Am I a fence sitter for being Agnostic?

[Himster]

The maths is correct because we see it only from where they are now

No, we don't see where the stars are now. We see where they were thousands, millions or billions of years ago because that's how long it takes for light to travel those distances. To look at the night sky is to literally look back through time.
So yes, we know with absolute certainty that the universe is absolutely not a few thousand years old. We know it with the same certainty that the earth is round or that the Earth orbits the sun. Or do you also insist that these basic scientific facts are also false somehow?

[Bethrezen]

It's easy to be religious and apply custom logic to every argument.

Can I try now?

"God makes the rules, so he can teleport things into the Universe, just like you can teleport and manipulate items, when editing a Heroes 3 map.
God can do anything, he can cease to exist, then be reborn, he can make a rock so heavy he could not lift it, and yet, he could still lift it, etc. He can edit/create/delete physics laws as he sees fit.

<insert any other atheist and blasphemous question here>
Because he can."

[Bethrezen]

The reason why Abrahamic religions were so successful is because they created the ultimate superhero.
The superhero who could beat all other superheroes.
Where other superheroes could only control water, or the air, or the fire, or the dead, this one could control everything.
The superhero with all the superpowers.
You can't possibly imagine a superhero above the ultimate superhero: God.

[Himster]

Well, try looking at it this way that God is faster than the speed of light

That doesn't matter. Light is not faster than the speed of light. So when we look at the stars we can see them as they were billions of years ago. There's no getting around the fact that it takes billions of years for like to travel billions of lightyears.

Meanwhile these stars were giving off their light from the moment He made them to do that and so as He spread them over the galaxies that light never failed to be seen from the earth because it was never switched off.

Utter gibberish.
If the stars were created 6000 years ago and even if they were created shining immediately then we would still only be able to see stars under 6000 light years away, meaning light that is 6000 years old. However, we can see older light from stars, stars that're further away and we see them as they were billions of years ago.

The maths is correct because we see it only from where they are now

No, we cannot see any stars as they are now. We can only see them as they were thousands or millions or billions of years ago, depending on how many lightyears away they are. We can't even see our own star as it is, we can only see it as it was 8 minutes ago.

[conon394]

All creation is in a fallen state now and one day it will not exist being replaced by another far better one.

All of creation why exactly again?

[conon394]

Sorry if this a repost can't tell if my posts are being submitted.

All creation is in a fallen state now and one day it will not exist being replaced by another far better one

Why is all creation in a fallen state again?

[TheLeft]

Well, try looking at it this way that God is faster than the speed of light and would have to be since He is the original light that lit the earth before He made the sun, moon and stars.

It's almost as if you didn't read a single word that I posted. I've explained to you why nothing can travel quicker than the speed of light a couple of times now. I think I'd get a more sensible reaction from my Cat.

Ever thought why He clouded the earth in mist and a water firmament and the answer is simple. On making these planets or stars close to the earth would have done incalculable damage to what He already made so that firmament protected the earth.

No. I've never wondered why God did anything, because I'm an atheist.

Meanwhile these stars were giving off their light from the moment He made them to do that and so as He spread them over the galaxies that light never failed to be seen from the earth because it was never switched off. No matter where one stood on the planet one could see stars doing what God had made them for.

Again, I've explained to you why stars can't be thrown around like tennis balls. I'm not doing that for the third time. Next time, try reading what other people post. It makes discussions so much easier.

The maths is correct because we see it only from where they are now looking at it from the outside in rather than from the inside to out.

You can't just say your maths are correct without showing your work. So please by all means, post your maths. I'll happily look into any mathematical equations that prove what you are saying.

[basics]

TheLeft,

Don't know why but my response to you was not registered as a posting yet it is there. That said the marvelous thing about God and His amazing ability is in the original Hebrew word for moved which can be translated as fluttering meaning more activity than moved. It gives a better picture of God's ability in the Spirit to be all places almost at once. Of course the Father oversees all this from His throne and so doesn't need Himself to be in immediate contact as His Spirit does that for Him so there insn't one iota of anything that can bypass Him. He was the original light when the words were pronounced being replaced by the sun, moon and stars in the following days and once they were in place and all was up and running He rested from that work because creation was finished.

