Hi again Moorad,
I concur, Also note that it was not Christ that said the water was wine but
that he told those in charge to take water and place it in the jars and
then it was those same people that took the wine to the head of the party
to be tasted. It is carefully set up such that we know that people
understood what was water and what was wine and at what point the water was
water and then when it was mind. So we are given knowledge of the
substance before and after. If tested, yes it would have been just H2O and
later it would have had the elements required to fit the general
description of wine.
>
>> You might as well ask "Do those who believe in evolution as a scientific
>>theory also believe that Christ was resurrected?" (bad phrasing, by the way,
>>since it obviously is a "scientific" theory). Of course, for Christians,
>>even those who accept the theory of evolution, the answer is yes. We believe
>>that God does sometimes interact in miraculous ways with the physical world
>>and that Jesus Christ performed miraculous acts while He was on this earth.
>
>It seems that you choose what to consider a miracle and what not to consider
>a miracle. How do you know that God is not constantly performing miracles to
>sustain the physical universe? How can we, in view of the example of the
>vine, be so certain about the age of things we co-exist with?
See my other post, its not completely a matter of choice, in some instances
we are given no room for choice. If God were constantly performing
miracles why would we even come to understand an idea of ordinary
providence at all? It seems to imply a God outside the world that needs to
"tinker" to keep it running right, rather than a God that is intimately
involved in all things.
>
>> When looking at the measurable, observable world, however, we see clear
>>evidence that life changed through time in a manner consistent with
>>evolutionary theory and we do not see convincing evidence that life
>>originated in a manner outlined in the creation story of Genesis 1-2.
>
>That is your assumption. It is all inferences and suppositions. There is no
>convincing (scientific) evidence after the fact that the wine was the result
>of a miracle. How can you be so sure that what you observe now is not
>analogous to the testing of the wine by scientific means in order to
>establish its age.
Moorad, there was a very interesting comment by either George M. or John B.
recently (I can't remmber which and don't have to go through the archive)
on the wine and this issue. *** I think a repost of this would be
appropriate here if anyone has it on hand. ****
The gist was that if we tested the wine it would be wine and sure it would
look like it had the appearance of age but we would NOT expect that wine to
have evidence of having been made in a particular jar from a particular
winery the next town over. In other words, it would have the
characteristics of wine but a test of residual DNA wouldn't show that the
the wine came from some particular grape bush. That is what would be
deceptive.
My speculation is that without the forknowledge that a miracle had created
the wine the best we might be able to confirm is that it was wine and we
might be left with a mystery, even given the advancement in our ability to
trace substances, as to the source. In fact, someone might come along and
suggest that because its origins can't be pinpointed that it must have been
CREATED in some other fashion.
How does this differ than YEC claims? There claims as well as AoA
(appearand of age) asks us to believe that God created in such a way that
examination of the evidence clearly points us in the direction of common
decent, long earth processes, etc.. rather than just a MYSTERY that can't
be explained by invoking orinary providence. The same with the wine, I
would say scientific evidence would lead us to a mystery not chemical/DNA
evidence that the wine came from Joe Smiths winery and was aged in vat #12
in a particular year.
Hope I'm not being too pesky, your questions are certainly valid and I
often talk to Christains who have the same ones. I wish I had better
answers at times so I appreciate these discussions all the more.
Joel
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
,-~~-.___.
Joel and Dawn Duff / | ' \ Spell Check?
Carbondale IL 62901 ( ) 0
e-mail: duff@siu.edu \_/-, ,----'
or virkotto@intrnet.net ==== //
or nickrent-lab@siu.edu / \-'~; /~~~(O)
* * * * * * / __/~| / | * * *
\\\/// \\\/// =( _____| (_________| \\\///
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.intrnet.net/~virkotto/joelduff.htm
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/