>>>I just have a simple question, Do those who believe in evolution as a
>>>scientific theory also believe that Christ turned water into wine? If so,
>>>what is the scientific basis for that fact.
>>
>> In my case, the answer is yes but if we had a sample of the wine I would
>>want to test it :).
>
>What would the age of the wine be according to your scientific test? Mind
>you, wine connoisseurs and wine tasters do not use scientific methods but
>only their taste buds to determine not only what good wine is but that
>something that looks like wine is indeed wine. It seems there is no doubt,
>from Scripture, that that liquid was wine.
I made the comment tongue in cheek (hence the smiley face). I just meant to
imply that I don't like to believe things without checking them out. I also
believe, by the way, that the wine would have checked out. I believe that
Christianity is a religion rooted in history and fact, not "cunningly devised
fables", and will withstand scrutiny. Jesus didn't appear to be mad at Thomas
for doubting.
>> 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?
We're bogging down in the term "miracle" here. If God is constantly performing
"miracles" to sustain the universe then I think they cease to fit the definition
of "miracle" (although in some sense I do believe that God miraculously sustains
the world).
What do you believe Moorad, that we should throw away science and not investigate
the natural world. Of course we could be wrong, of course God could have created
things with the appearance of age, but does that mean we should, in a sense, throw
up our hands and not use or curiousity and minds?
I believe that God gave us our minds for a reason. I don't believe God would
create a world that would so thoroughly "fool" us when we investigated it.
>> 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.
We all have assumptions, even the YECs. At least I can back up my claims
with data :).
I can't be sure you exist Moorad, that you're not some cleverly designed
artificial intelligence program. You seem to espouse a philosophy of "It's
all unknowable because we all have these assumptions so let's not even try."
>> Asking someone like me to accept YEC views is asking me to be dishonest.
>>Forgive me for turning to this topic, I am a geologist after all, but
>>demanding that I believe that the earth is only 6,000 or so years old is
>>telling me to deny evidence in front of my eyes when I'm out in the field
>>looking at real rocks. That would be a lie and I can't in good conscience
>>do that. Believe me, as a Christian I would wholeheartedly embrace YEC
>>views if my fieldwork in geology supported that view. It would make my
>>life much easier :).
>
>I am not asking anyone to accept anything. I am just trying to raise issues
>that expose our assumptions. That is all. Perhaps it is a question of
>humility and faith that is an unknown stumbling block.
If I don't accept the YEC view then I'm not humble or faithful enough?
It's true that there's often little humility shown in this issue but it's
seen on BOTH sides.
>> That's why I think most (I know there are some exceptions but they're few
>>and far between) YEC supporters have had no scientific training. Because
>>it's easier for them to believe YEC when they are ignorant of the evidence.
>>That's also why virtually all YEC supporters are conservative Christians -
>>they believe in YEC because it supports their interpretation of Scripture.
>>I simply don't believe anyone was led to YEC by looking at rocks.
>
>I am not a YEC but have a multitude of doubts. I just want people to be
>consistent and be directly confronted with their implicit or explicit
>assumptions.
I think I'm consistent and I do constantly try to question by assumptions.
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich Assistant Professor of GeologyPhysical Sciences Department schimmri@kutztown.edu (office) Kutztown University schimmrich@earthlink.net (home) 217 Grim Science Building 610-683-4437, 610-683-1352 (fax) Kutztown, Pennsylvania 19530 http://home.earthlink.net/~schimmrich/