YEC explanations

[RichardT]

See, what I really don't get about AiG and ICR is how they can call their research scientific, and at the same time allow for miracles. If they're going to allow God to interfere in the beginning, but not anywhere else, that's deism and not Christianity. If they're going to allow God's interference anywhere and everywhere I don't see how there can be any coherent naturalism, even the methodological (as opposed to philosophical, principled, atheistic naturalism) kind that science presupposes. If they're not going to allow God's interference then their case is over.

Which is why I asked in another thread, "Who's yoked to who?" Isn't it really scientific creationism yoked to atheistic evolutionism? Both sides have made the error of trying to support metaphysical conclusions with physical data. The atheists do it because they like proving their points in any way they can. The scientific creationists do it because their minds have already been shackled by that way of thinking.

AiG and ICR try to claim moral high ground and elevate their ideas to metaphysical ideas by assuming that they are working from the Bible. (That alone is questionable because there are many other people equally committed to the Bible and Christianity and yet read the Bible very differently. It seems they are only committed to their interpretation of the Bible. But that's another thread.) They therefore very proudly and piously declare that "any evidence that goes against what we believe must de facto be false." But in doing so, they have laid the seeds of their own downfall - for if evidence cannot disprove their position I don't see how in any way evidence can disprove the opposite to their position, or prove their position.

The difficulty should be obvious. You are allowed to believe that the global flood happened despite the evidence. Fine. Let's say that someday somebody digs up a massive piece of geological evidence showing that there indeed was a global flood - a worldwide ring of sediment or something. Does that validate your theory? No, I have every right to say "I disbelieve the global flood, despite the evidence for it." I have every right to say that the worldwide ring of sediment was in fact an artifact put there by God to fool the world into believing that there was a global flood where in fact there was none, just as you have every right to say that all the evidence against a global flood does not in fact prove that it did not happen.

If AiG and ICR will not allow evidence to refute their position then they cannot allow evidence to support their position. If theirs is a metaphysical conclusion, it cannot be supported by physical evidence. It must be supported purely by metaphysical evidence. And yet their articles and research are far more about science than about the Bible. See the disingenuousness?

For TEism, the origins of the earth and of life are physical conclusions. The evidence works; the evidence will tell us what we need to know. The metaphysical theories of origin need no physical proof. We do not need IDism to tell us that life has purpose; Christians worldwide believe that "God has a destiny for me!" even though there isn't a shred of scientific study that can remotely support any such notion. We believe in the resurrection precisely because it is first and foremost something accepted metaphysically, something accepted even if we do not have firsthand access to the evidence the way the disciples had. We accept it solely on the basis of trusting the apostles and the Holy Spirit, since we do not have the empty tomb and the burial clothes deflated on hand to study; we do have the fossils and the rocks and the genes to study firsthand.

Are you calling Man true and God a liar ?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Are you calling Man true and God a liar ?

Are you calling AiG and ICR God?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Are you calling AiG and ICR God?

Why are you guys beating on a defeated enemy? You've beaten the straw out of the YEC's yet you stuff it back in and beat them up again and again. You are (intellectual) cowards! Square off with us Gappers. We'll show you a real fight.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Why are you guys beating on a defeated enemy? You've beaten the straw out of the YEC's yet you stuff it back in and beat them up again and again. You are (intellectual) cowards! Square off with us Gappers. We'll show you a real fight.

I believe I have seen a few threads in here with Gappers, including yourself, I have yet to see a "real fight" unless you think that Montey Pythons Black Knight battle a "real fight."

 

[Calminian]

The flood did not occur. It is falsified. Unless you claim it was all miraculous then we have the problem the evidence gives a deceptive history.

Unless I claim the flood was miraculous?? This is what the record says. And that record has proven to be historically reliable. There is no deception for those with biblical presuppositions.

Quit using a strawman. I claimed that all the evidence we gather from the natural world and that AIG & ICR claim to analyse scientifically is natural. This has nothing to do with the spiritual.

We have medical evidence from the natural world. It tells us people don't rise from the dead after 3 days. Why is this analogy so hard for you to grasp?

I have probably been involved in this debate in the scientific sense far longer than you have. I have listened to the crackpots for long enough.

Forgive me for not being impressed. I would consider giving it more time still. You are not familiar with the Bible, nor with the creation ministries you are trying to slander. If you've not heard Ken Ham talk of the presuppositional aspect the the debate, then you've not heard Ken Ham.

