She's a false prophet.

Agreed, which is why it would be correct to say miracles are logical. It is incorrect to say they are scientific.

Verification goes beyond science. You can say a miracle can be verified without saying scientifically verified.

This is testimonial verification not scientific verification.

Exactly what I suspected. The reason you say miracles are scientifically valid is because you trust science over Scripture. That's what leads most in the direction you've gone. Instead of trusting the clear testimony of Scripture on origins, you've deferred to modern uniformitarian assumptions.

 

So who would you like to see running the country as President?

 

The claim you made was that Jesus was "really anti-science." You made a false claim about Jesus, saying that He was/is opposed to science.

It depends on the claim of the miracle. If someone claims that the wine of communion literally turns into the blood of Christ, you can test the allegedly transformed substance and determine whether or not it is human blood. Science would tell you that the claim is false, unless the claim is that Jesus had wine for blood.

When someone makes a healing claim -- for instance, that the cancer has been destroyed and it does not exist in their body anymore -- that claim can be verified. Jesus Himself told lepers whom He healed to show themselves to the priests (get objective certification) so that they could rejoin their families. That was science mixed with religion. Most of the priests were hostile to Jesus, so He wasn't sending the lepers to someone who would be predisposed to giving false verification.

Yes, for certain types of claimed miracles. For instance, the tool for that kind of knowledge would be the knowledge of persons/relationships. If someone experienced a miracle of conversion, their actions will change and your observation and interactions with that person would be affected. It is also knowledge partially derived from observation, but it does not have the same rigor as the scientific method, for the scientific method was not designed to develop knowledge of persons.

For persons who WITNESSED the resurrected Lord Jesus, it was not testimony, but direct observation. It is more closely tied to knowledge of persons and direct experience.

Glad I could meet your expectations.

Well that's a lie. I don't think you mean to be malicious, but it is still a lie.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. You seem to have a specific idea about a certain direction I have gone.

Nope, that's another lie. Again, I don't think you intend to be malicious, but I don't think you understand what the scripture actually teaches regarding origins and what science and simple observation shows us. Moreover, I think I trust scripture quite a bit more than you.

Let me give you a book suggestion: Adam and the Genome

It is probably one of the best books on the subject currently in print. The science takes some brainpower, but if you don't understand it all, don't worry. Just get the sense of it and keep reading. The second half of the book provides one way of thinking about the scripture that takes things quite seriously.

 

I don't see any likely candidates out there that I currently like. The two major parties have been giving us duds for years. I haven't felt particularly good about anyone since voting for George H. W. Bush.

 

Had you said this originally, I would have clarified. But you want on to say miracles do not conflict with science. That is false, miracles do conflict with science. That's what makes them miracles. Jesus' miracles, in essence, went against observations of how the world works. That's why they were recognized as miracles.

Yes, science would tell you all miracles claims are false, a priori. Science assumes, before any testing is performed, that the world is consistent and its laws are uniform. Miracles by their very nature are not uniform. Thus science, purely speaking, could never confirm a non-uniformity.

No that was simply observation. The miraculous healing could never be a scientific conclusion, only the healing itself. If scientists can't find a natural reason, they categorize it as an anomaly which may be solved at a later time.

Indeed. But it is not a scientifically observed repeated experiment.

Yet you don't trust the origins account in Genesis, which is clear and straightforward. Instead you've embraced millions of years, death and suffering before Adam, etc. I'm sure you mean well, but the fact is, you trust science over Scripture.

And bingo! Root of the problem. If a Christian is willing to fall for evolution, they'll likely fall for anything, including very bad policy. It's the greatest lie of our time. Evolution (Mother Nature) and millions of years (Father Time) are the false gods of our age. You've unwittingly turned to them. You've believed their lies.

I would like to suggest a series of articles to you regarding this book. They're by Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson.

Finding Adam in the Genome: A Response to Chapter 1 of Adam and the Genome

Finding Adam in the Genome: Part 1 of a Response to Chapter 2 (and Chapter 4) of Adam and the Genome

Finding Adam in the Genome: Part 2 of a Response to Chapter 2 (and Chapter 4) of Adam and the Genome

Finding Adam in the Genome: Part 3 of a Response to Chapter 2 of Adam and the Genome

opening excerpt:

Evolution has long been at odds with Genesis.1 However, as new scientific data accumulate, evolutionists find new and more nuanced ways to contradict the biblical account. The recent publication of Adam and the Genome illustrates this. The authors don’t just deny the plain reading of Genesis 1–11 and the historicity of Adam and Eve; they extend their denial into the New Testament.

