Creation Facts In Scripture

[notto]

I just wanted to point this out here. First you state science cannot prove a miracle never happened. Next, you state science can prove that the creation miracle never happened.

So, can science now prove only 1 miracle wrong but not others? Is this a special exception to the rule?

Your not looking at it correctly. The creation miracle as described by YEC's has been falsified because none of the evidence we would expect to see if it happened that way exists and there are independent lines of evidence that directly show us that their version of events (even if a miracle) did not happen.

Science can falsify ideas when they are based on physical evidence. Creationists claim that the natural world we find was the result of the miracle they describe. The idea that the world is young, that the sediment we find was the result of a worldwide flood, or that a flood ever happened is falsified by physical evidence. The effects and evidence of the miracle that would exist if it happened as they describe it do not exist. Further evidence falsifies the YEC position about the miraculous creation of our current environment.

 

[Critias]

Your not looking at it correctly. The creation miracle as described by YEC's has been falsified because none of the evidence we would expect to see if it happened that way exists and there are independent lines of evidence that directly show us that their version of events (even if a miracle) did not happen.

Well for one, you have built your premise on "what we expect to see" assuming that this premise is not wrong. That scientists understand and know what to look for in a case of miracle.

And there is independent evidence that shows a virgin cannot become pregnant without sperm. There is also independent evidence that shows man cannot walk on water. There is also independent evidence that shows man cannot rise from the dead. There is also independent evidence that shows man cannot ascend into heaven.

Science can falsify ideas when they are based on physical evidence. Creationists claim that the natural world we find was the result of the miracle they describe. The idea that the world is young, that the sediment we find was the result of a worldwide flood, or that a flood ever happened is falsified by physical evidence. The effects and evidence of the miracle that would exist if it happened as they describe it do not exist. Further evidence falsifies the YEC position about the miraculous creation of our current environment.

All the above I stated can be based on physical evidence.

I think what TEs cannot grasp onto is that YECs subscribe to Adam being made an adult, the earth being created mature so that it can inhabit life, and a sun created mature to bring light and heat to the earth. Yet, the earth is young, it is old at the same time. I think this is too much for TE to understand.

What you have shown here is that science can disprove one miracle but cannot disprove another. Thus, being quite inconsistent with this line of reasoning.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I think what TEs cannot grasp onto is that YECs subscribe to Adam being made an adult, the earth being created mature so that it can inhabit life, and a sun created mature to bring light and heat to the earth. Yet, the earth is young, it is old at the same time. I think this is too much for TE to understand.

What you have shown here is that science can disprove one miracle but cannot disprove another. Thus, being quite inconsistent with this line of reasoning.

I believe it was already pointed out that the last 2 sentences here are not what was said.

Science can not say for 100% certainty that a particular man walked on the Sea of Gailee on a certain day. But it can talk about the evidence that would have been left by the miracle. The Resurrection, the Incarnation, the Accension don't left footprints in the sand for science to look at and discuss, hence the inability to absolutely rule them out. What is says is that they are very unlikely and that we have no mechanism to allow it and much evidence and theory to deny the possibility.

YEC on the other hand makes many claims that can leave footprints in creation. AFAIK all these footprints have been falsified as having occurred. The earth and the universe have no evidence of being young, there is no evidence of a global flood and lots of evidence that the earth and universe are indeed very old and the flood did not occur.

A big difference, not in the size of the miracles but in the footprints they would leave and what science can talk about with reference to those footprints.

--

We have danced around the issue of "creation with apparent age" not just in the last few days but there are lots of philosophic resources available to study the issue. In fact, i consistently speak to the issue and in doing so state something that is blatantly wrong to see if anyone ever picks it up. Since to this date no one has, i don't believe that the YECists have done their homework on the issue and until they do i am going to let their arguments go unanswered.

At this point, to anyone who has studied the issues, creation with apparent age does not do what YECist claim it does, in fact, AiG themselves consider it a potential argument not to use. But that is not going to mean anything unless people do their homework and actually study the issue.

....

 

[Critias]

I believe it was already pointed out that the last 2 sentences here are not what was said.

Science can not say for 100% certainty that a particular man walked on the Sea of Gailee on a certain day.

Ok, let me ask some basic questions then.

Can a man walk on the water today?

But it can talk about the evidence that would have been left by the miracle. The Resurrection, the Incarnation, the Accension don't left footprints in the sand for science to look at and discuss, hence the inability to absolutely rule them out.

