Yahweh Nissi: Have you asked them that? No - so you cannot make this statement.
I have asked them that and they do claim evolutionism was the process and not the special creation of Adam and Eve....SO I CAN MAKE THE STATEMENT.
The point I was making in my post (which you again only quoted a little bit of, you keep missing things by doing that) was that all the DNA test would do is tell you it was wine - it would not actually tell you where it came from. Now, one would assume it came from grapes that had grown on a vine because that is what happens in the general scheme of things.
No one would assume the wine didn't come from a grape???? What planet are you from?....sorry for being sarcastic, but that statement was foolish.
But if you believe in God then you believe He can work miracles so you would be open to the possabilty that in fact it had not grown, but had been directly created.
And if you believe in God then you could believe he created the world in six days.....hmmmmmmm, what a concept.
If you then looked at the evidence that would directly tell you where it came from, i.e. the wine-merchants sales reciepts, asked the servants who saw it happen, etc you would see that in this case the wine had been miraculously created, not grown.
Perhaps you could ask Adam where Eve came from. I think Adam would have know, don't you?
Same with the resurection. Of course, in the normal running of things dead people do not come back to life. But a belief in God means you believe it is possible for Him to miraculously bring a dead person back to life.
Or create in six days...yes?
In the case of Jesus He did and this then left 'scientific' evidence (in the broad sense) - i.e. eyewhitness accounts in the Gospels (which are clearly historical records as especially the start of Luke and end of John state) of it having occured. But the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly (IMHO) against God having miraculously created the Universe in accordance with the YEC position.
The scientific evidence is also overwhelming that dead people stay dead.
It is in accordance with Him creating the Universe about 13.7 billion years ago in the 'Big Bang' - something I consider much more 'miraculous' in a sense. As I have said many times before, 2Tim 3:15-17 tells us all scripture is God breathed and what it is useful for - and this does NOT include it being an exactly litteral account in all places or that it is useful for understanding science.
So, you are saying that the resurrection did not have to be an exact literal account?
when you get what is clearly stated to be a historical account, like the gospels, you take it to be a historical account.
Why did the gospel writer along with numerous other NT writers present the event a historical? Were they being deceptive to us?
The first few chapters of Genesis do not claim to be a litteral historical account and the style in which they are written suggests that they are not - e.g. such things as God (i.e. YHWH - either the father or the full triune Godhead, not sure which) stroling through the garden - clearly an absurdity if taken litterally. And with all the scientific evidence against it being litteral I conclude that it is not litteral.
Funny..the bible all through out it presents it as a literal happening.
Would you like some examples?
God bless,
YN.
