Reply to creationist re: miracles and science

[Calminian]

This is a very important point, and one of the reasons why science doesn't appeal to supernatural explanations.

Nor do I believe it should.

Once we throw our hands up in the air and say some supernatural force caused the bullett to change direction, the question then becomes "who or what did it?" Did God do it? Did Satan do it? Did Zeus do it? All three? Such supernatural beings are immune to scientific inquiry and so cannot be either confirmed or rejected as a result. This is why science sticks with what is tangible. If you have some objective, scientific way of distinguishing between any of the supernatural beings I've mentioned as the force behind that wild bullett, I would love to hear it.

I agree. Science is not the proper tool for this kind of inquiry. Our epistemology can't be based on science alone, in fact it must inform us when science is useful and when it isn't.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You have to be told in special revelation that the miracle of water into wine occurred. Unless you are willing to have some kind of continuing revelation, this window of opportunity to have God tell us about supernatural events is closed. Therefore speculating that God might tell someone that He deflected the bullet is in fact not possible. So the scenario can't even get off the ground because you have no way to propose that God continues to talk to people and tell them when he is doing miracles.

The only other option is to allow God to continue to talk propositionally to people, essentially continuing revelation. Then you would say that at church Sunday one of the women prophesied that a bullet meant for me would be deflected by God. Then the problems are: 1-how to show the message is from God 2-how to confirm the message with the voice of another witness, ie equivalent to intersubjectivity in science because it is based on public knowledge. This revelation is private knowledge you have no way to confirm or deny it.

So now you have prophesy, fullfilment, speaking in tongues, continuing revelation all introduced because you desire to have science talk about a supernaturally deflected bullet. i believe that is far too high a price to pay to try to introduce the supernatural back into science. I would hate to have to have every church service monitored to see if prophesies occurred that might upset this week's criminal investigations or science experiments at the university.

 

[Calminian]

Let's continue with this excellent example. Say you are this "supernaturalist CSI". How do you know that the bullet was deflected supernaturally? not just open to the possibility that it might occur, but genuinely show that it did happen?

I don't think you quite followed the illustration. You are now talking about supernatural interpreters of the evidence? I don't follow the analogy. Human scientists are not supernatural. Sorry, I don't follow.

Why is it that miracles in the Scripture are attached to testimony that they occurred? explanations effectively saying "look here is a miracle?"

Yes they do but never seem to reveal the mechanisms, just one of the results. This makes speculation difficult.

Go back to your supernatural CSI.

I would but I don't know what a supernatural investigator would be analogous to. Thus I can't address the questions.

problematic.

Indeed!

 

[Calminian]

You have to be told in special revelation that the miracle of water into wine occurred. Unless you are willing to have some kind of continuing revelation, this window of opportunity to have God tell us about supernatural events is closed. Therefore speculating that God might tell someone that He deflected the bullet is in fact not possible. So the scenario can't even get off the ground because you have no way to propose that God continues to talk to people and tell them when he is doing miracles.

If someone can translate this for me feel free. Honestly I'm trying.

 

[shernren]

But strictly speaking in this scenario, science alone would not have the capability of informing us about the truth? Thus the scientific method has limitations. Do we at least agree on this?

Yes. Yesyesyesyesyes. I have no idea why YECs often assume that we TEs worship science or something.

At the same time, these limitations are really not as profound or all-encompassing as you think they is. If science cannot say anything authoritative about the past at all, then how can it say anything authoritative about whether a flood happened or not? On the other hand, if science can say anything authoritative about the past, you have to be prepared for the possibility that it says "the globe was never simultaneously submerged". There's no halfway station. If science can help to verify the flood, science can also help to falsify the flood.

This assumes the mechanisms have been revealed and we know what to look for. In the scenario I offered, I gave the specific details of the intervention. I said that a bullet was supernaturally caused to change directions. But what if I merely testified that God prevented the bullet from striking a man?? Now we know a miracle happened, but we don't know the details. We know about one of the results, but not the specific mechanism. This is more analogous to the miracles we read about in Genesis. I don't know what mechanisms creation of light entails. I don't know what mechanisms stretching out the universe (in a day!) entails. I just know that about 17 times in scriptures God is said to have stretched out the heavens. That's quite a amazing thought. If He did perform a miracle like this what would we expect to see? Not knowing the details, seems to make it quite difficult.