What is science position on a dead man coming back to life after 3 days? Do we have evidence of people who are dead and have not come back to life?

Do we have evidence that man cannot float into the air by himself?

What is says is that they are very unlikely and that we have no mechanism to allow it and much evidence and theory to deny the possibility.

This is what science should say of creation instead of saying it did not happen. Science cannot prove that God cannot create and did not create in six days.

Science cannot prove that God did not create the earth mature.

So science ought to remain silent on the issue instead of being boastful about denying that God did create in six days a mature earth that can sustain life.

There is no physical scientific evidence that shows an earth in an unmature state that is unable to support life.

Instead, science denies the miracle of God creating in six days. Creating in six days in nothing short of a miracle.

YEC on the other hand makes many claims that can leave footprints in creation. AFAIK all these footprints have been falsified as having occurred. The earth and the universe have no evidence of being young, there is no evidence of a global flood and lots of evidence that the earth and universe are indeed very old and the flood did not occur.

Creationists have made the claims of certain animals like dinosaurs living with man. The earth has no evidence of being around for billions of years either thus denying a mature creation created only recently.

The earth has no evidence of denying the creation miracle. Unfortunately, God's creation - man - has used reason and logic to deny His miracle as His message teaches. Reason and logic don't automatically lead to truth because you use them.

A big difference, not in the size of the miracles but in the footprints they would leave and what science can talk about with reference to those footprints.

Another assumption of yours is that a miracle leaves footprints. Would you see evidence of water turned to wine when studying the already converted wine? No, you would deny the miracle and assume a naturalistic approach.

--

We have danced around the issue of "creation with apparent age" not just in the last few days but there are lots of philosophic resources available to study the issue. In fact, i consistently speak to the issue and in doing so state something that is blatantly wrong to see if anyone ever picks it up. Since to this date no one has, i don't believe that the YECists have done their homework on the issue and until they do i am going to let their arguments go unanswered.

At this point, to anyone who has studied the issues, creation with apparent age does not do what YECist claim it does, in fact, AiG themselves consider it a potential argument not to use. But that is not going to mean anything unless people do their homework and actually study the issue.

....

Well I disagree. I believe God did create Adam as man and not as an infant, the earth able to sustain life, and not a lifeless planet that needed to "evolve" to sustain life.

You and many here are inconsistent with your approach towards miracles; accepting Jesus', denying God's creation in six days. It is nothing more than imposing your own meaning into the text and telling it what you want it to say.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You and many here are inconsistent with your approach towards miracles; accepting Jesus', denying God's creation in six days. It is nothing more than imposing your own meaning into the text and telling it what you want it to say.

i see nothing at all inconsistent with separating miracles from their potential physical footprints.

Jesus walking on water leaves no footprints to study, literally.
Creation 6kya does.
Science doesn't say for an absolutely 100% certainty that people do not rise from the dead. it says: we have never seen one, we have lots of reasons to believe that it is not possible, but this does not prove it can not happen. it is only very very unlikely, contradicts our current theory and we would really like to study it.

Creation 6kya ago, unless it is a creation with apparent age, leaves footprints, not only are there no such footprints but lots of evidence that says that it did not happen. With 100% absolutely sure proof? no, only math and alcohol does proof.

with one class of miracles you have no footprints, potentially no footprints even possible (walking on water), one class of miracles leaves footprints in the world around it (the Resurrection) which give good reasons for believing. one class of miracles (recent creation and global flood) ought to have left footprints and did not. furthermore that footprints that they did not happen are accessible via science thus falsifying those potential miracles.

likewise finding Jesus's bones would falsify the resurrection.


i don't see any inconsistency in the reasoning.

Well I disagree. I believe God did create Adam as man and not as an infant, the earth able to sustain life, and not a lifeless planet that needed to "evolve" to sustain life.

go back to the same issue you simply seem to refuse to study.
did Adam have a belly button?

Another assumption of yours is that a miracle leaves footprints. Would you see evidence of water turned to wine when studying the already converted wine? No, you would deny the miracle and assume a naturalistic approach.

read it again.
miracle CAN leave footprints, depends. some do and some don't. some must-YECist Creation, some can-the resurrection, some can't-walking on water
....

 

[notto]

Creationists have made the claims of certain animals like dinosaurs living with man.

