>>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.
Dear Steve,
You are right. It is the nature of faith to doubt. And that Christianity is
rooted in history.
>>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).
I can live with that expanded meaning of the word "miracle." In fact, it is
the ubiquitous presence of God's hand in nature that gives rise to human
reason and the understanding of rational nature by men. I call that
miraculous. An involved God.
> 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.
I am a practicing scientist. I must say that the question of how God created
is outside the purview of science. We can only study nature and be puzzled
on how it could have come into being. God does not fool us, we fool ourselves.
>>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 :).
Fair enough!
> 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."
Thank you for the compliment! How much more cleverly designed is the whole
of nature. I want people to be aware of their assumptions; that is all.
Man's reasoning is as follows: If A, then B. We can develop a better theory
and conclude: If X, then A. But there is a point where X becomes a true
unknown. There is no way out of that. None!
> 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 certainly does not follow. Our faith is based on reveled truths and not
on our scientific findings.
>>> 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.
Steve, you are a Christian and that is what really matters. Everything else
is a very, very far second! "....Martha, Martha, you are worried and
bothered about so many things; but only a few things are necessary, really
only one: for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away
from her." Luke 10:41-42.
Take care,
Moorad