood. You can go on the AIG website and read them all day long.

I just wish you were willing to follow through with the original objective of this thread.

All I'm doing is explaining why TEs ask for evidence for creationism and why it is not reasonable to say "but we can't have evidence because it's a miracle".

I really doubt anyone has told you that. I certainly haven't. What I say is, you can't have scientific evidence for a miracle (a violation of science).

But evidence for the Flood? There's tons, probably the most convincing being the flood legends around the world in almost every culture. If a global flood really happened, that's what we'd expect to find.

 

[mark kennedy]

And just to clarify I'm not talking about apparent age. We would agree that if Adam was made fully formed he would have looked like he had been alive for some years, even when he was only a few minutes old. However, he would not have had any history. He wouldn't have had scars from past injuries, or memories of being raised on a farm. Likewise, even if the earth was made with apparent age embedded in it, its the "history" of the earth that we are looking at. If a rock is made with the apparent age of 2 billion years, then maybe it was just created fully formed. But then why does it have history embedded in it like fossils and burrowing chambers?

I hope that helps clear up the TE view on why we ask for evidence of creation and what we are asking for. Feel free to ask questions.

I think I have brought this up with you before and if so, here we go again. The Scriptures are silent with regards to the age of the earth. Genesis 1:1 simply says, 'God created the heavens and the earth', it makes no reference to when. Adam, on the other hand, is explicitly described as being created from the dust of the earth and Eve is created from a rib. I don't think it takes a great deal of effort to differentiate between the two.

Just one more thing, natural science and natural history are two very different things, it's intellectually flawed to equate the two. History is riddled with ambiguity while natural phenomenon is readily observed and demonstrated. Most importantly, we should never allow our views of naturalistic phenomenon to dictate our perception of God's interaction in human affairs. While we may be incredulous with regards to Jesus turning water into wine because it's 'supernatural', with God it's neither mysterious nor impossible. As a matter of fact, it's the most natural thing in the world for God to do what only God can do. The Hebrew word for one such miraculous act is 'bara', but you probably already knew that.

I'll leave it at that since I'm trying to wean myself off of debate a little at a time.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[philadiddle]

IAdam, on the other hand, is explicitly described as being created from the dust of the earth and Eve is created from a rib.

When do you think that happened?

I'll leave it at that since I'm trying to wean myself off of debate a little at a time.

That's not fair. You can't just come and do a drive by posting. At least please answer the above question. I've asked it to you many times and I don't recall ever getting a response.

 

[mark kennedy]

When do you think that happened?

Between 6 to 10 thousand years ago.

That's not fair. You can't just come and do a drive by posting. At least please answer the above question. I've asked it to you many times and I don't recall ever getting a response.

Yet you did not address the points raised, the requisite Scriptures or the detailed discussion involved in my post. These discussions go in circles and my carefully prepared posts are usually greeted with a combination of circular questions, fallacious logic and a distinctly condescending tone. I'm rather busy these days, if you wish to discuss this at length I suggest you take what I have already said seriously. I'll monitor the thread for progress along those lines.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[busterdog]

Exactly. Miracles by definition are changes or additions to normal processes.

Isn't there a much simpler definition? Why isn't a miracle just a divergence from human expectation, or especially the consensus expectation?

For example, if God arranged to have an eclipse happen on the day His Son was to be crucified, to make a point, that would be "normal", in that it would be a "coincidence", because the sun didn't alter its "normal" course to get where it was at exactly the right time. It just worked out in an amazing way. It's just that no one expected it, which really made it pack a wallop. But, just because I can't make such things "normal", that doesn't mean they aren't "normal."

Paul says to rejoice in all things and in all things give thanks. Every good gift comes down from the Father of lights. Why shouldn't every coincidence be something that He has arranged for our benefit? How does the differentiation between normal and non-normal really help?

Mostly our expectations are in the way. That is the issue.

Here is a video on the use of a common fungus to cure breast cancer. If you benefit from this information by chance, having come across this post, doesn't it seem miraculous?

Paul Stamets on Medicinal Mushrooms and Cancer #545 - YouTube

I have helped cure a friend of Epstein-Barr with the wild chaga fungus, rendered as a tea. Who would have expected it? Many would have thought it impossible. It sure seems like a miracle.

I think we are better off dealing with our very unreliable expectations than trying to come up with a definition for normal, which is just a fool's errand.

 

[mark kennedy]

Just wanted to bump the thread in case philadiddle stopped by

 

[philadiddle]

Just wanted to bump the thread in case philadiddle stopped by

Hey what's up? I just happened to check in here for the first time in a few weeks. I read back a few posts because I've forgotten the details of what took place.

You complained in post 29 that I didn't respond to you. I'm assuming you mean what you posted in #27.

I don't really see anything to respond to. You say that it says God created the heavens and the earth and it says He created Adam from the dust of the ground, and we can tell the difference in the wording. So what's your point?

Then you talked a bit on how we perceive history and miracles and how it's natural for God to perform miracles. Ok, so what?

I didn't really know what your points were, nor how they were a challenge (or agreement) to my perspective.

I'm working on studying for 2 four hour exams in a month so I may not get back to you right away if you respond.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hey what's up? I just happened to check in here for the first time in a few weeks. I read back a few posts because I've forgotten the details of what took place.