This is the type of claim I was talking about. This claim is falsified by the evidence we find in the actual creation itself. Claiming that the sediment we find was laid down by a global flood is also falsified. Claiming that the earth was created mature is not really a good argument because not only does the earth look old, there are signs of processes in the earth and universe that unless they are old, are false. Why would God create the appearance of a star exploding that never existed in the first place?

I accept the integrity of creation and do not accept that it was created to specifically mislead us or that God would use another set of miracles to cover up the physical evidence of the miracles that YEC's claim.

YEC's claim evidence but when examined, the evidence does not show what they claim. Their ideas about the effects of the miraculous creation and global flood are falsified by the evidence.

Maybe that is a better way to put it. The earth looks old so we have no reason to accept that it is not. YEC's are free to believe that is not the case, but they should then cease claiming that the physical evidence supports it. In the end, it leads to an argument of 'apparent' age and a deceptive God. Not good theology or science.

A miraculous resurection or virgin birth cannot be falsified. The physical claims of creationists about the evidence in the creation can (and have) been falsified.

 

[gluadys]

Like I said, I am glad Arty is able to take God at his word when it comes to invisible realities, "eternal truths" even though the rest of the Book is unreliable, he can somehow manage to trust the Scriptures on inviisible realities.

Indeed, this is what puzzles me about creationist faith. Why do creationists need the certainty of an error-free scripture to accept the witness of the prophets and apostles on their experience of God and their exposition of God's will?

If the authors of scripture help us to know God and to live rightly, why do they also need to be correct about the place of the earth in the cosmos long before it was discovered? What difference does it make that they expressed the revelation they received in terms their own people would understand, even though it would eventually be shown to be scientifically inaccurate?

I don't understand why creationists see this to be a problem of faith.

 

[Floodnut]

* * * * *It's not a dodge - you've been told several times what the difference is. * * * *

Sorry if this comes across as "inflamatory" but I don't care what you have told me/us several times, it is still a dodge. I have told you many things several times and you still reject them. Likewise I reject your denial that it is a a tactic of evasion.

 

[Floodnut]

Nowhere in scripture does it say God created Australia, but I'm pretty certain it does exist, and I don't see how my claiming that it exists is foolishness to God. * * * * *

Sure it says that God created Australia.

 

[Floodnut]

I believe it was already pointed out that the last 2 sentences here are not what was said. * * * * *

Regardless of what someone has "already pointed out. . ." this reality remains: What you have shown here is that science can disprove one miracle but cannot disprove another. Thus, being quite inconsistent with this line of reasoning.

The same Luke who reports the "scientifically impossible" Resurrection as a Fact also affirms that the Creation, a literal Adam and Eve, a literal Abel, a literal Noah, and a literal World-wide Flood are historical realities.

 

[Floodnut]

Indeed, this is what puzzles me about creationist faith. Why do creationists need the certainty of an error-free scripture to accept the witness of the prophets and apostles on their experience of God and their exposition of God's will?

If the authors of scripture help us to know God and to live rightly, why do they also need to be correct about the place of the earth in the cosmos long before it was discovered? What difference does it make that they expressed the revelation they received in terms their own people would understand, even though it would eventually be shown to be scientifically inaccurate?

I don't understand why creationists see this to be a problem of faith.

Indeed, this is what most puzzles me about TE's "faith." How can TE's reject the certainty of an error-free Scripture and still accept the witness of the prophets and apostles, whose theology is rooted in history, whose experience with God is not the following of cunningly devised fables, and whose exposition of God's will is as often as not based on what He did in HISTORY.

If the authors of Scripture are to help us to know God and to live rightly then the historical basis of their guidance, the historical realities used to illustrate eternal realities also need to be correct. If we cannot trust what they tell us about earthly things, how shall we trust them when they tell us about heavenly things. How can you imagine that the "place of the earth in the cosmos" has only recently been discovered. The earth is the center of God's universe. This idea of an expression of revelation in terms that people of the day could understand is still calling God a liar. And TE's imagine that because they misread the "natural revelation" and it seems to be contrary to the Scriptural revelation that to take the Scriptures as true is to make God a liar.
This confusion is unfathomable to me, and the only explanation I can find is in the Word of God through Paul (II CO 4:4). I don't see how TE's can seriously present their wierd twistings of SCripture as if it is not at all problematic to faith in the whole Word of God.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Indeed, this is what puzzles me about creationist faith.

Indeed, this is what most puzzles me about TE's "faith."

