First off, you were the one who indicated the superiority of “biblical truth” over sciences. You have also indicated that Bible being more accurate in both history department and science department.
The Bible is only collection of books of belief by people (Jews and then Christians) based on their respective traditions, and accepted through faith, and faith alone.
The Bible was never about historical accuracy or scientific accuracy, that just you and other creationists interpretations of the Bible.
Sciences, particularly physical sciences and natural sciences, developed explanatory and predictive models, based on preliminary observations (evidence) and later more observations through testings (more evidence).
No scientific theory start out with no evidence whatsoever ever, like pure imagination. There are always evidence, before someone start writing the hypothesis, hence preliminary evidence/observation. The preliminary evidence is the starting point that provide ideas to start a hypothesis, which is to explain the phenomena being observed.
A scientific theory is only true and accepted as science, when it has been tested repeatedly (Scientific Method) and all the information (explanation, predictions and evidence-based data) are reviewed by other scientists (Peer Review).
I have never said that scientific theory cannot be changed or cannot be replaced. Of course, you can challenge, change or replaced already accepted theory, sciences allow for it to happen, but any new or alternative model must be supported by new tests or better observable evidence, because scientific theories are not written in stone.
You are still misunderstanding what sciences do and how sciences work.
A scientific theory is the current best explanation science have so far. It allow for modifications of current theories or replace current theories with alternative theories, but only if there are EVIDENCE (hence new information) to support such changes or replacements.
It is what science called progress.
Your ignorance is simply staggering, if you think science have to be static, unchanging.
Take this for example:
To give you example of changing
Back in mid-10th century, was the first recorded discovery of Andromeda, by Muslim astronomer, I don’t remember his name, he observed and describe the feature of Andromeda, all without telescopes.
After the telescope was developed in early 17th century, in the18th century, a French astronomer named Charles Messier have classified Andromeda as a “nebula” located within, not a “galaxy”. Other galaxies were also mis-classified as nebulae.
Between Galileo and before 1919, every astronomers assumed that there was not one galaxy in the universe was the Milky Way.
In 1919, a new and more larger (the largest at that time) and powerful telescope - the Hooker Telescope - was constructed, and Edwin Hubble discovered that all those nebulae including Andromeda and Triangulum weren’t nebulae, but separate galaxies.
Hubble didn’t just discover there were more than one galaxy, but the universe were filled with galaxies, and the universe is even larger than any astronomer (before 1919) ever imagined.
And throughout the rest of the 20th century and the 21st century, new technology enabled scientists and engineers to build even more powerful telescopes than the Hooker Telescope. Radio astronomy, red-shift astronomy, space telescopes, all providing new evidence, and therefore new information about the Andromeda Galaxy and other galaxies that are even more distant than Andromeda.
The points in my example of Andromeda, is that as better technology, it can change what we know and even replaced scientific theory.
In my example, the notion that Andromeda, Triangulum and other objects were nebulae, were replaced by new theory that they are galaxies, all because better technology that provide better observations of the evidence.
What do you think scientists should do? Not learn from new evidence? Not progress forward?
Sciences aren’t fixed, especially when new evidence provide new information. Science must change when new evidence are discovered, or else it would be replaced by alternative evidence.
As to the theory of evolution that you have been trying to get rid of, you have not offer any better alternative. Evolution did change, as biologists were able to implement genetics into evolution, as well as discovering other mechanisms other than Natural Selection (eg genetic drift, mutations, etc). Also better understanding of speciation, when biologists discovered new method for testings - DNA testing. All these strength the theory of evolution, and it isn’t a mess as you have claimed in your earlier replies.
The only mess I see, are coming from Creationism and Intelligent Design. No evidence were found in either, just biblical interpretations and biblical apology.
All you have done, is try to redefine what faith and evidence mean. You have even tried to pathetically equate faith with evidence, hence deliberately try to dishonestly distort both words to suit your biblical truth.
The irony of your OP that you brought up biblical truth, but what many of your replies have shown, you were never honest with us, nor to yourself.