Should Christians care? Consider the theological ramifications. If the thesis of Adam and the Genome is true, then the plain reading of the text of Scripture is wrong. If we can deny the accuracy of one section of Scripture, what’s to stop us from denying the rest? Consistent with this predictable pattern, the theistic evolutionary group BioLogos (with whom one of the book’s authors is affiliated) does not affirm inerrancy in their doctrinal statement, and the president of BioLogos makes it clear that they tolerate the view that the Bible has errors. Where in Scripture do the errors stop, and where does truth begin?​

You're in real trouble my friend. You've fallen for a lie (lies), and followed after some really bad guys. Biologos is poison. I'm offering you a truth antidote.

 

I've heard this argument. It's an interesting one, but I would challenge that even category #2 is a problem for science. Even we humans have the power of intervention in some cases. We have free will. We have a level of determinism that's not merely blind cause/effect relationships.

Many decisions of willful individual agents are virtually impossible to predict. From a Christian perspective this would make sense. But many scientists don't believe in wills (self-determinism) and therefore believe that all behavior (decisions) are the result of chemical reactions in the brain. They do not believe in a spirit that transcends the brain. Thus, decision is merely an illusion. They still can't predict all decisions, but merely because they don't have knowledge of all the variables. Clear as mud?

This is why I think it's a terrible mistake for the Church to intertwine itself too deeply with psychology. Another rabbit trail, but this is why it's a travesty that most Christians today seek secular therapists over their pastors (I hope I'm wrong that it's most, but am 99% sure I'm correct.)

The miracles I was referring to, however, would be #1, specifically. But self-determinism is also problematic for science.

 

I assumed you already knew what you had written.

Restating your unsupported assertion is not the same thing as an argument.

Obviously. But that's not anti-science, nor does that make Jesus "really anti-science."

No, that's naturalism and empirical rationalism, not science.

Usually, but not always.

I already gave examples of ways science can confirm or deny certain miraculous claims.

You assume scientists are uniformly naturalists and empirical rationalists. That is false. Your prejudices are undermining your thinking.

And this shows you are not (or will not) following my argument. I made no assertion that this was science.

Restating falsehoods doesn't make them true.

So you have read the book and reviewed the evidence presented therein like I have? I suspect you are simply rejecting the book out of hand and digging up negative reviews to justify your position.

How do you know these critiques are legitimate?

Uh huh.

For what its worth (and I know you won't believe me), I have kept theories of origins at arms length - including young and old earth creationism, and evolutionary theory. I have spent 40 years reading on the subject, studying science, studying theology, and observing the character and nature of earth's geology. The young earth creationist views just don't match the evidence we have given (and I know all about "apparent age" ideas), and I don't think that God deceives us with the witness of creation.

In studying Genesis, translating from the Hebrew more than 25 years ago, I worked through what the creation narratives actually say and how they are obviously not intended to be taken literally (in a modern sense). They are teaching specific theological truths about God, humankind, and the relationship between God and humankind.

My interest in DNA and the human genome project, plus having a close friend who is a strong Christian who has a masters in Biology and works as an environmental scientist, I worked through the scientific evidence (which does not contradict the scripture itself, but certainly many of interpretations of it) and have tentatively settled on theistic evolution.

It has been a long journey of discipleship with much prayer and study of scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

Notice you don't say it doesn't match the evidence. What you mean is scientifically interpreted evidence. This goes back to your misunderstanding of science, and your belief it is compatible with miracles. That's why you've gone after the false gods of science—mother nature and father time.

Yes, I believe you've studied the issues for years trying to justify your own unbelief. That's common and I believe it.

Your last statement proves my suspicion. "I don't think that God deceives us with the witness of creation." That tells me all I need to know. You have spent years attempting to reconcile Scripture with man's view of origins. You've put man's testimony above God's

Ah, so it's an issue with the original Hebrew that convinced you. Please share your insights from the Hebrew that convinced you not to take Genesis literally.

You would be much more amazed by DNA if you studied it with Biblical glasses on. Instead, you did it backwards, looking to man's insights and then finding a Scriptural interpretation that was compatible. That was your downfall. And just a note of encouragement. It should take years to understand Genesis 1-11. It's super straightforward.

If this spirit lead you to trust Mother Nature and Father time over the plain simple reading of Scripture, it was a false deceiving spirit.