You know, I could probably count the number of times it is said that "If you suffer, it's because you sinned" in Job alone, and it would still be wrong. But that aside.

I concur that in your scenario science would have to say "Well, the bullet was deflected, and we don't know how." I'm not even getting science to say "God did something". All I'm saying is that science has the capability to detect an anomaly and say "Hey, something happened", even with the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

Let me give you a scenario*. I fire a bullet at a wall with a stroboscope filming its every move. The bullet leaves the muzzle with a velocity of 100m/s, and because the air resistance is negligible at that speed, it also strikes the wall with a horizontal velocity of 100m/s. I can verify that at every point along its trajectory its horizontal velocity was 100m/s exactly as theory predicts, and independent analysis confirms that the wall has suffered an impact consistent with a bullet hitting it at 100m/s.

*scenario is a layman's scenario suitable for someone unfamiliar with 2-D kinematics. The use of the term "horizontal velocity" however preserves the scenario for those who know it.

Imagine if someone walks up to me and said "God magically slowed down your bullet." I would reply, "You have got to be kidding. There's no evidence that the bullet slowed down at all." And wouldn't I be correct?

For another example, take the classic wine illustration. If wine was created by God yesterday, there would still be a perfectly logical natural explanation for it. That explanation would be based on our knowledge of natural wine making processes. It may be that the wine God created would have taken 5 years naturally. No matter what kind of wine God created, there would still be viable reasonable natural alternative explanation for its existence. Yet that explanation would be wrong, if the miracle indeed happened.

Science would not say that God had created wine, but science would be able to say that there had been wine in those jars. That's all the burden of proof I'm putting. I'm not even asking science to confirm that God did a miracle. I'm just asking science to confirm that a particular something has happened; the fact that a bunch of people are attributing it to a miraculous act of God doesn't change the scientific analysis of whether or not it even happened.

All the BB is, is a backward extrapolation from the current evidence we have today. Since this is a scientific theory, it must assume in advance God did not supernaturally stretch out the universe. The natural theory may turn out just fine in a logical mathematical sense. But this doesn't prove it really happened that way. It only proves it happened that way IF it happened naturally.

Fine. The BB itself can also be interpreted as the evidence of a supernatural miracle. Note that you agree that science can detect that the universe is expanding. We both agree that science might not be able to say whether it is a God-expansion or a Big-Bang-13-billion-years-ago expansion. Or at least I don't know enough science to be able to say just how science measures how long the expansion took.

But take old radiodating ratios of elements in rocks. Not just Earth rocks, Moon rocks and meteorites as well, and rocks across all kinds of elemental dating scales. If one assumes that God created the earth 6,000 years ago, one has to assume that God created these rocks with those ratios (which have no functionality). And even though science cannot discriminate between the possibilities, metaphysics tells us that the Omphalos option is really not a good one. Again, science has determined that the universe looks old. Whether the universe really is old, or was created young to look old, is a question science does not answer - but note that metaphysics tells us what science doesn't. Or "our knowledge of God's character", if we are communicating with someone who shares our vision of God.

 

[Assyrian]

...I don't know what mechanisms stretching out the universe (in a day!) entails. I just know that about 17 times in scriptures God is said to have stretched out the heavens. That's quite a amazing thought. If He did perform a miracle like this what would we expect to see? Not knowing the details, seems to make it quite difficult.

I think you would see a band of darker blue rising from the eastern horizon and spreading across the sky getting darker and darker, with bright little points of light appearing in it.

You brought up God stretching out the heavens before in the 'demarcation line' thread, which I answered but you didn't reply.

Job 9:6 Who shakes the earth under heaven from its foundations, and its pillars totter.
7 Who commands the sun, and it rises not; and He seals up the stars.
8 Who alone has stretched out the heavens, and walks on the sea as on firm ground.

I can imagine naturalists being very confused by God commanding the sun not to rise, when the sun isn't actually the one who moves What sort of supernatural event shakes the earth from its foundations and makes its pillars totter? Foundations? Pillars? Sure it is talking about God's works, but it is not describing them in any literal scientific way, and any interpretation of this that sees it as a literal description of the earth's geology or the motion of the solar system can be tested scientifically, and fails.

Isa 44:24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.

