The scientific part.
How do you scientifically explain the non-physical Spirit conceiving a physical child? Do you really think this will be scientifically possible someday? If this be the case then the global flood will someday be scientifically confirmed.
That's because there are "so and so" things which do run against the laws of nature.
Like I said, if it is possible I do not know how. It cannot currently be tested so yammering about it either way will make no difference. For now this is not something upon which science can touch reliably.
In other words there is no science part to understand it is not within the scope which defines science.
Hence: No wonder you don't understand the scientific part.
There is none! (Yet, at least)
For example, do you believe it is within the laws of physics for the Apostles who died over 2000 years ago to suddenly return to life?
I cannot rule it out.
"Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out — those who have done good will rise to live..."
"So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable...it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." John 5:28-29, 1 Cor 15:42-44.
And? We can't explain that. It would require something we cannot see how can possibly be real, but at the same time 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'. And technology is merely applications of natural laws. Application of relevant science in novel ways.
I don't see how such claims can be explained relying only on the laws of physics. But perhaps you can scientifically explain them someday.
Precisely.
Exactly what parts of creationism do you consider to be falsified?
Erm. Well, we know the universe is not young. We know life is evolving and has been for millions of years. We also know that the claim some creationists make that death wasn't around at all until 6000 years ago has no hold. The 'global flood' is also not a real occurrence as fronted by many of these people.
*shrug*
You are indeed correct about the “nonsense” because what you just wrote looks like a whole lot of nonsense from where I’m sitting.
Yes. I would expect that. It appears I am not wording myself in a way you seem to understand. Seems like simple enough logic to me, maybe it's a cultural or paradigmatic barrier I fail to penetrate.
This sounds to me like you are hoping that the resurrection of Jesus will someday be scientifically verified.
Hope? For that? I wouldn't say so. I don't care either way. My faith does not rely upon it nor will it shatter should that happen. What God did God did. And if we find out how, cool.
In the meantime, why do you believe it happened?
I should think the bible makes that clear enough? Of course I might be misinterpreting it but my understanding is that it all hinges on God's love for us, His creation, and His desire for us to love one another as He loves us.
And I could also recite the apostolic creed if you like? I do adhere to it and gladly recite it. Though I only know it in Norwegian:
Jeg tror på Gud Fader, den allmektige himmelens og jordens skaper. Jeg tror på Jesus Kristus, Huds enbårne sønn, vår Herre
Som ble unnfanget ved den Hellige Ånd, født av Jomfru Maira, pint under Pontius Pilatus, korsfestet, død og begravet, for ned til dødsriket, stod opp fra de døde tredje dag, for opp til himmelen, sitter ved Guds den allmektige faders høyre hånd, skal derfra komme igjen for å dømme levende og døde.
Jeg tror på Den Hellige Ånd, Èn hellig allmenn kirke, de helliges samfunn, legemets oppstandelse, og det evige liv.
Amen.
And that’s the part I don’t get with you; you believe in an ancient story without any kind of scientific justification at the moment for your belief and then you criticize others for doing the same.
No, this is where you misunderstand a core concept.
The difference between the testable and the not testable. In the case of a young earth someone who believes the earth is young believes so not without scientific justification but against concrete evidence to the contrary. And as much of it as there is on any one topic you can think of.
It's pretty much just as valid as belief in a flat world. It's nonsensical because it has been proven wrong just as thoroughly. Whereas a belief in God's existence is not belief in something which is against concrete and hard evidence to the contrary. Belief in God and Jesus' resurrection is not at all a belief which is against concrete evidence. It is belief in events and things which at this point is not testable. Not falsifiable. So because of that creationists and christians who accept evolution are in two widely different camps. On this topic.
I don’t believe in a young earth, I believe in an old earth, perhaps billions of years old, so you can stop harping on that point with me.
Ah. Okay. I am sorry I misunderstood you on that point
Isn't a "freak event" a deviation from what is considered normal or natural? Calling the virgin birth and resurrection freak events does nothing to help your argument. It actually helps mine.
I fail to see how. Please elaborate.