The key difference between these quotes reveals a characteristic that really sets gluadys apart on this board.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Indeed, this is what most puzzles me about TE's "faith." How can TE's reject the certainty of an error-free Scripture and still accept the witness of the prophets and apostles, whose theology is rooted in history, whose experience with God is not the following of cunningly devised fables, and whose exposition of God's will is as often as not based on what He did in HISTORY.

If the authors of Scripture are to help us to know God and to live rightly then the historical basis of their guidance, the historical realities used to illustrate eternal realities also need to be correct. If we cannot trust what they tell us about earthly things, how shall we trust them when they tell us about heavenly things. How can you imagine that the "place of the earth in the cosmos" has only recently been discovered. The earth is the center of God's universe. This idea of an expression of revelation in terms that people of the day could understand is still calling God a liar. And TE's imagine that because they misread the "natural revelation" and it seems to be contrary to the Scriptural revelation that to take the Scriptures as true is to make God a liar.
This confusion is unfathomable to me, and the only explanation I can find is in the Word of God through Paul (II CO 4:4). I don't see how TE's can seriously present their wierd twistings of SCripture as if it is not at all problematic to faith in the whole Word of God.

Your main problem is one of hermeneutics. You see all statements in the Scriptures at the same level. For instance, the firmament in the sky is a scientific statement. In particular, it is Babylonian cosmology, it is being used to frame the narrative in Genesis. Likewise Joshua holding his arm up to stop the movement of the sun in order to win the battle, is a scientific statement. The problem is that they are not modern science but rather the science that was believed to be true and explanatory in the days these verses were written. Since your hermeneutics doesn't allow anything but historical literal to be truthful you must assert that this science is being taught as binding on all subsequent believers in the ages to follow who accept the Bible as authoritative. You simply can not see that God is using the science of their day to package a message, that the packaging is not the message. Their science is not binding on us. I don't have to believe a geocentric solor system to be a Christian.
Likewise, you seem incapable of understanding that a 6 day 24 hour creation less than 10k years ago, or that a universal and global flood roughly 4KYA are themselves in the category of of these things used but not taught as transcultural and forever binding.
There are lots of things that are problematic however.
Are diseases caused by demons? Is heaven above our heads, where did Jesus rise to? etc
But we are not going to make any progress in understanding the mind of God on these issues if we buy into your everything is literal, common sense, man in the pew, scientific, all on one level hermeneutic. For the flood alone falsifies this hermeneutic (actually the failure to solve the problem of slavery did) by the end of the 19thC.


...

 

[Critias]

Your main problem is one of hermeneutics.
You see all statements in the Scriptures at the same level. For instance, the firmament in the sky is a scientific statement. In particular, it is Babylonian cosmology, it is being used to frame the narrative in Genesis. Likewise Joshua holding his arm up to stop the movement of the sun in order to win the battle, is a scientific statement.

I am a bit confused when you state his problem is with hermeneutics and your claim seems to be that the Bible is speaking of modern day view point of science and is thus wrong in its statements.

I cannot understand why it is so hard for TEs to understand the point of view from one here on earth when looking to the sun; why TEs cannot understand that when they say sunrise, sunset it isn't speaking about the rotation of the sun around the earth but a point of view from here on earth. And yet when TEs use the same expression they do not think that the sun revolves around the earth, but will accuse another if they use the expression of being a geocentrist.

TEs dismiss that the Bible speaks of the earth as a sphere so that they can assert that the Biblical authors are ignorant on such things and they, the TEs, are much more knowledgable than the Biblical authors.

TEs call Peter and Paul into error as if they have a greater understanding of God's work than they did.

If one is able to see, you will see a pattern that exists here: men/women exalting their knowledge over the Biblical authors who were lead by the Holy Spirit when it is concerning God and His works.

And you call Floodnut out on hermeneutic problems when you and so many TEs here impose your own meaning onto the text of Genesis and now II Peter and Acts?

The problem is that they are not modern science but rather the science that was believed to be true and explanatory in the days these verses were written. Since your hermeneutics doesn't allow anything but historical literal to be truthful you must assert that this science is being taught as binding on all subsequent believers in the ages to follow who accept the Bible as authoritative. You simply can not see that God is using the science of their day to package a message, that the packaging is not the message. Their science is not binding on us. I don't have to believe a geocentric solor system to be a Christian.

And you are here demonstrating how you assert your own meaning onto the text of the Bible instead of taking the authors intended meaning as the true meaning of the text.

