I won't go back over these bits again, there's no point in restating the role of philosophy (world-view), the acceptance of things unprovable, and so forth. Majority opinion prevails, right? So long as it is the right majority, anyway. Don't bother to question or wonder or think critically. In what way is the evolution of species central to all of modern biology? What has it contributed or accomplished? What has actually been learned from all the resources dedicated to research on origins? Regarding this big old cosmos, the fact is, I believe you can ask any competent astronomer or cosmologist who knows their stuff, "is a geocentric universe possible or impossible, given what we now know" and the honest answer will be "possible." I'm sure your expert will think it highly unlikely, surely not the case, probably absurd or distasteful, but given what we now know, any answer of "impossible" is either misinformed or dishonest. You can ask your cosmetologist whatever you want.

: No one, as far as I know, disagrees that you have a right to believe what you wish. I will go with the scientists.

I'd rather go with the science, not the scientists, but then that is just the problem.

: Several months ago, I was asked for my views on the virgin birth elsewhere. Here was my response - I wouldn't change a word:
: -----
: 1. How many human beings would you say have lived on earth? (I would say about 100 billion, give or take a few billion).
: 1a: How many of these would you say were born of virgins? (I would say, a very small number).
: 2. What does Paul say about the virgin birth? (I would say, nothing).
: 3. What does Mark say about the virgin birth? (I would say, nothing).
: 4. What does John the apostle, who presumably looked after Mary after Jesus' death, say about the virgin birth? (I would say, nothing).
: 5. Matthew says that the virgin birth fulfills a verse from Isaiah. Did the verse to which he refers fortell a virgin birth? (I would say, nope).
: 6. Luke, a gentile and presumably a former pagan, was very familair with virgin birth as it was a popular pagan belief in his day. Could this have anything to do with his story of a virgin birth? (I would say, ya never know).
: 7. Did Jesus ever claim to have been born of a virgin? (I would say, not that I have ever heard of).
: 8. Is God capable of impregnating a woman through the power of the Holy Spirit? (I would say, absolutely).
: -----
: Let's compare notes, caf. How would your answers differ?

My answer? Jesus was uniquely born of a virgin, a Jewish woman named Mary, by the power and plan of God. The prophet Isaiah had foretold the event 700 years before it happened, and the New Testament writers Matthew and Luke gave accurate historical testimony about the fact (the fact that Isaiah's text was definitely understood as referring to a virgin birth in the 3rd century BC, long before Matthew and Luke wrote of it, was already established back in post #695 several days ago).

Isaiah was not the first to foreshadow the virgin birth. The first intimation is in Genesis 3:15 when God said that He would "... put enmity Between you (the serpent) and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." (NASU) I know, there's a notion that God wasn't supposed to talk about biology to the uninformed, and most ancient peoples didn't know the woman had a "seed", but somehow that slipped in. As Paul said in another context, not "seeds" plural, but "seed" as one. And Paul seems to have alluded to this promise when he said, "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law," (Gal 4:4 from New International Version). At least, I think that's an allusion.

Luke didn't describe the sort of birth at all that the pagans associated with visits from their gods, whom they perceived as super-physical beings that had intercourse with attractive human women. He didn't write as a "former pagan" but as an informed believer. He was careful of his sources (Luke 1:1-4). He talked to eye-witnesses who experienced the things he reported. I suppose that he investigated (his word) during his protracted visit to Jerusalem and Caesarea that commenced in Acts 20-21 and continued through Acts 27, more than two years. He most likely had in hand a copy of Mark, perhaps of Matthew, probably of other extant written testimonies no longer available. I even expect he had the opportunity to talk to Mary, who would've been about 80 at that time, since he makes so many references to her thoughts and feelings, but he certainly had opportunity to talk to her living sons at that time, including James the elder.

Did Jesus ever claim to have been born of a virgin? I'd say yes, because he instructed Matthew and the other apostles to teach what he had taught them (Matthew 28:16-20) and he always consistently claimed exactly one Father (even when talking to Mary and Joseph, Luke 2:48-50), and a mother and brothers. His language about relationships displays the fact that while he could count others who followed God as his mother and brothers, he did not count anyone except God as his father (notice Matthew 12:46-50, Mark 3:32-35, Luke 8:19-21, John 5:17-18). John many times reports Jesus claiming God as his father in a particular unique and direct way (See John 8:25-30, 38-43), including his own affirmation that Jesus was begotten by God (John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18).

While essay may be indefinite about the virgin birth, the Bible is not indefinite at all, and it is reasonable to believe that consistent testimony with confidence.