Agreed, in that the crisis of replication[1] show that science is a religion in @talldayo's sense

[1] https://www.news-medical.net/life-sciences/What-is-the-Repli...

Surely this is due to scientists becoming postmodern since truth becomes "influence of ideology in maintaining political power", so then they loose objectivity, to make themselves look better, and publish whatever does that

@nickpsecurity may like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysEc8SdDLAs Which is by one of the most published scientists in his field, and is great

But my main thought would be that these issues are almost entirely irrelevant to the Christian narrative. Genesis is about our relationship with God. If it was about the early formation of stars, or the universe, then it would be unintelligible and useless information for thousands of years -- how would we then apply it in our lives, even now?

The Genesis narrative does place the main events and their ordering, in a big bang narrative, which is extremly improbable to occur by chance -- light, darkness separated out, earth, oceans, plant life, other life, humans. Particularly when compared to other creation narratives -- for instance the Aztecs believed the earth was devoured by tigers, then the next earth created by a snail going around the sun too slowly and being hit by other animals

If there was an argument to be had, I would say it should be on why there is such a highly improbable level of similarity between the two narratives

But personaly, I would say, Genesis, on our relationship with God, and the state of mankind, is very succinct and impactful; and to me, moving outside that to generate side issues is an argument that doesn't need to happen

If fossils or old earth are true, then we have an awesome God. If they are not true, then that is fascinating aswell. The bible is not affected

Anyway, thats my two cents

Sorry talldayo, and thankyou for your blessing at the end. I was replying to nickpsecurity, rather than you

If you wish to state they have category overlap, which sure, they do, but also the bible is not titled astronomy 101, and in my opinion not even aiming to cover that ground

> Damned if you do, damned if you don't

What I was aiming for was blessed if you do, blessed if you don't. I.e. you may well be completely right on this topic

In anycase, please allow me to reply to one of your other comments

> If fossils or old earth are true, then we have an awesome God. If they are not true, then that is fascinating aswell. The bible is not affected

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. You'll have to pardon me for not taking any of your arguments seriously when this is how you frame them for debate.

I'm done in this thread. You've well made clear that reason is unwelcome, and in it's absence I hope your wily imagination finds peace.

Thanks talldayo. I think you're right to challenge me

Thank you for responding here. I'm always grateful when my family shows up to discuss these things.

"The journal Nature highlighted the scope of the issue in 2016 with a poll of 1,500 scientists. 70% of respondents reported that they had failed to reproduce the results of at least one of their peer’s studies. 87% of chemists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 77% of biologists, 64% of environmental and earth scientists, 67% of medical researchers, and 62% of all other respondents reported this issue. 50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments."

"A 2021 study found that papers with reproducible results tend to be cited less than papers with findings that cannot be replicated in leading journals."

Pretty damning. It's not bad enough to toss out science or treat it all the same. It does justify high skepticism for new, scientific claims until peer review gets to a point where quotes like above are impossible. That is, the ordinary reviews are actually peer review.

re Youtube vid

Thanks! I'll check it out.

"Genesis is about our relationship with God."

It is. There's evidence for both the six day and older model. I went from older model, six day model, and purely poetic. I went with six day on basis of the text itself. If we're wrong, we'll be still be fine because it won't change anything. That said, I did ask the Spirit for a message that harmonizes how six day vs appearance of the Earth fit together. Here it is for bretheren to test as required in 1 Corinthians.

So, let's say a human creator wants to tell a story, like a movie or game. Their design a set with a universe, its laws, a history, characters, and so on. The universe might be billions of years old. The characters might be 80. Do most, content creators try to slowly evolve all that over billions of years by limiting themselves to the mechanics in their imagined universes? Or do they rapidly produce their creation (the set) using their own power (eg tech), start at moments in the story they feel are important, and then move the story along mostly with in-universe laws?

Now getting more empirical, surveying all human creations shows that most human creators rapidly create their universes. They also usually focus the audience on what the creator thinks is most important. We would predict a divine, intelligent designer might do that. God's Word says we do it because we're made in the image of He who did it first. That's six-day creation. From there, God might use any combination of in-universe or supernatural methods to advance creation in the way His story requires. That's my creation theory.

Like you said, that we're knitted in the womb to be characters in God's story is very powerful. By Genesis 3, we know that we have a personal God, objective morality exists, a basic design for human life, why the world stays evil, the love of God greater than anything people have, and hope for our future. It's all very encouraging.

(Note: I could talk with you more in email about the Genesis interpretations and such things. My email is in my profile. I'm trying to keep on clearest points here as you were.)