Likewise, you seem incapable of understanding that a 6 day 24 hour creation less than 10k years ago, or that a universal and global flood roughly 4KYA are themselves in the category of of these things used but not taught as transcultural and forever binding.
There are lots of things that are problematic however.
Are diseases caused by demons? Is heaven above our heads, where did Jesus rise to? etc
But we are not going to make any progress in understanding the mind of God on these issues if we buy into your everything is literal, common sense, man in the pew, scientific, all on one level hermeneutic. For the flood alone falsifies this hermeneutic (actually the failure to solve the problem of slavery did) by the end of the 19thC.


...

And now are you going to say the Bible promotes slavery?

Explain to us how understanding the Bible as the author intended it to be understood is problematic?

 

[gluadys]

Indeed, this is what most puzzles me about TE's "faith." How can TE's reject the certainty of an error-free Scripture and still accept the witness of the prophets and apostles, whose theology is rooted in history, whose experience with God is not the following of cunningly devised fables, and whose exposition of God's will is as often as not based on what He did in HISTORY.

If my doctor is an excellent diagnostician, but lousy at investments, do I stop trusting his medical expertise because he can't decipher the stock market? I don't see any reason we have not to trust the experience and witness of the prophets and apostles because they were not experts in post-Copernican science. I don't see how their absence of knowledge about modern science affects in any way the spiritual wisdom they impart to us.

As for history, it is not so much that their exposition of God's will is based on history, but that their understanding of God's will enabled them to interpret history as the acts of God.

If the authors of Scripture are to help us to know God and to live rightly then the historical basis of their guidance, the historical realities used to illustrate eternal realities also need to be correct.

That doesn't mean that everything they tell us needs to be historical. It is one thing to interpret an historical event such as the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians as the judgment of God on a faithless nation. It is quite another to insist that their use of an ancient flood myth requires the flood to be historical in the face of clear evidence that it was not, at least on a global scale.

If we cannot trust what they tell us about earthly things, how shall we trust them when they tell us about heavenly things.

If they are not expert on earthly things, why trust them on earthly things? But if they have walked with God and seen heavenly things clearly, why not trust them on heavenly things?

How can you imagine that the "place of the earth in the cosmos" has only recently been discovered. The earth is the center of God's universe.

Even on a spiritual level we do not know that, for we do not know if the inhabitants of this world are the only ones God relates to as he does to humans. And it is not the centre of the universe in any physical sense. If it were, the sun, indeed all the heavens, would orbit the earth as the geocentrists believed, and the earth would be stationary.

This idea of an expression of revelation in terms that people of the day could understand is still calling God a liar.

You see, that is what I do not understand. How do you come to this conclusion? If the message of the revelation has not been misrepresented, how is it lying to express that message in the cultural context of the recipients? Why would it be necessary to teach evolution to Hezekiah in order to tell him not to trust in Egyptian allies, but rely on God to deliver Jerusalem? Why would it be necessary to teach the Israelites big bang cosmology in order to tell them not to worship the heavenly bodies as gods?

To me this is an example of what theologians call the condescension of God. God speaks to people in terms of their experience, and knowledge and comprehension. He does not ask them to meet criteria of 21st century higher academic learning before he reveals himself. This is not just true of people of the past. It is true today. God still reveals himself to people of all ages and intellectual capacities, to children, to the mentally handicapped, to the uneducated and illiterate, as easily (perhaps more easily) than to the academic. He doesn't speak over their heads or demand they be correct about geology before they receive the gospel.

So why would he demand that the ancient Israelites change their world-view to agree with modern science before giving them any revelation? And why call it lying if he permits the biblical authors to express that revelation in the pre-scientific concepts familiar to both author and reader?

It is not as if we were too stupid to take such things into account when we apply the text in a modern scientific scenario. We are capable of making the necessary mental adjustments from a geocentric to a heliocentric universe without losing the message conveyed to us by those who assumed geocentricity. We can do the same with other pre-scientific concepts which we now know to be false or at least incomplete.

And TE's imagine that because they misread the "natural revelation" and it seems to be contrary to the Scriptural revelation that to take the Scriptures as true is to make God a liar.

You have never shown that we are misreading the natural revelation. And it is only to a literalist that it seems to be contrary to scriptural revelation. This, after all, is the false charge that creationists continually lay against TEs: that because we do not accept the creation accounts as scientific fact, we are rejecting the scripture as a lie. I can understand why a literalist would think in this way. Because, for you, if the story is not factual, it is a lie, it is worthless, it ought to be dismissed as a falsehood.