God not only stretched out the heavens, he spread out the earth too. I am afraid this sound like it is talking about a flat earth covered by a dome shaped tent of sky (Psalm 104:2 Isaiah 40:22). Isaiah could see the land of Israel stretching from horizon to horizon. Every night the firmament of stars rose and spread over them like a tent. God is saying, look Isaiah, tell Israel that I created all that. He did.

Note that the Isaiah quote also says: the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb. If God performed a miracle like that what would you expect to see?

 

[Calminian]

Note that the Isaiah quote also says: the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb. If God performed a miracle like that what would you expect to see?

I think I mentioned Geisler's explanation of miracles. Those passages you cite aren't in regard to miracles but God's normal workings in the world.

Here's the quote again from Geisler.

Natural law is a description of the way God acts regularly in and through creation (Ps. 104:10–14), whereas a miracle is the way God acts on special occasions. So both miracles and natural law involve the activity of God. The difference is that natural law is the regular, repeatable way God acts, whereas a miracle is not.
Natural law is the way God acts indirectly in and through the world he has made. By contrast, a miracle is the way God acts directly in his creation from time to time.

I've yet to hear a more eloquent description of miracles. But notice that natural law is also caused by God, and it would include human reproduction, weather, etc.. These physical processes are the way God works regularly in the world. These the scientific method can tell us much about. But miracles are a different issue. These are what science has no power to enlighten us about.

 

[shernren]

These are what science has no power to enlighten us about.

Science may certainly be clueless as to the origin or mechanism of miracles, but can't it show us that the physical effects of a miracle are real and not illusory? Couldn't a scientist at Cana have shown that there was wine in the jars, wherever he thought the wine came from?

That's all I'm trying to agree on for now: that science can establish the actual occurrence of physical effects in the past, and that this validation is identical whether or not the physical effect was miraculously or naturally caused.

 

[Calminian]

Yes. Yesyesyesyesyes. I have no idea why YECs often assume that we TEs worship science or something.

I think worship is a bit strong. What they do is believe all its conclusion without really understanding its core assumptions. Thus they buy into naturalistic theories like the BB, and then attempt to insert God into the gaps, allowing Him to be the cause. I’ll give an illustration of this at the very end of the post.

At the same time, these limitations are really not as profound or all-encompassing as you think they is. If science cannot say anything authoritative about the past at all, then how can it say anything authoritative about whether a flood happened or not?

I don't think science is authoritative when it comes to origins. Science can't answer questions about ontology. It's good for understanding God's natural normal laws, but not His special acts. The Bible should be our authority, especially when it speaks of these events.

On the other hand, if science can say anything authoritative about the past, you have to be prepared for the possibility that it says "the globe was never simultaneously submerged". There's no halfway station. If science can help to verify the flood, science can also help to falsify the flood.

I doubt you’ve examined all the various possibilities, especially if you are only getting your information from scientists working solely from naturalistic presuppositions. Have you really studied every possible angle on this? Have you considered every mechanism that may have been used?

I concur that in your scenario science would have to say "Well, the bullet was deflected, and we don't know how."

Here’s why I think you are still not grasping the problem of miracles. Exactly how would science be able to determine it was deflected? What from the hole alone would tell them the bullet suddenly changed direction? I still don't think you're getting this stuff. Tell me specifically how they would determine there was an anomaly in natural processes just from the physical evidence of the hole?

I'm not even getting science to say "God did something". All I'm saying is that science has the capability to detect an anomaly and say "Hey, something happened", even with the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

I'm sorry, but no it can't. Science can observe anomalies in the present, but how would it know if there was an anomaly in the past? I don’t think you realize just how limited science is. Whatever effect is observed, a natural cause must be assumed.

Let me give you a scenario*. I fire a bullet at a wall with a stroboscope filming its every move. The bullet leaves the muzzle with a velocity of 100m/s, and because the air resistance is negligible at that speed, it also strikes the wall with a horizontal velocity of 100m/s. I can verify that at every point along its trajectory its horizontal velocity was 100m/s exactly as theory predicts, and independent analysis confirms that the wall has suffered an impact consistent with a bullet hitting it at 100m/s.

Are you saying we had such a video running 13 billion years ago?

Imagine if someone walks up to me and said "God magically slowed down your bullet." I would reply, "You have got to be kidding. There's no evidence that the bullet slowed down at all." And wouldn't I be correct?

