[Zionist Conspirator]

I'm still trying to figure out why a literal six day creation that concluded just 5769+ years ago is any more irrational than a virgin birth.

I just might have something to do with the fact that we have the earth and, oh the whole rest of the universe, to examine in regard to the facts of its creation. Mary's not around anymore (nor any Jesus DNA) to examine scientifically.

If you can determine from the universe as it exists today that it could not have been created in six days 5769+ years ago because of the uniformitarian assumption, then you must also reject the virgin birth because such things simply don't happen. If you are going to exempt the virgin birth from the uniformitarian assumption, then you must logically exempt the creation of the universe from it as well.

The same uniformitarianism that insists that the natural processes that exist today formed the universe naturally after a single "instant" of supernatural creation must logically insist that J*sus have been conceived and born just like every other human being who has ever lived. Laws of nature, you know.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Yes, I know the laws of nature very well. That's the whole point. We can examine the earth and come to a very good conclusion that it is way older than 6,000 years. It's probably even older than Helen Thomas. But unless we can examine Mary and/or Jesus' DNA, we can't be sure, scientifically, that He was conceived of a virgin.

The point is miracles happen. We have all the evidence in the world (literally) that whereas the creation of the Universe may have been a miracle (probably was, as tricks go it's a damn good one), it's not a 6,000-year-old miracle. At this point in time there is no way to tell that the miracle of the Virgin birth happened. Scientific Method working with the Laws of Nature, you know.

[Kandy]

If you can determine from the universe as it exists today that it could not have been created in six days 5769+ years ago because of the uniformitarian assumption, then you must also reject the virgin birth because such things simply don't happen. If you are going to exempt the virgin birth from the uniformitarian assumption, then you must logically exempt the creation of the universe from it as well. Are you saying that the creation of the universe (however long it took - being after all, scripturally, it is stated that a "day is like a thousand years" and vice versa), by a God with no beginning and no end, is something that can ever be completely or literally understood even by "formitarian" facts that of themselves (as well as the human mind itself doing the interpreting) are of a completely different and limited categorical dimension than the subject being studied itself?? Absurdity!

[reaganaut]

post #43 ping.

[reaganaut]

post #43 ping.

[mrreaganaut]

“The same uniformitarianism...” blah, blah, blah... “Laws of nature, you know.”
________________________________________________________

Yes, yes, we ‘know’ the laws of nature, but you said it yourself: we rely on the uniformitarian ASSUMPTION. This merely asserts the limits of our knowledge, but does not and cannot command the universe to conform to our understanding. Ultimately, it, too, is a matter of faith, as can be demonstrated by a simple thought experiment.

Let’s say that through a time machine you could monitor Mary for the entire year before the birth of our Lord. In this process, you could not find a single incident that would lead to conception, and yet she gives birth. Would you have ‘proved’ the virgin birth, or would you fall back on your faith in your assumption and say that something natural occurred which we do not as yet understand?

Obviously proof is irrelevant to those who will not believe; the problem is that skeptics fail to understand that they have just as much stubborn faith as anybody else.

[Patriot4ever]

A creator powerful enough to move matter and energy in a way to create the world and all life on it, can do anything he wants, to include immaculate conception.