Notice the word 'here'? When discussing the evidence about the natural world we gather and groups like AIG and ICR argue about then the 'scientific evidence' is the only evidence that matters.

Kerr, you truly are talking like a peabrain. This is not about the natural world we observe, it's about a historical supernatural act of God that you refuse to believe because you've limited yourself to naturalistic methods of investigation. It's about testimonial evidence and philosophical/theological evidence and a little bit of science where it can help.

When it comes to our personal faiths and spirituality then scientific evidence has no place.

This is silly. Science can even give us insights about the Resurrection account. Curious how?

It had been speculated by some skeptics that perhaps Jesus survived his crucifixion. They noted that the record showed his legs were not broken, which was the main way most crucifixion victims were killed. Yet we've learned from medical science that the spear piercing that Christ endured proved He was physically dead. This was from the description of blood and water coming out of his side according to the written account. Therefore Christ must have been truly dead before He was seen alive again by several witnesses. Science, therefore, played a role in destroying another attempt to discredit the greatest miracle of all time.

So there you have it. Scientific evidence plus historical evidence plus theological understanding working together to help us discern the truth about a miracle. Yet you refused to let this happen with the creation account.

Sadly there are people out there that won't believe because they think medical science disproves the Resurrection. Some have decided to make the Resurrection account into an allegory in order to keep their faith alive. Their approach is no different than yours, actually, except they are more consistent.

 

[Calminian]

I consider the Resurrection an event pertaining to the spiritual and not something prone to forensics.

The account of the Resurrection is from the same Bible that contains the account of the Creation. Genesis contains the story of the first Adam, and the gospels the last Adam. We did not witness the creation nor flood and we did not witness the crucifixion nor resurrection. We see modern floods and we see modern dead bodies. If you reject one account, and accept the other you do so illogically. That's fine. I have no problem with it. My fear is that you'll become logical in your thinking and reject the gospels also.

Now warp me back in time to witness the event and then we can talk. Either I see the miraculous or I leave the faith.

I hope you don't leave the faith. You don't believe Genesis because you weren't there to witness the miracle. I hope you are not consistent with this approach.

 

[shernren]

We have medical evidence from the natural world. It tells us people don't rise from the dead after 3 days. Why is this analogy so hard for you to grasp?

But how can someone scientifically prove the resurrection?

Therein lies the problem. If the resurrection cannot be scientifically disproven, then it cannot be scientifically proven. It needs to be proven metaphysically before it can be declared scientifically inviolate - and once it is declared scientifically inviolate it cannot be either proved or disproved by science. Any attempt to prove or to disprove it must start from metaphysics.

Or that's what I know so far, from my philosophical wanderings so far. And yet instinctively it feels like the picture can't be this simple. I am interested to explore and learn further. I have much to learn.

 

[Calminian]

See, what I really don't get about AiG and ICR is how they can call their research scientific, and at the same time allow for miracles. If they're going to allow God to interfere in the beginning, but not anywhere else, that's deism and not Christianity. If they're going to allow God's interference anywhere and everywhere I don't see how there can be any coherent naturalism, even the methodological (as opposed to philosophical, principled, atheistic naturalism) kind that science presupposes. If they're not going to allow God's interference then their case is over.

This is where biblical and theological understanding will come in handy. Biblically, miracles are rare in history, even during biblical times. This is why science has always thrived in christian cultures. In the christian worldview, naturalism is the norm. Occasional miracles, therefore, don't affect scientific study. Just because there are resurrections recorded, does not mean we have to throw out our understanding of natural physical death that we've learned from science. As in the illustration I posted earlier it can even aid us in defending the Resurrection.

Some call what you're advocating "scientism." It's the belief that science is the only form of investigation that can be believed. It must remain pure and isolated and can never be mixed with any other methods of examining evidence. This is so obviously not wise. And no this is not what AiG and ICR are advocating.

 

[Remus]

Okay, I'll give this a shot, but you'll have to explain some things to me first, so bear with me.

1) The layered lycopod forests near Joggins, Nova Scotia, in which the 'trees' are rooted in ancient paleosols. How did these forests grow on top of one another during the Flood?

I did a bit of searching and I didn't find a lot one this that wasn't tied to the debate. I try to avoid these. Why would these forests have to have grown during the flood?

2) Angular unconformities - how did they form during the Flood?

Again, why would these be restricted to the flood?

3) Trace fossils - if the flood was 'catastrophic', how did they come to be? Especially trace fossils left by terrestrial animals.

I must be missing something. What is the problem with this one. Are you asking how they were left by the flood?

 

[Calminian]

But how can someone scientifically prove the resurrection?

Therein lies the problem. If the resurrection cannot be scientifically disproven, then it cannot be scientifically proven. It needs to be proven metaphysically before it can be declared scientifically inviolate - and once it is declared scientifically inviolate it cannot be either proved or disproved by science. Any attempt to prove or to disprove it must start from metaphysics.

Or that's what I know so far, from my philosophical wanderings so far. And yet instinctively it feels like the picture can't be this simple. I am interested to explore and learn further. I have much to learn.

I actually like talking with you shernren. I don't agree with you but you make honest arguments.

To answer your question, I agree (and so do AiG and ICR) with you. Science alone cannot defend the central miracle of the christian faith. But did you catch my example later in that post of how it can contribute? When combined with other forms of evidence (primarily biblical) it can give us insight.

Creation ministries like AiG harp on this constantly. They have highly qualified scientists on their staff like Sarfati and Lisles, but they also have great theologians. BTW, Sarfati is quite adept in biblical languages. Interestingly Russell Humphreys is also. I think this is what it takes to really be able to discern the truth of our world.

Science is one tool among many. If you used in in conjunction with others it can lead to many truths. If you isolate it leads to naturalism—an illogical worldview.

 

[random_guy]

I appreciate you helping him out. He truly needs it. I just find it ironic that the guys who are most rude are also most ignorant. This includes those from both sides of the issue.

I have to admit, I've been a real jerk, but I'm working on changing my tone. Let me know if I've been rude.

To your point, I don't think any creationsists believe their views are purely naturalistic. They all admit they start with biblical presuppositions. They then make their scientific deductions from those starting points. If you only listen to anti-creation propaganda you won't know about this. Again, their method is open and honest. Naturalists may not like it, but that doesn't make it wrong. Science along with other methods can help us get to the truth about our world. Science alone can't as it leads to an illogical system of an infinite regression of causes. As far as calling it science, I don't know what else they could call it. It is science after those particular starting points. And they don't claim it is only science.

No one denies that the Flood wouldn't be considered a supernatural event. However, I think the problem is that if Creationists just said, it was supernatural, and they accept it on faith, there would be no problem. Once one starts to explain natural evidence of the Flood, problems arise.

For example, take tree roots layered ontop of each other. Some Creationists claim that the Flood layed down the entire geological column. If this is true, how did several layers of trees grow unimpeded throughout the sediment being laid down by the Flood? This is evidence that falsifies a claim of a Flood. Creationists may counter that since this is a supernatural event, then layered tree root systems don't counter it, this will work. However, then that means Creationists also shouldn't be using science in the first place to provide evidence for a supernatural event.

All miracles occur in nature. Miracle are additions to natural processes. They are going to leave marks, but they will not be understood with false presuppositions.

Miracles can occur in natural, but if one claims scientific evidence for the miracles, then that allows miracles to also be falsified. Science can not disprove a supernatural Flood. Science can disprove claims that the geological column was formed by a Flood.

I hope this makes sense. I kind of rambled near the end.

 

[shernren]

This is where biblical and theological understanding will come in handy. Biblically, miracles are rare in history, even during biblical times. This is why science has always thrived in christian cultures. In the christian worldview, naturalism is the norm. Occasional miracles, therefore, don't affect scientific study. Just because there are resurrections recorded, does not mean we have to throw out our understanding of natural physical death that we've learned from science. As in the illustration I posted earlier it can even aid us in defending the Resurrection.

Some call what you're advocating "scientism." It's the belief that science is the only form of investigation that can be believed. It must remain pure and isolated and can never be mixed with any other methods of examining evidence. This is so obviously not wise. And no this is not what AiG and ICR are advocating.

Well, I can identify with what you're trying to say. But my problem here is one of scale. Take the resurrection. Of the many people who have come back from the dead, most of them are understood by theology to have died again later. There's Enoch and Elijah who disappeared. And of course Jesus was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven. Three male Jewish (with the exception of Enoch) bodies amounts to at the most 300 kg of organic matter disappearing from the earth, from a physical point of view. No biggie. Far more than 300 kg of radioactive matter decays every second on earth. On the other hand, what the YECs are claiming amounts to the divine touch on literally every cubic milimeter and every gram of the existing universe (due to creation), every single living organism alive or ever alive (due to theobiogenesis) and every square milimeter of the Earth's surface (during the global flood). On that scale I don't think you can call it an "occasional miracle". The miracles YECism alleges are cosmic-sized and intensive throughout the entire universe.

We see people dying and not getting up, and that is precisely why we say that Jesus' death and resurrection was "rigged", in a sense. We have a paradigm of the natural against which we can hold up a particular event and say "Okay, this doesn't fit in, but I believe it happened, surely this must have been something supernatural". On the other hand, with what YECism alleges every single atom in the universe has a supernatural origin (besides stellar nucleosynthesis, which by YECism can't have formed the earth anyway, and radiogenic nuclides ). On that scale how are we supposed to be able to assume that anything happens "naturally"?

But somehow, I can see that you can't really draw a neat line down the list of all ideas and say "this is metaphysical, this is physical". What I'm thinking now is that metaphysical beliefs are somehow embodied in physical predictions. We understand that we have abstractions about the nature of reality, and somehow they seem to imply something about things we can observe. I can identify with your example, about how the spear as it went in drew out blood and water and thus shows that Jesus really died.

On one level I know that I will always believe in Jesus' death and resurrection, and so I don't really have need for physical evidence like that (assuming that John's description is completely trustworthy - another metaphysical theory). On the other hand, there is a certain "rightness", if you will, in the fact that it has some kind of logical implication on the physical reality of the universe. It is as if a metaphysical statement should imply a physical theory with some degree of confidence, so much that when the physical theory is proved right the metaphysical statement somehow gains confidence.

Isn't this scientism, to some degree? And even if it is, is it wrong?

I actually like talking with you shernren. I don't agree with you but you make honest arguments.

I am enjoying this discussion as well. Discussions are nice when the primary agenda isn't proving that the other side is wrong.

 

[Mallon]

Ugh! Gone one night and now I've got five or six pages to catch up on...
I think what I want to do first is to set Calminian straight on my (and other TE's) stance on this subject of validating the Bible with science. Simply put: it cannot be done. And you yourself should recognize this, Calminian, as you were arguing at the beginning of the thread that miracles cannot be tested by science; that science is restricted to a naturalistic methodology (msg #25). Yet even after you reject science's role in testing miracles, you go on shortly after to support institutions like AiG and ICR, who claim to be attempting the very sort of research you just denounced. You say they can do so because they start with different presuppositions and are honest in their approach (msg #40). But this is a load of bull.
Case in point: when doing science, we cannot pick and chose which lines of evidence to accept. We must deal with ALL the evidence that is put in front of us and attempt to account for it. AiG, for one, does not do this. Have a look at a book they were recently involved with called "The Grand Canyon: A Different View." In it, they try to make the case that the sediments at the Grand Canyon were deposited during the Flood, and that the sharp contacts between the layers indicate the extremely powerful and erosive nature of the waters. Yet on the next page, they go on to write that the many palaeo-amphibian trackways found in the Canyon layers are also evidence of the Flood (need water to preserve the tracks). Problem is, raging flood waters wash away these impressions -- they do not preserve them. Unfortunately, the book does not deal with this problem, and the authors conventiently toss it off. That's NOT an honest approach, Calminian. Read the book and all the lies they write concerning evolution.
You also state in msg #40:

You irrationally limited yourself to methodological naturalism. Why be irrational? Why limit yourself?

And to that I would answer: Because that's how good science works. Just as so many Christians practice Sola Scriptura in interpreting the Bible with the Bible, so do scientists practice a sort of Sola Natura in interpreting nature with nature. The minute we bring God into the interpretation, we stop doing science. Anyone could use any god they like to interpret anything they like. "Oh, these sediments were left here by God after the Flood. No need for further research." "Oh, the universe is expanding because Vishnu is pushing it apart. Don't look any further." That's not honest science! But PLEASE note again that this type of naturalistic methodology =/= naturalistic theology. One can be a Christian and still do honest science with the understanding that Jesus' resurrection/the Flood/etc. did not leave evidence behind for us to find (i.e. aren't testable by science as AiG and ICR claim). Thinking otherwise puts your faith in danger of falsification.

In any case, I'm beating a dead horse at this point. But I would like to make this final point: the Bible cannot be used as "evidence" in support of its own claims (see msg #40).

 

[Mallon]

Thanks to Remus for the attempt to return to the topic of this thread...

Why would these forests have to have grown during the flood?

Because Creationists like to argue that the geologic column was deposited as a result of the Flood (it's ALL OVER the literature. Read anything by AiG, Ian Juby, ICR, etc.). That's the "evidence" they use in support of the Flood.
Look:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=topics&ID=12
http://www.ianjuby.org/jogginsa.html

Again, why would these be restricted to the flood?

See above.

Are you asking how they were left by the flood?

Yes. How did the "catastrophic" and "raging" waters of the Flood leave behind such delicate trace fossils for us to find?

 

[Remus]

Thanks to Remus for the attempt to return to the topic of this thread...

Because Creationists like to argue that the geologic column was deposited as a result of the Flood (it's ALL OVER the literature. Read anything by AiG, Ian Juby, ICR, etc.). That's the "evidence" they use in support of the Flood.
Look:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=topics&ID=12

http://www.ianjuby.org/jogginsa.html

See above.

Last I heard, the argument that they use was slightly different. They argue that the flood laid down what is perceived to be the geologic column. From what I understand, they dispute that presence of the geologic column as many describe it. I think it goes something like 'the entire geologic column is present only in textbooks'.

Yes. How did the "catastrophic" and "raging" waters of the Flood leave behind such delicate trace fossils for us to find?

You mean how did they survive the flood? I would think that the logical conclusion would be that they were buried prior to the flood and that the flood waters didn't reach them or didn't reach them in a "raging" way. I see no problem here.

 

[Mallon]

Last I heard, the argument that they use was slightly different. They argue that the flood laid down what is perceived to be the geologic column. From what I understand, they dispute that presence of the geologic column as many describe it. I think it goes something like 'the entire geologic column is present only in textbooks'.

Call it what you want, 'geologic column' or not. The fact remains that these Creationist institutions argue that the many layers of rocks we see on Earth (that which geologists refer to as the "geologic column") were deposited by the Flood. Let's put the semantics aside for now.

You mean how did they survive the flood?

No. I mean 'How were they deposited during the Flood?' The abovementioned Creationist organizations argue that the layers of the Grand Canyon were deposited DURING the Flood. So again: how do these trackways get preserved in such raging water? And these types of trace fossils aren't just found in the Grand Canyon; they are found THROUGHOUT the entire "geologic column". That's a major problem for those who believe that the sedimentary rocks we see today were deposited during a raging Flood.

 

[Remus]

Call it what you want, 'geologic column' or not. The fact remains that these Creationist institutions argue that the many layers of rocks we see on Earth (that which geologists refer to as the "geologic column") were deposited by the Flood. Let's put the semantics aside for now.

Actually, it's not a semantics issue. I don't believe they argue this. At least not the way you are stating it. I prefer not to put myself in the position of defending someone else’s arguments, but I'll give it a try. Could you point me to the article that states what you are saying?

No. I mean 'How were they deposited during the Flood?' The abovementioned Creationist organizations argue that the layers of the Grand Canyon were deposited DURING the Flood. So again: how do these trackways get preserved in such raging water? And these types of trace fossils aren't just found in the Grand Canyon; they are found THROUGHOUT the entire "geologic column". That's a major problem for those who believe that the sedimentary rocks we see today were deposited during a raging Flood.

I am going to have to admit that I haven't read all of what you linked, but according to this link:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/grand_canyon.asp
it doesn't look like they are saying that the layers of the Grand Canyon were laid down during the flood. The only layer that I see that they claim was laid down during the flood was the Paleozoic Strata. On a side note, haven't they found a lot of marine fossils in this layer?

 

[Calminian]

I think what I want to do first is to set Calminian straight on my (and other TE's) stance on this subject of validating the Bible with science. Simply put: it cannot be done. And you yourself should recognize this, Calminian, as you were arguing at the beginning of the thread that miracles cannot be tested by science; that science is restricted to a naturalistic methodology (msg #25). Yet even after you reject science's role in testing miracles, you go on shortly after to support institutions like AiG and ICR, who claim to be attempting the very sort of research you just denounced. You say they can do so because they start with different presuppositions and are honest in their approach (msg #40). But this is a load of bull.

You’re still not grasping my point. Did you catch the illustration I on post# 65 where scientific knowledge actually contributes to the validation of the resurrection account? Here it is again.

When it comes to our personal faiths and spirituality then scientific evidence has no place.

This is silly. Science can even give us insights about the Resurrection account. Curious how?

It had been speculated by some skeptics that perhaps Jesus survived his crucifixion. They noted that the record showed his legs were not broken, which was the main way most crucifixion victims were killed. Yet we've learned from medical science that the spear piercing that Christ endured proved He was physically dead. This was from the description of blood and water coming out of his side according to the written account. Therefore Christ must have been truly dead before He was seen alive again by several witnesses. Science, therefore, played a role in destroying another attempt to discredit the greatest miracle of all time.

So there you have it. Scientific evidence plus historical evidence plus theological understanding working together to help us discern the truth about a miracle. Yet you refused to let this happen with the creation account.

Sadly there are people out there that won't believe because they think medical science disproves the Resurrection. Some have decided to make the Resurrection account into an allegory in order to keep their faith alive. Their approach is no different than yours, actually, except they are more consistent.

This is an example of how science, theology and the Bible can all work together. Now, does science by itself prove the resurrection? Of course not. If science is all we had we would have to reject it. But the notion that science must always stand alone in our search for truth is nonsense.

I’m curious if you are mad at those using this argument in defense of the resurrection. Are they abusing science? Are they lying? (being that this is what you accuse creationists of doing when they do the same thing) To be consistent you have to renounce them.

You irrationally limited yourself to methodological naturalism. Why be irrational? Why limit yourself?

And to that I would answer: Because that's how good science works.

Science by itself leads to an irrational worldview. We both agree on this. Do you want to find truth or merely be a good scientist?

Just as so many Christians practice Sola Scriptura in interpreting the Bible with the Bible, so do scientists practice a sort of Sola Natura in interpreting nature with nature. The minute we bring God into the interpretation, we stop doing science.

Correct. But that doesn’t mean the science used didn’t contribute anything. The example above proves that.

In any case, I'm beating a dead horse at this point. But I would like to make this final point: the Bible cannot be used as "evidence" in support of its own claims (see msg #40).

Actually you’re even wrong on this point. Sorry the horse you’ve been beating is made of straw. This is incorrect and a common misunderstanding by those not familiar with the Bible. If it were one book by one author you would have a legitimate claim of circular reasoning. But it is not. It is a collection of corroborative testimonies by over 40 authors spanning 3 continents and thousands of years. This is why I've concluded most scientists are at an extreme disadvantage in this debate. They are steeped in philosophies they are not even aware of. They don’t recognize good evidence even when it’s right under their nose, because they’ve been taught that only science counts as evidence. They would definitely make lousy lawyers. (disclaimer: this is a generalization and not a description of all scientists)

 

[LewisWildermuth]

This is an example of how science, theology and the Bible can all work together. Now, does science by itself prove the resurrection? Of course not. If science is all we had we would have to reject it.

Really? Science says we would have to reject the resurrection? Where did you see that study? I have never seen such a scientific study. Could you provide a link to this study that shows that God could not resurrect someone?

I got a feeling that you just made this up, or listened to someone who did. Anyway, there has been no scientific study that shows God cannot ressurect someone. Now that you have been told this I hope that you will not continue to repeat this untruth in your arguments.

 

[Calminian]

Really? Science says we would have to reject the resurrection? Where did you see that study? I have never seen such a scientific study. Could you provide a link to this study that shows that God could not resurrect someone?

I said if science is all we had. In other words, if we had no corroborative testimonial evidence (the gospels), no historical evidence (Josephus etc.), nothing but science we could never conclude a body can raise from the dead after 3 days.

I got a feeling that you just made this up, or listened to someone who did. Anyway, there has been no scientific study that shows God cannot resurrect someone. Now that you have been told this I hope that you will not continue to repeat this untruth in your arguments.

And likewise no study has been shown that God cannot create a functioning universe is six literal days. Both are miracles.

Nope nothing made up. It's all just basic common sense. I'm surprised you're struggling with it.