Agreed, which is why it would be correct to say miracles are logical. It is incorrect to say they are scientific.
The claim you made was that Jesus was "really anti-science." You made a false claim about Jesus, saying that He was/is opposed to science.
Verification goes beyond science.
It depends on the claim of the miracle. If someone claims that the wine of communion literally turns into the blood of Christ, you can test the allegedly transformed substance and determine whether or not it is human blood. Science would tell you that the claim is false, unless the claim is that Jesus had wine for blood.
When someone makes a healing claim -- for instance, that the cancer has been destroyed and it does not exist in their body anymore -- that claim can be verified. Jesus Himself told lepers whom He healed to show themselves to the priests (get objective certification) so that they could rejoin their families. That was science mixed with religion. Most of the priests were hostile to Jesus, so He wasn't sending the lepers to someone who would be predisposed to giving false verification.
You can say a miracle can be verified without saying scientifically verified.
Yes, for certain types of claimed miracles. For instance, the tool for that kind of knowledge would be the knowledge of persons/relationships. If someone experienced a miracle of conversion, their actions will change and your observation and interactions with that person would be affected. It is also knowledge partially derived from observation, but it does not have the same rigor as the scientific method, for the scientific method was not designed to develop knowledge of persons.
This is testimonial verification not scientific verification.
For persons who WITNESSED the resurrected Lord Jesus, it was not testimony, but direct observation. It is more closely tied to knowledge of persons and direct experience.
Exactly what I suspected.
Glad I could meet your expectations.
The reason you say miracles are scientifically valid is because you trust science over Scripture.
Well that's a lie. I don't think you mean to be malicious, but it is still a lie.
That's what leads most in the direction you've gone.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. You seem to have a specific idea about a certain direction I have gone.
Instead of trusting the clear testimony of Scripture on origins, you've deferred to modern uniformitarian assumptions.
Nope, that's another lie. Again, I don't think you intend to be malicious, but I don't think you understand what the scripture actually teaches regarding origins and what science and simple observation shows us. Moreover, I think I trust scripture quite a bit more than you.
Let me give you a book suggestion:
Adam and the Genome
It is probably one of the best books on the subject currently in print. The science takes some brainpower, but if you don't understand it all, don't worry. Just get the sense of it and keep reading. The second half of the book provides one way of thinking about the scripture that takes things quite seriously.