Are you meaning such “Laws” hold always with probability 100%, that is, they are “inexorable and immutable”, an “can never be transgressed” as Galileo claimed?
There are [parallel worlds] when miracles happen, as for instance Fatima’s miracle of the sun and Noah’s Flood.
Science help us to understand the Bible!
No, God can do as He pleases.
The Flood is not presented as a miracle. It is presented and explained as a historical fact. As is all of Genesis 1-11. Jesus and the Apostles performed miracles in this world. Why is there any need to invoke parallel worlds?
Magnificent!
With this statement you ground to powder “Galileo’s Golden Calf” and worship the “true God” of quantum physics.
No equation can fit all phenomena contained in God’s mind, as for instance Fatima’s miracle of the sun watched by 70’000 people.
However ordinarily God likes to shape the world according to the Newton’s equations, so that we can predict it, develop technologies, travel to Moon, and behave rationally.
For this reason I like to say that Fatima’s miracle on October 13, 1917, 2 pm, teaches us something important we often overlook:
What 2 billion people outside Fatima watched at the same time, i.e.: the sun following its usual trajectory, is as great a miracle as the dancing sun.
You raise an interesting point.
In line with Jim Stump, I endorse the following position:
In Genesis the Flood is certainly presented and explained as a historical fact but also as something miraculous.
So for instance Noah begins to build the Ark following the command of the Lord and thereby miraculously predicts that the Flood will come, very much like the three shepherd-children in Fatima miraculously predicted one month before that a miracle would happen at Cova da Iria.
Moreover Jesus Christ himself (Matthew 24:29, 37–39; Luke 17:26–29) and the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2:5-6, 3:6) compare the Flood to events like the darkening of the Sun and falling of stars at the End Times, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and sulfur rained down from heaven.
Fatima’s miracle also is undoubtedly an historical fact. Suppose that when it happened the only observers on earth were the 70’000 people watching the dancing sun, so that no alternative account from observers outside Fatima had been available for comparison. Then the witnesses of the miracle would have narrated things as if the sun had danced for any possible observer on earth.
In this line of thinking I argue that the only Image Bearers who survived the Flood were Noah and his family. Consequently they had no alternative report from non-flooded Image Bearers and presented things as a historical fact affecting the whole world.
For many miracles there is no need to invoke parallel worlds.
But in miracles like the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor and the conversion of Paul the Apostle two parallel worlds are clearly present during a time.
And Pentecost (Acts 2:4-20) provides unquestionable evidence for “many-parallel-worlds” in the sense of people of many different native languages hearing the same speech in the own tongue!
If I have estimated correctly, the area around Mount St. Helens affected by the May 18, 1980 eruption was about 1000 square km. The total surface area of Earth is about 510 million square km. This means that to produce a catastrophe comparable to Noah’s Flood as narrated in Genesis you would need a minimum of 510’000 Mounts St. Helen.
On the other hand, it is fitting to assume that Gods acts according to the parsimony principle also in performing miracles.
Therefore explaining Noah’s Flood invoking two parallel worlds like for Fatima’s Miracle of the Sun seems more appropriate than a single world with a “510’000 Mounts St. Helen” catastrophe.
The world’s surface area is 510 million square kilometers? As big as that sounds… the world is still not big enough to fit both me and the Bible’s version of the global flood!
Hi George
This is the reason why I propose an explanation with two parallel worlds: To fit the Bible’s version of the global flood in one world and you in the other one! 
It’s good that you’ve made that clear, but just one piece of advice here: if you don’t want to be called a YECer, don’t use bad YEC arguments.
Whenever anyone round here sees words such as “were you there?” or “uniformitarianism,” they automatically swap it out for “I’ve been reading too much Ken Ham.”
And with the never ending stream of YEC people that kind of float through here it does get hard to remember people’s core principle.
Ok. Here’s where I’ll hold up a large dresser mirror, and tell you— and all the other proponents of evolution here…
Don’t use bad evolution arguments.
Whenever people claim that evolution is the cause, when the bible has clearly stated that God created the heavens and the earth, and he did so in 6 days, and subsequent passages state that he spoke everything into existence, that Jesus is responsible for creating everything, and without him, nothing that exists, could exist, and that he holds it all together by the word of his power— to say that these things are not true, is only embarrassing yourselves.
Aside from calling the only person who can save you a liar, you’re just throwing crap on your own faces, and then accusing us of being the ones doing so.
Here’s the thing.
I am not a YEC.
I am a bible-believing follower of Jesus. Been one since 1977. I studied physics at the state university, and actually kept a decent GPA throughout, love cosmology, and have been reading the bible, and learning to apply it in my daily life for 40 years now. I’ve been learning a lot, and don’t actually have a problem with the ideas I presently adhere to. Here’s a secret for you— if I had a problem with my ideas, I wouldn’t be so comfortable with them.
