You know the big bang was initially rejected by scientists as being too religious? https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-jesuit-astronomer-who-conceived-of-the

You know the big bang was initially rejected by scientists as being too religious? https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-jesuit-astronomer-who-conceived-of-the-big-bang/ https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-jesuit-astronomer-who-... > age of the Earth Heavens and the earth are created, and light and dark are separated out before the first day listed in Genesis1.5. So total length of time is unstated. The length of the day is also unspecified, see Hebrews3, which shows that those 7 days are still in effect "Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts, as you did in the rebellion, in the day of testing in the wilderness, where your fathers tested and tried Me, and for forty years saw My works." Heb3. An example where day means 40 years, and today means an unspecified period of time longer than 24hours The bible has no proclamations on the age of the earth or geocentrism. Unless you're Calvinist (and not many people are), God is also not used as an explanation for determinism Global flooding, I would argue is roughly the same as the issue of "day". If everything was flooded as far as you could see in every direction, you would say everything was flooded. It would be silly to misconstrue that. You know that the Black Sea floor was inhabited and catastrophically flooded around the time of Noah? Noah and vast portions of the bible are supported by archeology You dismiss examples that many Christians already dismiss. That is corroboration > Not to get too far off in the weeds I like the weeds. Just some quick thoughts: > religious interpretation over logic Do you know that the best basis we have for logic (set theory) was said by Georg Cantor to be given to him as a revelation by God, to help us understand God better? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor I think the universe cannot provide a foundation for logic without being cycilical. For instance explain axioms, without using axioms. They simply exist, without possible explanation. Quines are possible (uses an external transformer to re-create itself), but a self-explaining system without external help, is as possible as a perpetual motion machine. All systems we have require an external force to exist, including logic How can you argue postmodernism is more logical? To quote wikipedia "postmodernism ... rejects the certainty of knowledge and stable meaning, and acknowledges the influence of ideology in maintaining political power. The idea of objective claims is dismissed" In postmodernism you loose stability and objectivity > a better education than a penitent mindset Jesus didn't advocate for this, a penitent mindset would hardly be good news. @nickpsecurity explains this well on his website But thankyou for your comments!