You complained in post 29 that I didn't respond to you. I'm assuming you mean what you posted in #27.

I don't really see anything to respond to. You say that it says God created the heavens and the earth and it says He created Adam from the dust of the ground, and we can tell the difference in the wording. So what's your point?

Then you talked a bit on how we perceive history and miracles and how it's natural for God to perform miracles. Ok, so what?

I didn't really know what your points were, nor how they were a challenge (or agreement) to my perspective.

I'm working on studying for 2 four hour exams in a month so I may not get back to you right away if you respond.

No, actually there wasn't anything of particular interest to me in the thread. The reason I have maintained an interest in continuing the conversation is because you accused me of making some kind of a 'drive by post'.

Whatever the issue originally was I didn't want to abandon the thread until we had a chance to talk again.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[philadiddle]

No, actually there wasn't anything of particular interest to me in the thread. The reason I have maintained an interest in continuing the conversation is because you accused me of making some kind of a 'drive by post'.

Whatever the issue originally was I didn't want to abandon the thread until we had a chance to talk again.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Oh good, there's no problem then.

Cheers

 

[chilehed]

I'm seeing a theme here lately where the YECs are pointing out that we don't see evidence of other miracles in the bible, so why do the TEs have the double standard of demanding evidence for the creation miracle?...

That's an absurdly silly thing to say. A YEC makes the crazy claim that there's no evidence for miracles, and then, when a TE disagrees with him, accuses the TE of double-standarding when the TE asks for evidence of a young earth?

 

[Assyrian]

Should that be 'we don't seek evidence'?

 

[Calminian]

That's an absurdly silly thing to say. A YEC makes the crazy claim that there's no evidence for miracles, and then, when a TE disagrees with him, accuses the TE of double-standarding when the TE asks for evidence of a young earth?

Just to clarify, there can't be scientific evidence for miracles which are by nature, violations of science. But that's not to say there isn't any type of evidence for miracles. I like Simon Greenleaf's book, the Testimony of the Evangelists. This examines the Resurrection from a legal perspective and concludes there is excellent evidence to support the claims about Christ's resurrection in the 4 gospels. In fact, he himself was persuaded by this evidence, he converted from being an atheistic jew.

But how can you have scientific evidence for a violation of science?? That would be absurd circular reasoning.

Now in fairness this has been explained over and over and over and over. Some just don't want to ever make a distinction between scientific evidence, and general evidence. Seems no matter how many times the distinction is made, there's a resistance. Science has become religion to many in our society, and even in the church. Rather than studying God theo-logically, we now study Him theo-scientifically.

 

[Assyrian]

But how can you have scientific evidence for a violation of science?? That would be absurd circular reasoning.

Like you can't have legal evidence for a violation of the law? Even if science cannot explain the events, why can't science study results and say if they are real? Could a medical examination of the blind man Jesus healed tell if he could actually see or not? Or if he was still walking into walls could you still claim it is a miracle because miracles are outside scientific study? Of course we hit a second problem here, many events cannot be studied scientifically now because the evidence for this miracle is long gone, but the evidence was there to examine at the time and the Pharisees carried out a thorough investigation.

But some events are bigger and have left plenty of evidence. Science could not explain how the world was formed in six days a few thousand years ago. But science can tell us if the world is just six thousand years old or not. The evidence for the world being billions of years old tells us as much about the miracle of a young earth creation as the blind man walking into walls would have said about the miracle of his healing.

 

[Calminian]

Like you can't have legal evidence for a violation of the law? Even if science cannot explain the events, why can't science study results and say if they are real? Could a medical examination of the blind man Jesus healed tell if he could actually see or not?

Finally someone steps up with an example! So let's run with this one and see where it leads.

A medical examiner examines a man's eyes and they show no evidence of disease. He has perfect 20/20. A crowd claims he was miraculously healed. Does the examiner trust the crowd and declare a miracle, or simple explain that science proves this man has a history of good sight?

The fact is, if the man indeed was healed, his eyes would give a false historical impression to scientists studying them. For there would not be a note on this eyes reading "Hi! I'm a pair of eyes that used to be blind, but I was just healed by a miracle a short while ago!" Sorry it doesn't work that way. If his eyes were truly restored, scientists would have no way of determining a past miracle had taken place. They would merely have to assume (a priori) that his eye history was normal, and assume that he was like every other man with normal healthy eyes today.

Indeed, to the scientific uniformitarian mind, his eyes would be giving off a false history.

Now, what about the witnesses? Well, what if hundreds of witness corroborated the story the he was blind and was healed by a miracle? Would that be good evidence? Absolutely! Would it be scientific evidence? Of course not. Would it be valid evidence? You bet!

I would challenge you to come up with a dozen more examples like this. We'll go through them one by one, and I'll show you how miracles create false views of history every single time.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's an absurdly silly thing to say. A YEC makes the crazy claim that there's no evidence for miracles, and then, when a TE disagrees with him, accuses the TE of double-standarding when the TE asks for evidence of a young earth?

Ok, so evolutionists reject miracles categorically because we are supposed to make naturalistic assumptions about everything that happens, or ever has happened, or ever will happen in the universe but it's the YEC that deny evidence for miracles. That's not just silly, it's insane.