 

There are so many things wrong with what you have written, there's no point in responding to it. You are simply looking for reasons to condemn. And in your ignorance/malice, you certainly have:

You really know nothing about me, but you are delighted to condemn. Every condemnation you have made above is completely false.

It is interesting that that very Spirit you condemn calls me to be conformed to the image of Christ, is enabling me to overcome sin, empowers me in evangelism and holiness, helps me minister to people in crisis and serve the needy, enables me to disciple others in the faith, and helps me recognize the lies of the evil one.

All of this starting because I have pointed out President Trump's lies. I have even provided video of him saying contradictory things over and over in various circumstances. You gloss over the lies and change the subject to attack me. Instead, you apparently embrace the lies of others (whom you happen to like) and tell lies about me. That is NOT what a disciple of Christ does, so I know you do not speak for the Jesus found in the scriptures and in His resurrection glory.

 

Pretty harsh insults. But I believe you when you say there's no need to respond. It's a common rationalization.

Yes, I do admit, I hit you pretty hard, but this is a serious issue in the Church (cancer might be the appropriate word).

I've not condemned you in the sense of your standing with God. I merely pointed out your unbelief in God's revelation of origins. Many believers have this unbelief, unfortunately, and it hurts the Church's testimony. But make no mistake I have not determined your spiritual standing. That's between you and Him and not for me to say. I believe one can disbelieve Genesis and still be saved. There will be many formers evolutionists in heaven.

I'm merely saying that the true Spirit of God would not and could not direct you into error. If it was a spirit, it must have been a false spirit. But more than likely it wasn't a spirit, just your own rationalizing.

I don't defend any of the President's sins. He's a sinner. I am too. I still like him and support his policies. And I think, relatively speaking, as far as humans go, he's a pretty good guy. He's certainly more discerning that many Christians are on abortion. I'm merely pointing out how origins beliefs and politics often go hand in hand.

 

I myself have a difficult time taking a definition of a miracle from an evolutionist.

 

I certainly wouldn't minimize the contributions of the men you discuss. But I think we in the West don't know much about or recognize the contributions of those in the East. Of course, those in the middle East were recognized as significant civilizations in the Bible.
Mesopotamia
From their beginnings in Sumer (now Iraq) around 3500 BC, the Mesopotamian peoples began to attempt to record some observations of the world with extremely thorough numerical data. A concrete instance of Pythagoras' law was recorded as early as the 18th century BC—the Mesopotamian cuneiform tablet Plimpton 322 records a number of Pythagorean triplets (3,4,5) (5,12,13) ..., dated to approx. 1800 BC, over a millennium before Pythagoras, [1]—but an abstract formulation of the Pythagorean theorem this was not.[1]
Even today, astronomical periods identified by Mesopotamian scientists are still widely used in Western calendars: the solar year, the lunar month, the seven-day week. Using these data they developed arithmetical methods to compute the changing length of daylight in the course of the year and to predict the appearances and disappearances of the Moon and planets and eclipses of the Sun and Moon. Only a few astronomers' names are known, such as that of Kidinnu, a Chaldean astronomer and mathematician who was contemporary with the Greek astronomers. Kiddinu's value for the solar year is in use for today's calendars.

 

Theistic evolutionists are very epitome of those who try to naturalize miracles.

 

On the contrary, we have a Christian in the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago who is expert on the area you are discussing and he has released a long white paper showing that Nimrod is likely Sargon. These peoples well knew about Noah and the flood but nevertheless descended into barbarianism from which only Abram and Sara were called.

 

We're talking about science not religion. You just can't seem to understand the difference. An atheist like Stephen Hawking or a Deist like Albert Einstein can be a great scientist.

 

What makes you say that I am debating science? The person at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago is an archeologist named Doug Petrovich, who is perhaps the leading scientific expert on Mesopotamia alive today, is working at perhaps the leading place in the world in the study of Assyria and that area of the Middle East. You want to make heroes of some pagan people, led at one time by Nimrod/Sargon, who clearly did not learn the lesson of the Noachian Flood which they knew about practically first hand and yet they went ahead and established brutal military dictatorships so that God wrote Ichabod on Mesopotamia and called the Mesopotamian Abram and his wife Sara to abandon that place forever. If you have the time and money, visit the Oriental Institute, but be advised that Chicago is a murderous city to visit and very expensive.

 

Throughout the history of the earth there has been periods of warming and cooling none of which was ever contributed to by man. The same is of today. We may go through a period of warming and now we are going through a period of cooling.