I will be interested in how you'll liken this to earths history.

Science would not say that God had created wine, but science would be able to say that there had been wine in those jars. That's all the burden of proof I'm putting. I'm not even asking science to confirm that God did a miracle. I'm just asking science to confirm that a particular something has happened; the fact that a bunch of people are attributing it to a miraculous act of God doesn't change the scientific analysis of whether or not it even happened.

It's hard for me to fathom you feel there are parts of the earth that have never touched water. We're currently 70% covered and pretty much all the rest gets rained on. You really believe there's no evidence of water has existed anywhere on earth in the past except the oceans and lakes? That’s a new one. Don't we find seashells in some mountains? How could that have happened if water never touched that place?

Fine. The BB itself can also be interpreted as the evidence of a supernatural miracle. Note that you agree that science can detect that the universe is expanding. We both agree that science might not be able to say whether it is a God-expansion or a Big-Bang-13-billion-years-ago expansion. Or at least I don't know enough science to be able to say just how science measures how long the expansion took.

Sorry the BB only shows that when you take scientific assumptions to their logical conclusions you are led to a first cause with no natural explanation. But if a non-natural event is necessary for BB cosmology to work, then why not an earlier miracle in which things were created fully functioning? Once you allow the extra-natural, anything goes. One theory that requires a miracle is as good as another.

But take old radiodating ratios of elements in rocks. Not just Earth rocks, Moon rocks and meteorites as well, and rocks across all kinds of elemental dating scales. If one assumes that God created the earth 6,000 years ago, one has to assume that God created these rocks with those ratios (which have no functionality).

Or that there was a mechanism that God used that caused the decay rates to process at a different rate than they do today. If the universe was really stretched out in some miraculous way, this doesn't seem farfetched. Who knows what weird things might have happened then?

And even though science cannot discriminate between the possibilities, metaphysics tells us that the Omphalos option is really not a good one. Again, science has determined that the universe looks old.

As it should from a naturalistic perspective. If the world looked scientifically young, I would actually doubt a miracle was necessary 6,000 years ago. That would be like someone claiming God created a jar of wine which wasn't even fermented yet. What reason would I have for believing that was a miracle? A man could have made it just a easy.

Whether the universe really is old, or was created young to look old, is a question science does not answer - but note that metaphysics tells us what science doesn't. Or "our knowledge of God's character", if we are communicating with someone who shares our vision of God.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but if you are saying we should always believe science except in those gaps where it has no answer, this is flawed reasoning. It’s God of the gaps reasoning.

The illustration I promised: Let's say the scientist examined this hypothetical miraculously created wine and determine it would have taken 5 years to form naturally. When the witnesses tell him it was just made yesterday by God, he would then reply, "well I must trust science, so I'll just grant that maybe God made it 5 years ago. Since we don't know who could have made it then, we'll just believe God did until we have a better answer." This is what I believe TEs are doing.

 

[laptoppop]

Science may certainly be clueless as to the origin or mechanism of miracles, but can't it show us that the physical effects of a miracle are real and not illusory? Couldn't a scientist at Cana have shown that there was wine in the jars, wherever he thought the wine came from?

That's all I'm trying to agree on for now: that science can establish the actual occurrence of physical effects in the past, and that this validation is identical whether or not the physical effect was miraculously or naturally caused.

For the most part, yes. The problem comes when there are competing models of how it could have happened. Science can only calculate probabilities between the models, and if one of them involves supernatural action, it will be dismissed first.

For me, if there are competing models and one is in harmony with the explicit revelation of God, then that's the one I'll choose - even if it appears to be less likely.

 

[Assyrian]

I think I mentioned Geisler's explanation of miracles. Those passages you cite aren't in regard to miracles but God's normal workings in the world.

So are you saying God stretching out the heavens isn't actually a miracle, but God working through nature? How about God saying he formed someone (yatsar)? Are you saying that isn't necessarily miraculous either?

Here's the quote again from Geisler.

Natural law is a description of the way God acts regularly in and through creation (Ps. 104:10–14), whereas a miracle is the way God acts on special occasions. So both miracles and natural law involve the activity of God. The difference is that natural law is the regular, repeatable way God acts, whereas a miracle is not.
Natural law is the way God acts indirectly in and through the world he has made. By contrast, a miracle is the way God acts directly in his creation from time to time.

I've yet to hear a more eloquent description of miracles. But notice that natural law is also caused by God, and it would include human reproduction, weather, etc.. These physical processes are the way God works regularly in the world. These the scientific method can tell us much about. But miracles are a different issue. These are what science has no power to enlighten us about.

Sound like a good description from Geisler. But I think the biblical attitude to miracles is they they do stand up to rational investigation, the rational investigation may not be able to explain the miracle as you say, but they can confirm, or disprove, that something happened.

Paul's attitude to the resurrection was it is real, you can check, there are hundreds of witnesses, if it didn't happen we are pitiable fools. In the OT we keep reading 'they are there to this day'. In other words if people weren't sure the Jordan parted for Joshua, they could go and look at the pile of stones they left behind. John reports, with some glee, the efforts of the Pharisees to investigate the man born blind. Real biblical miracles should stand rational scientific investigation.

What would have happened if the Pharisees had investigated and found the man's childhood friends who had played hopscotch with him, and gone into his bedroom to find a copy of the Iliad open on his bedside table and a gloss fanzine with pictures of Salome under his mattress?

Would we say it was still a miracle, methodological naturalism can't investigate it? Who's to say when God works supernaturally, he can't change the past too?

A 4004 BC creation and a global flood are not miracles mentioned in the bible, just ones claimed by the YEC interpretation of the bible. It is quite biblical to investigate these rationally. And it is also biblical for believers to investigate and reject false or pseudo miracles (2Thess 2:9

)

Are you saying we had such a video running 13 billion years ago?

That would be the cosmic microwave background radiation, not so much a video, but watching events in real time, just 14.7 billion years later.

 

[shernren]

I'm only going to answer to bits and pieces. If you feel that I've quoted anything out of context (Bible or Calminian ) or missed anything important feel free to correct me.

The illustration I promised: Let's say the scientist examined this hypothetical miraculously created wine and determine it would have taken 5 years to form naturally. When the witnesses tell him it was just made yesterday by God, he would then reply, "well I must trust science, so I'll just grant that maybe God made it 5 years ago. Since we don't know who could have made it then, we'll just believe God did until we have a better answer." This is what I believe TEs are doing.

Oh, it's a clever analogy: the Bible is a witness that God created the universe young, therefore no matter how old the universe looks, it is young. The question is of course how do you know that the Bible was written to tell us that the Earth is young?

We're back where we started. But I hope that at least you will agree with me that science has the capability to detect that there is wine at all, and to discern between whether there was wine or whether there was water. I'm not asking science to prove that a miracle occurred or that God performed a miracle. I'm just asking science to prove that a certain physical effect was present, which some people are attributing to a miracle. That's all.

I don't think science is authoritative when it comes to origins. Science can't answer questions about ontology. It's good for understanding God's natural normal laws, but not His special acts. The Bible should be our authority, especially when it speaks of these events.

Whoa, that's a major bait-and-switch there. Essentially you are saying

Science doesn't dictate ontology (acceptable)
therefore it is not authoritative over origins.

Are you using ontology the way I am - "a study of the nature of things"? How would the ontology of the Earth, say, connect to the science of the Earth's history? Would the Earth be ontologically different if it had been created 6,000 years ago instead of 14.7 billion years ago? Would it have been any less created-by-God?

I'm sorry, but no it can't. Science can observe anomalies in the present, but how would it know if there was an anomaly in the past? I don’t think you realize just how limited science is. Whatever effect is observed, a natural cause must be assumed.

If my Cana vat has wine in it,
when half a minute ago there was water in it,
I know that water has been changed into wine.

It may have been changed by some deft-handed thief,
or by an act of God,
but I know that where there was once water there is wine,
whether it was an act of man or God.
I know there was wine even though I don't know where it came from.

The problem now for creation science is that this is not analogous to the situation at hand. We essentially have a vat with no traces of wine whatsoever and a bunch of people saying "Look, God turned water into wine!" I'll show you what I mean later on.

It's hard for me to fathom you feel there are parts of the earth that have never touched water. We're currently 70% covered and pretty much all the rest gets rained on. You really believe there's no evidence of water has existed anywhere on earth in the past except the oceans and lakes? That’s a new one. Don't we find seashells in some mountains? How could that have happened if water never touched that place?

But creationism really doesn't stop at "every point on the earth has touched water before", does it? It makes some very specific claims about the Flood:

1. It laid down a majority of fossil-bearing strata.
2. It caused the extinction of all land animals on Earth except those which was carried in the Ark.
3. It caused a 700-year Ice Age (though that is admittedly not completely drawn from a literal reading of Scripture).

I was addressing those claims (perhaps my wording was not clear enough to show that). Think of these claims as someone yelling at me over the din of the Pharaonic court "Look, the magicians are turning their staffs into snakes!"

Alright, then. But:

1. Why does a global Flood preserve evolutionary stratigraphics? Why don't we have, say chickens and Compsognathi in the same stratum, when they clearly would have been hydrodynamically similar?
2. Why don't we see a vast genetic bottleneck throughout the whole land animal biota?
3. Would a 700-year Ice Age be long enough for the mammoths to diverge from their parent elephant-kind pair, migrate all the way to the Arctic regions, flourish, and then die?

It's not a matter of seeing snakes in the compound and wondering whether this is scientific trickery or supernatural miracles. It's the matter of seeing a bunch of people throwing wood and wondering "where are the snakes?" I'm not even concerned about who caused the Flood. I'm concerned about why you all are saying a Flood happened when we do not see the effects of a recent global deluge.

Sorry the BB only shows that when you take scientific assumptions to their logical conclusions you are led to a first cause with no natural explanation. But if a non-natural event is necessary for BB cosmology to work, then why not an earlier miracle in which things were created fully functioning? Once you allow the extra-natural, anything goes. One theory that requires a miracle is as good as another.

The library's closing, so I'll answer this when I get back and show you what I mean.

 

[shernren]

Okays, I think the BB is off-limits for my discussion right now. I'm focusing on how science can often confirm that a miracle occurred by either verifying or falsifying its physical effects.

A search through the usual creationist arguments for a suitable article reveals something: each and every "proof for a young universe" begins with the Big Bang and then shows (or tries to) that something is wrong with it. There isn't a single article in there that starts with a young universe assumption (even a parametrized one); that in itself is indicting, but that's not what I'm after here. What I'm after is showing how disproving the anticipated physical effects of a miracle can also all but disprove the miracle.

The Flood is a happy hunting ground for all such efforts. We don't know much about early universe cosmology or stellar evolution (or the interior of a souffle, but that's a different topic altogether), but we sure know what water is, what it does, and what YECs say the Earth was like at the time of the Flood. Here's a typical example. Note that I use no "uniformitarian assumptions" other than what would be accepted by both sides.

1. Man had reasonable tool use by the time of the Flood. (Noah could build a big boat!)
2. Fossil ordering by the Flood was principally hydrostatic and, for living things, also determined by how high they could run to escape the floodwaters.
3. Stone and metal tools, being non-living, would instantly be hydrologically sorted to the bottom or near the bottom.
4. As such, the first few fossil strata laid by the Flood should have many stone/metal tool finds.

Obviously, if observation 4 is not observed, then either statement 1, 2, or 3 must be false. The question is, which one?

 

[laptoppop]

Good points. However, wouldn't metal decay instead of fossilizing? I've never heard of fossilized metal. If the tools were mostly metal, they may have decayed.

How/when were coal seams laid down? Many advanced relics have been found in coal seams.

In general, it seems like you are looking for out of place artifacts (OOPArts). Check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OOPArt

and

http://s8int.com/index.html

 

[Calminian]

Oh, it's a clever analogy: the Bible is a witness that God created the universe young, therefore no matter how old the universe looks, it is young. The question is of course how do you know that the Bible was written to tell us that the Earth is young?

If this is your understanding of the analogy you still are missing it. You simply don't realize that any instantaneous ex nihilo creation of something fully functioning will always have an appearance of age to the naturalist. What God can do instantaneously, nature needs lots and lots of time. This was not a biblical authority illustration at all.

We're back where we started.

Apparently. I really don't mind if you disagree, but I wish you'd at least get what I'm trying to convey.

But I hope that at least you will agree with me that science has the capability to detect that there is wine at all, and to discern between whether there was wine or whether there was water.

Now you are back to observational science.

I'm not asking science to prove that a miracle occurred or that God performed a miracle. I'm just asking science to prove that a certain physical effect was present, which some people are attributing to a miracle. That's all.

None of this is the issue. It's not a matter of detecting an event, it's a matter of interpreting it.

I asked you before to tell me how the scientist would know that a past unobserved miracle occurred just from the bullet hole alone. I'd like you to address that. You claimed that a scientist could conclude a miracle had happened. Explain.

Science doesn't dictate ontology (acceptable)
therefore it is not authoritative over origins.

Science can study the normal process of things, but can't tell us how it came into being. Scientists are left with two illogical conclusions, acausality or infinite regression.

If my Cana vat has wine in it,
when half a minute ago there was water in it,
I know that water has been changed into wine.

Back to observational science. Hmmm. 4 months later and I'm still not getting you to even understand the argument.

The problem now for creation science is that this is not analogous to the situation at hand. We essentially have a vat with no traces of wine whatsoever and a bunch of people saying "Look, God turned water into wine!" I'll show you what I mean later on.

Now were back to the issue of water never touching parts of the earth. I thought you abandoned that.

But creationism really doesn't stop at "every point on the earth has touched water before", does it? It makes some very specific claims about the Flood:

You've changed now from water never touching the surface, to the normal effects we see from floods. That's a different issue. I don't know the technical ins and outs of this, I just expect that if the Flood was caused sustained and ended differently than other floods we should see unusual effects.

 

[shernren]

Good points. However, wouldn't metal decay instead of fossilizing? I've never heard of fossilized metal. If the tools were mostly metal, they may have decayed.

How/when were coal seams laid down? Many advanced relics have been found in coal seams.

In general, it seems like you are looking for out of place artifacts (OOPArts). Check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OOPArt

and

http://s8int.com/index.html

Well no metal implements would not form fossils in the traditional sense of the word. They would, however, be easily found. In developing technology civilizations start with the less reactive metals and move on to the more reactive ones. People were working iron long before they were working aluminium. The corollary is that the earlier you go back, the less reactive the metals they made their tools from, and therefore the less susceptible to chemical decay they should be. Of course nobody made tools of gold or silver (I think?) but iron is quite recognizable and I doubt it is possible for an iron implement to just "rust away into nothing", especially when these iron implements have only been buried a few thousand years according to Creationist thought.

The OOPArts you listed are more culturally or anthropologically impossible than paleontologically impossible, as far as I can see.

Stone tools would have no reason to decay.

And if the civilization of the time had really been so vast that God felt the need to flood the world to destroy them, we should not be expecting just one or two out-of-place artifacts. We should be finding them by the truckload.

 

[laptoppop]

I doubt you had time to go through all the OOPArts in the second link. There are probably a couple hundred pages on that site - with everything from recent to things out of place in strata millions of years old. For example - the London Hammer - on this page http://s8int.com/page6.html

Also - the Bible does not specifically state the population at the time of the flood - that is conjecture, and open to discussion.

 

[Deamiter]

I looked through the link, but I couldn't find a single find that was cited in ANY journals. Are ANY of these finds verified and not based solely on layman testemony?

I mean, I certainly wouldn't be suprised to find screws in a mine, and it's certainly not impossible for a relatively modern item to be encased in many types of rock fairly quickly.

If any of these were truly peer-reviewed, they would have been written up for other scientists to critique. Is there record of such critique (or support) of the methods used to verify that these are authentic anomalies?

 

[laptoppop]

Yes, several have been published in peer-reviewed journals. BUT -- just being in a journal is no guarantee of being true, and not being in a journal is no guarantee of being false. It just means that you have contributed to the orthodox understanding. It is more a test of orthodoxy than of validity -- but it has some value regarding validity as well, or at least rigourousness and consistency.

Many of these items have investigative stories - back and forth - to tell.

 

[shernren]

I doubt you had time to go through all the OOPArts in the second link. There are probably a couple hundred pages on that site - with everything from recent to things out of place in strata millions of years old. For example - the London Hammer - on this page http://s8int.com/page6.html

Also - the Bible does not specifically state the population at the time of the flood - that is conjecture, and open to discussion.

You're right that I didn't. Now that I have:

London Hammer: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm
Coso Artifact: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coso.html

Also, we have even more questions:

If such advanced civilizations existed before the Flood, wouldn't they have known how to survive it?
And why were the Russian screws found in the Pleistocene, when by all hydrological sorting theories used by creationists they should sink straight down to the very first few flood-laid strata?