Clearly I've struck a nerve. Are you unwilling to admit that portions of the Bible are blatantly incorrect and uninterpretable in a veritable sense? Because if so, that would make this a very grueling discussion for you. There are parts of the Bible that are simply wrong, many of which are points I've already raised and you've ignored.

"The rest of us remain mentally-sound skeptics that need better evidence than circular reasoning around the Bible."

Far from skeptics, they believe most things because some authority told them to. I see no evidence that any of you follow the scientific method with skeptical replication and peer review of most claims. Some of you definitely do for some claims, esp professional researchers. If it doesn't use the scientific method, then believing it as if it's probably or definitely true is a faith-based or emotional belief, not science. Christian beliefs are a mix of experiential, evidentiary, faith, and empirical (scientific method).

Why do many atheists act as if all their key beliefs were obtained by empirical investigation when they in fact mostly put faith in people they don't know? Why do they hold us to a standard they don't follow? In my case, I'm happy to discuss any with the caveat that my justification will use whatever is appropriate for that type of belief (eg experiential vs empirical claims).

"There are parts of the Bible that are simply wrong, many of which are points I've already raised and you've ignored."

You've not also not raised any scientific or historical claims. You've only asserted some things are true (argument from authority). I've responded to a few claims. I'm happy to elaborate on the points you asked about. Quick recap of just those, though.

I gave you an evidence page that the Bible is God's Word. The types and number of evidence surpass most claims I see in the daily news. My own belief is based on that evidence (evidentiary), witnessing God act on the world in ways that require divine attributes (empirical), the inner witness caused by the Spirit's activity when hearing the Gospel, both have tons of independent corroboration (replication), how specific sins/obedience produces Bible-predicted results in real world (evidentiary/empirical).

That's quite a combo. Acting on it despite remaining uncertainty is Christian faith. Like any good model, it kept producing good results, had accurate predictions about people, and predictions about trends in the world. That strengthens my faith and rational belief in God's Word. Now your question: What about the unverifiable claims in the Bible?

They're like how atheists believe many claims in history and science without personally investigating or replicating them. They trust the reliability of the source. Then, put faith in their claims, esp non-critical ones. Likewise, we put faith in the Bible's claims due to our trust in the Bible itself. Many of the Bible's claims that intellectuals opposed were later shown to be true externally to the Bible. Other times, using the historical-grammatical method while treating conflicting accounts like other eyewitness testimony works fine with little or no mental gymnastics. (See Cold Case Christianity by Wallace, a homicide detective, for how he evaluated the eyewitness statements.)

re scientific claims

You also brought up "the age of the Earth, the origins of mankind, geocentrism, global flooding, etcetra." Geocentrism isn't in the Bible. Flooding fits the fossil record well but empirically there's multiple possibilities. Whereas, I showed mainstream age of the Earth used many faith-based premises. The biggest is that one can linearly roll back the current, observed behavior of geological structures for millions to billions of years. Never justified in the first place, that was disproven by secular science in geology (catastrophism), data science (non-linear models), and complexity theory (eg phase transitions + emergent behavior). That premise is highly unjustifiable.

Darwin's theory had specific predictions of gradual emergence of species, piles of transitional forms, more streaming than hierarchical in style, and more kinds of animals forming today with just as much differentiation. The actual, fossil record and animals in captivity both refute every one of those predictions. Instead, the fossil record shows creatures appearing out of nowhere in large number (eg Cambrian Explosion). Combined with catastrophism, the mass die-offs might have happened to existing creatures in a short time or over a long period of time.

Empiricism and logic each require you discard a theory immediately when its premises fail like that. Then, build a new theory on real-world observations. Why didn't scientists do either? If they don't, is it still science or more like religious dogma?

The other problem is that most of you don't know these things. Those making curriculums and "science" news didn't tell you that canyons have formed in 3 days, that fossils formed in 24 hours, and that oil could form in hundreds to a few thousand years. In each case, that lots of water and pressure was all it took with some caused by observed floods. If you knew that, you'd have rejected mainstream theories to explore alternatives where our biosphere developed quickly. Alternatively, you'd humbly say you have no idea how young or old the Earth is which is also scientifically valid.

About the rapid development of geological features and fully-formed creatures in fossil record, did you know about these things before today? Did you know mainstream theories absolutely require these things to be impossible? Or did you just learn that things which supposedly take a hundred thousand to millions of years could happen in a time span of 24 hours to a few books of the Bible?

Either way, what do you now think about mainstream science continuing to push age of the Earth and origin of life theories whose premises were disproven by real-world observations?