I did not come to this position easily. I have not had a flower-covered pathway to this day in my life. I don’t float on lilies, or walk floating on rose petals. I don’t have a halo on my head and glow like the paintings of old.
Another problem I have with evolution is the claim that people only believe what science can prove. The problem with that is— the scientific method is based on repeatability.
History is not repeatable, but no one appears to grasp so simple a fact, so I ask what seem so obvious and patent a set of stupid questions to get you to grasp the sheer stupidity of claiming to believe in the scientific method. You cannot repeat whatever the event was that resulted in the existence of the cosmos. You cannot repeat the process by which the biological life forms we now know on earth came into existence. You cannot repeat the process by which you drank your coffee last year, which resulted in you getting the raise you did, 4 weeks later.
The problem is— evolutionists seem to fail to grasp these fundamental ideas, and as a result claim that evolution, climate change, and a few other ideas are “settled science.”
To which people such as myself do the age old-- face-palm, seriously questioning the understanding of these people. It makes me wonder if they’re smoking the whiskey, and drinking the weed.
Admittedly, it is indeed bothersome that God kept so many secrets, and only gave us what we needed to live. Deuteronomy 29:29 (and yes, I actually do expect you to read these references I provide, because I expect I’m talking to an intelligent human being, who wants to understand where I get my ideas, as much as he wants to be understood.).
In the end, I’ve come to the realization that I will die in another 30-40 years, if not sooner. I’ve further looked back at the forebears of the realm of science, indeed my own family, and the people who’ve come before, and noticed that none of them, have lived longer than 120 years. I’ve found this incredibly frustrating, because the logic of the evolutionist/atheist/agnostic is that if I can’t do it myself, it cannot be trusted, unless someone whose views agree with mine has done the purported work.
Thankfully, the bible actually tells me to test it for myself. Acts 17:11, and 1 Thess. 5:21-22, as well as many others. (I.e., where do you think the idea originated from? It wasn’t Aristotle.).
So… it’s not that we’re using bad arguments, it’s that we’re trying to find a way to get you to see just how bad the claims and arguments for evolution are, and the only way we’re finding so far is to show you by means of a mirror. I.e., we mirror your practice.
I don’t entirely think it’s a good idea, because it just keeps going around in circles.
So, here are a few things for you to read. And if you don’t have a bible, here’s a free, online version. blb.org
Deut 29:29, Ps 25:14, Ps 147:11, Prov 25:2, 1 cor. 13:12, Heb. 4:13, Gen 1:1, Ps 33:5-9, John 1:1-3, 14, Eph. 3:9, Col. 1:15-19, Heb. 1:2-4.
The ideas presented in these passages make it pretty clear to me that there’s no evolution involved. These are direct, creative actions, which involve intellect, reason, logic, invention, design, understanding, and comprehension beyond our faculty to fathom.
So… how do you want to handle this? I’ve studied the science— it’s an idea. It’s not repeatable. It’s history. It requires a worldview to interpret it, and if the worldview is incorrect, the data will be interpreted incorrectly, resulting in the wrong understanding.
For me, what evolutionists claim is evidence for evolution, I see as evidence for creation. The frustration for the evolutionist then becomes— well, why didn’t God put a “made by God on xx/xx/xxxx” label or stamp on it somewhere?
The reason being obvious to the bible believer— he didn’t need to. Romans 1:18-23.
We’re the one’s in darkness, stuck on our own ignorance, claiming to be so wise and brilliant. So much so, they do whatever they can to dismiss, discount, and ignore what they don’t want to see.
Steve, you’ve got me confused here. You claim you’re not a YEC, yet you’re coming out with a string of YEC-isms that sound like they could have come straight from Ken Ham’s blog.
For starters, you’re using the words “evolution” and “atheism” as if they were interchangeable. They aren’t. I also get the impression that you’re using the word “evolution” as an umbrella term for anything and everything about science that you don’t agree with. This is a straight-down-the-line YEC-ism; it is also a form of equivocation (using the same word to mean two different things in the same argument) that ascribes views to many of us on this forum that we simply do not hold.
For the record, I do not take the line that “evolution is a fact; get over it.” If there’s one thing I’ve learned about evolution, it is that it is not a single, indivisible, take-it-or-leave-it monolith. On the contrary, it is a complex, multi-faceted subject, and while there are some aspects of it that are indisputable facts, there are other aspects of it that I would be inclined to dispute. I don’t agree, for example, that we should view ourselves as humans as “just another animal” – evolution or not, the Bible tells us that we are created in the image of God, and as such, we have been given an authority and a responsibility as stewards over God’s creation that has not been given to the rest of the animal kingdom.
No, everyone does grasp this simple fact. What the “were you there” crowd fail to grasp is that history leaves evidence behind, and studies of the evidence are repeatable. For example, you can come up with a hypothesis about how rocks were formed in the Grand Canyon, but your hypothesis also needs to work in the Scottish Highlands, the South African Drakensbergs, and the Swiss Alps. Different dating methods are routinely and rigorously cross-checked against each other. When Ar-Ar dating gives the same results as U-Pb dating, Rb-Sr dating, counting of lake varves, successive layering of rock strata, and GPS measurements of continental drift, that is repeatability.
