JohnR7 said:It depends on the miracle. We see a lot of miracles for blindness and for hearing loss. Those are things the doctors can measure using numbers.
JohnR7 said:Science can accept miracles IF there is a formula that is repeatable. I see christians who try and use the "scientific" methoid to understand God. It usually does not work, but it can. If they come to realize they can not manipulate God. That we have to go by His rules and not ours.
Jet Black said:where are they in medical literature then?
JohnR7 said:Why should we admit to anything other than that Jesus is Lord and that He is coming soon and His reward will be with Him.
Rev. 22:12
"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.
Dr Wise seems to make an honest attempt to bring forth evidence that will support his belief in a 6000 year old earth. I think it is of value to look at the evidence that he presents.
Mechanical Bliss said:It doesn't matter whether he thinks it's an honest attempt or not. The point is that his stance on the age of the earth is motivated by religion. In the other thread on Wise, for the umpteenth time, he has stated that even if all evidence was in favor of a very old earth, he would still be an advocate of a 6,000 year old earth. That is, his belief about the age of the earth is independent of the evidence. His belief about the age of the earth rests entirely on a motivation from his religious beliefs. Whether geologic evidence supports his belief or not is immaterial to him. That is the point.
JohnR7 said:That is the point that your trying to prove. That it is religious conviction and not the evidence that leads Dr. Wise to believe that the earth is 6000 years old. For some reason you seem to think that a few out of context quotes will establish your "point".
Here is an article about WiseJohnR7 said:That is the point that your trying to prove. That it is religious conviction and not the evidence that leads Dr. Wise to believe that the earth is 6000 years old. For some reason you seem to think that a few out of context quotes will establish your "point".
He laid out the dilemma in a lecture at an Origins Conference at Bryan in February. If Christianity arises from the redemption offered by Jesus Christ, it must also arise from the sin that led to the need for salvation. Original sin came in the garden of Eden; Eden came from the creation. If life actually evolved slowly over millions of years, there was no "first man" or "first woman." There was also deathof whole species, not to mention individual organismswell before there were humans. But the Bible says death was imposed only after the fall from grace, again setting the stage for the resurrection promised by Christ.
"If the earth is old, throw out your Bible!" Wise told an audience at the college's chapel/auditorium.
Wise says he came to that conclusion as a teenager, when he carefully read the Bible and cut out all the passages that would have to be false if evolution were true. The result was a tattered gospel that didn't have enough paper left to hold together. [/b]
JohnR7 said:That is the point that your trying to prove. That it is religious conviction and not the evidence that leads Dr. Wise to believe that the earth is 6000 years old. For some reason you seem to think that a few out of context quotes will establish your "point".
Mechanical Bliss said:They prove that point quite well.
So is this it, John? Are you giving up on the search and (finally) answering Pete's question with "claiming the earth is young based on scientific evidence alone is ignorance"? Just wondering.JohnR7 said:Ok, I just got a email from Dr. Wise. This is what he said:
"I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. Thus I would suggest that the challenge you are trying to meet is unmeetable."
NebraskaMan said:So is this it, John? Are you giving up on the search and (finally) answering Pete's question with "claiming the earth is young based on scientific evidence alone is ignorance"? Just wondering.
NebraskaMan said:So is this it, John? Are you giving up on the search and (finally) answering Pete's question with "claiming the earth is young based on scientific evidence alone is ignorance"? Just wondering.
JohnR7 said:Ok, I just got a email from Dr. Wise. This is what he said:
"I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young....
"Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one....
"I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. Thus I would suggest that the challenge you are trying to meet is unmeetable."
Looks like Dr. Wise thinks the challenge cannot be answered!Dr. Wise said:Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant.