I'm not surprised.
There are however miracles such as the Virgin Birth that are singular events that violate scientific principles, but that is the very nature of a miracle, without which it would not be a miracle. They are miracles because they are singular and non-repeatable, and therefore outside the realm of science, which is the examination of measureable and repeatable events. Science does not contradict the belief in the miraculous, rather, the miraculous is outside the limits of science.
The only thing more palpably oppressive in your post than your hypocrisy is your apparent ignorance of it.
You insist that "singular miracles" are outside science--yet you also insist that the Creation of the Universe, an event which by the very nature of things is the most singularly miraculous non-repeatable "outside the laws of science" event that ever happened, is subject to the laws of uniformitarian, naturalistic science, and you would sooner reject the Bible than that science. Pray tell how the ex nihilo Creation of Everything from Nothing comes within the purview of science while the virgin birth does not.
Your charges of hypocrisy and other over-inflated rhetoric makes it difficult to have a reasonable, sincere discussion with you about these issues. Can you have a conversation with me that gives me some benefit of the doubt, and in which you listen with some generosity before jumping to conclusions? I am not asking you to agree with me, just to hear me out. It seems to me that you box me into straw man positions that do not represent what I am actually stating. How do you suggest I deal with that problem so that you can understand where I’m coming from? Do you want to understand? I’m not asking for agreement, just an understanding before you disagree, so that you are clear about what you are disagreeing with.
Isaiah 7 (Hebrew Names Version)
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, an almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu'el.
from the Hebrew
5959 `almah al-maw' feminine of 5958; a lass (as veiled or private):--damsel, maid, virgin.
1) virgin, young woman
a) of marriageable age
b) maid or newly married
++++However.... there is also no reason to disregard the other options for the use of the word almah, instead of the word bthuwlaw, which unlike the word used in Isaiah, has only one meaning. Virgin!
There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. (TWOT)
from the Hebrew
1330 bthuwlah beth-oo-law' feminine passive participle of an unused root meaning to separate; a virgin (from her privacy); sometimes (by continuation) a bride; also (figuratively) a city or state:--maid, virgin.
1) virgin
Had the author of Isaiah wanted to make sure that everyone knew the young woman was a technical virgin, he would have used the word that actually meant, a technical virgin, instead of a word that could be taken to mean, young woman, or lass.
'parthenos' is not used exclusively for 'a virgin', the LXX verse below refers to Dinah as 'parthenos' after she was raped by Shechem in Gen 34:3.
English Translation -- from the Greek 3933 virgin
Original Word -- parqevnoß
Transliterated Word -- parthenos
parthenos 1 from an online greek dictionary (you'll have to scroll down towards the bottom)
* I. a maid, maiden, virgin, girl, Hom., etc.
* 2. Parthenos, as a name of Athena at Athens, of Artemis, etc.
* II. as adj. maiden, virgin, chaste, parthenon psuchên echôn Eur.: metaph., p. pêgê Aesch.; parthenoi triêreis maiden, i. e. new, ships, Ar.
* III. as masc., parthenos, an unmarried man, NTest.
[deriv. uncertain] 1 parqe/nos, h(,
Not only that, but:
Justin Martyr admits that christianity offers nothing new, that the pagans and their pagan gods didn't already have.
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth45 of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus.Justin Martyr gives a point, by point, by point, accounting of the similarities between paganism and the 'new religion'. Its the same thing under a new name.But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide
Moreover, the Son of God called Jesus, even if only a man by ordinary generation, yet, on account of His wisdom, is worthy to be called the Son of God; for all writers call God the Father of men and gods. And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated.
And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.