What you seem unable to comprehend is that for me, the story is more true, more revelatory, more valuable, more to be treasured for what it teaches when it is not tied to a literal interpretation. So when I read the story this way, what I am appreciating is the truth it tells, and in no way do I think of either God or the human author as liars.

 

[notto]

If we cannot trust what they tell us about earthly things, how shall we trust them when they tell us about heavenly things.

It seems that you are arguing that if someone accepts mainstream science, accepts that world history goes back further than 6,000 years, or accepts that the world wide flood is falsified with physical evidence that we find in the creation that they should not be a Christian or follow Christ.

Behold the danger of creationist theology.

 

[ebia]

And therefore science cannot say creation is six days never happened. It was a miracle.

Science doesn't just show that a six day creation is impossible - that it would require a miracle - but that it simply did not happen. The earth is several orders of magnitude older than any life. The first animals appeared millions of years before the first men. etc.

I just wanted to point this out here. First you state science cannot prove a miracle never happened. Next, you state science can prove that the creation miracle never happened.

So, can science now prove only 1 miracle wrong but not others? Is this a special exception to the rule?

You are completely missing the difference between saying that something is impossible (within the rules) and that something never happened.

A virgin birth is impossible (within the normal rules), but we no longer have the evidence we would require to say it did not happen.

A 6 day creation is impossible (within the normal rules), and we DO have the evidence to show that it really did take longer than that.

To be able to falsify the virgin birth in the manner that we can falsify a YEC creation we would need things like the bodies of Jesus and Joseph and a DNA test showing that Joseph was Jesus' biological father.

We can generalise about how births normally happen, but we can't examine that particular one. We can and do examine the creation of the universe.

 

[ebia]

Sure it says that God created Australia.

No it doesn't. It can only be inferred by what is said.

God created everything that exists. Australia exists. Therefore God created Australia.

God created everything that exists. Evolution is the process by which some things were created. Therefore God created through evolution.

Same logic.

 

[artybloke]

I am a bit confused when you state his problem is with hermeneutics and your claim seems to be that the Bible is speaking of modern day view point of science and is thus wrong in its statements.

For instance, the firmament in the sky is a scientific statement. In particular, it is Babylonian cosmology, it is being used to frame the narrative in Genesis. Likewise Joshua holding his arm up to stop the movement of the sun in order to win the battle, is a scientific statement. The problem is that they are not modern science

I think you've misunderstood here. Compare these two statements. He's not claiming that the Bible is speaking in terms of modern science but in terms of ancient (Babylonian) science; which has long since been falsified. I'm not sure I'd call what the Babylonians thought "science" as such; but I see where he's coming from: that from their observations and mythology, the world was made that way (it would have been as "obvious" to them to say that there was a solid firmament above the earth as it "obvious" to us that this isn't the case: remember, they didn't have telescopes, or even glass instruments of any kind to confirm it. They were basing it entirely on conjecture from the naked eye.)

 

[Critias]

Science doesn't just show that a six day creation is impossible - that it would require a miracle - but that it simply did not happen. The earth is several orders of magnitude older than any life. The first animals appeared millions of years before the first men. etc.


You are completely missing the difference between saying that something is impossible (within the rules) and that something never happened.

A virgin birth is impossible (within the normal rules), but we no longer have the evidence we would require to say it did not happen.

A 6 day creation is impossible (within the normal rules), and we DO have the evidence to show that it really did take longer than that.

To be able to falsify the virgin birth in the manner that we can falsify a YEC creation we would need things like the bodies of Jesus and Joseph and a DNA test showing that Joseph was Jesus' biological father.

We can generalise about how births normally happen, but we can't examine that particular one. We can and do examine the creation of the universe.

This is what I see TEs say countless times on this board:

Creationism has no evidence and there is plenty of evidence against it.

Well we have no evidence that a man can rise from the dead after three days and plenty of evidence that says he cannot.

We have no evidence that a virgin can have a baby and plenty of evidence against it.

We don't need Mary's body or Jesus' body, we just need to observe what happens with men and women. Do they rise from the dead after three days? No. Do they have a child as a virgin? No.

There is no direct evidence that concludes God did not create in six days. Science assumes and reasons it did not happen.

It is you TEs who do not understand the gravity of what you are doing here.