If you expect us to read these references that you provide, it would help greatly if you could either quote them inline, or at the very least, provide hyperlinks direct to the specific verses themselves on, for example, BibleGateway.com. Yes, you are talking to intelligent human beings, but you are also talking to intelligent human beings for whom time is not an unlimited resource, and besides the fact that looking up these references takes time and breaks up the flow of your argument, telling us that you expect us to do so without making any effort to reduce the friction in doing so is, quite frankly, rude.
It’s just amazing how far a topic can run! From a Mesopotamian flood myth to particle physics and back again. So can I (50 years a Trinitarian) throw in my two pennyworth?
The Bible was not written until the 4th Century CE (by Jerome). All that existed before then were the scrolls of the Jewish Tanakh, a number of gospels and a collection of letters. The New Testament was formalised by Athanasius in 367.
There is only one ocean in the world, so any changes to that affect the whole world.
At some point between 10000BCE - the end of the last major ice age - and the Egyptian pyramids being constructed (about 2500 BCE?), the English Channel was created, separating the UK from France.
The channel is about four hundred feet deep, suggesting a world-wide flood; but this does not mean that it topped out Mt Everest (around 29000ft).
According to Herodotus, the Egyptians believed that ther had been three major floods.
The name Mesopotamia means “between the two rivers” (I believe), which were known to flood regularly because of the sandy soil.
The 1st Chapter of Genesis was probably written after Solomon, when Israel and Judah split. It possibly refers to a Canaanite belief in the trinity of EL, his consort and his son Ba’all, along with the Divine Council.
I am not an Academic, but I read a lot.
Most of the people on this site do not believe in atheistic evolution which is what you keep talking about. We all believe God created the heavens and the earth (length of time required is not important). He did speak everything into existence (but if it was literally that quick why did it take 6 literal days?) Jesus is responsible for creating everything (do you think evolution really could have done the amazing work that it accomplished without the guidance of Jesus?) No one here has every said these things are not true. We just don’t agree on exactly how long it took to accomplish this. Is that really that big of a problem?
Are you sure? You sure sound like a YEC. How many Old Earther Creationists do you know who asserts the “sheer stupidity” of those who support the scientific method? [See below…]
Hmmm… So… when physicists all over the world replicate the double-slit interference results using something as chaotic as photons or electrons… that’s an accidental repeatability?
And if we find one kind of fossil at a low layer of rock, and a similar, but different fossil in a high layer of rock… when we hypothesize the kind of creature fossil we will find in the intervening rock between the two samples… when the prediction turns out to be true… that’s a complete accident as well?
Sorry George (I hope I can call you that?), but rocks move, and are turned upside down. Older rocks are frequently found above younger rocks, and there is are beautiful examples where layers of solid rock form s shapes that lay on their side. If I were a geologist, I would have real problems deciding which is the oldest. It is fairly logical that these layers were moulded at a time when they were molten.
After fifty years as a Christian, I started taking an interest in every aspect of life (polymath) and have to say that there are stranger things that we will never understand without the help of specialist scientists who spend years studying what is often boring stuff for the rest of humanity.
I just hope we are all live long enough to discover where the eleven (or twenty-two) dimensions of quantum physics are or even if they really exist.
The folding doesn’t prevent you from telling which rock layers are older. You just have to make careful observations of the rock layers.
You can tell from the geometry of the fold which layers were solid and which were still soft at the time of the folding. Soft layers slump when they are folded. Also soft layers wouldn’t crack when folded and hardened layers would, which is what is seen.
Exceptions happen everywhere … including the tribe of Simeon being part of the 10 tribes of Israel… and yet being a part of, or south of, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.
If you were a geologist, you would be able to detect anomalies, and you probably wouldn’t have introduced your discussion with a collection of non-sequiturs as an apologia for @Steve_Buckley’s non-sequiturs.
Just floating ideas that sometimes are a puzzle to me.
The rocks I remember were in individual layers, moulded like toffee, and as far as I could see, must have been soft when they were moulded. There could be no other way. It’s a pity I don’t have a picture, it would make more sense.
I am not enough of a scholar to understand non-secitur, could you explain please?
Heat and pressure makes hard things fluid enough to bend, and these rocks were deep,beneath the earth when the slow gradual bending took place, though if too hot, turned to metamorphic rock, if I understand correctly.
@Denn There is a short article in Wikipedia that covers rock folds. It includes several pictures. You will see that geologists are aware of the type of fold in soft sediment that you are talking about. It just doesn’t explain all rock folds.
He is a believer in miracles, looking for the most comfortable fit in the world of facts.
Catholicism has always emphasized the mysteries of the faith.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.