[basics]

Very soon we Christians will celebrate Easter and have great cause to do so, why? Because Jesus Christ did die on a cross, was buried and rose again to life just as is written. Seen by over four hundred in the immediate time after so that we might know and be secure in that knowledge through faith that He lives. Were He not alive how is it that so many ever since have seen Him over the centuries in dream and vision? Why are people of all persuasions being healed in His name even in this day and age? Indeed, how does modern educated man come to know God if He doesn't exist?

[Bethrezen]

Very soon we Christians will celebrate Easter and have great cause to do so, why? Because Jesus Christ did die on a cross, was buried and rose again to life just as is written. Seen by over four hundred in the immediate time after so that we might know and be secure in that knowledge through faith that He lives. Were He not alive how is it that so many ever since have seen Him over the centuries in dream and vision? Why are people of all persuasions being healed in His name even in this day and age? Indeed, how does modern educated man come to know God if He doesn't exist?

Sure, ok, anything else to add?

[Genghis Skahn]

Genghis Skahn,

How can it be odd when Jesus Christ Who is God said that a man must be born agin of the Spirit of God to enter heaven? He also said that the pathway there is so narrow that few get in. I only repeat what is written and therefore am doing what is expected of me by Christ Jesus.

Now as far as the age of the earth is concerned again I take God's word on that and the reason for that is that when God made all things in the six days, resting on the seventh, all things were mature and up and running. In doing so anyone using dating methods have to come up with measurements way beyond God's timing. Things that were once accepted as needing millions of years to be what they are are now seen quite differently because it never took millions of years to make them. Rock, diamonds, coal, stalagmites and tites can all be made in days not millions of years. That's the power of Almighty God.

1. As is often the case with different denominations of Christianity, what it comes down to is a difference in interpretation of the scriptures. Your obscure denomination interprets this "born again" passage in a different manner than say, Catholics(and several other major denominations), by suggesting that being consciously "born again" is the only way to cleanse one's self of Original Sin. Catholics and several other major Christian denominations disagree with your interpretation, by suggesting that baptism alone at birth is enough to cleanse one of Original Sin. According to them, one can be cleansed of Original Sin without this weird "born again" phenomenon(and trust me, having been raised Catholic, the phrase "born again" holds much less spiritual significance than in your own denomination; in fact, it's almost never used--it seems to be a protestant buzzword, from my experience). As you stated in the past, you disagree with this interpretation and feel that baptism doesn't cleanse one of Original Sin, which is fringe belief amongst many Christians. For this reason, I(and other posters) can rightly claim that you belong to an obscure minority of Christianity--though the way you speak so confidently about it, you'd think that yours was the one true version of Christianity(nobody has ever claimed that before, and no wars have ever been started due to that belief, amirite? That should give you an idea of how venemous such beliefs are...).

And no, you are not "doing what is expected of me by Christ Jesus"--you are doing what you believe to be expected of you by Christ Jesus. Again I say, that your denomination of Christianity is not the only one on earth. Other denominations believe they have different expectations in regards to Christ Jesus than your own. Also, other denominations do not necessarily believe that the pathway to heaven is so narrow that only a few get in(for example, several family members of mine would vehemently disagree with you over this)... Once again, this can all be explained by different interpretations of the scripture and different religious practices/beliefs performed by different denominations. I imagine that Chinese and Japanese Christians have some notable differences in their beliefs and practices than your own. I ask you, despite these differences, does that mean they are any less Christian and any less deserving of heaven, salvation, etc., than yourself? Well, according to your odd version of Christianity, if they haven't been "born again"(one of my least favorite Christian buzzwords), then the answer is decidedly yes...

2. That's a really really really lame counterargument against radioactive dating. If God created all things, then he also created math, which man has so graciously made such good use of. Mind pointing out the passage in the bible where God says math is the devil's instrument and not to be trusted? Why is it ok to use math for counting money but not for dating the earth itself? Why are some mathematical equations or procedures totally acceptable in your religious mind(for example, I think you'd be accused of being an inadequate parent if you told your children that 2+2 doesn't equal 4, or that counting numbers is a sin--even the bible has numerical scriptures) but others are heretical and meant to deceive man into straying from the righteous path? And hey, for argument's sake let's say I actually believe that God created the universe in six days... How does that, in any way, shape or form, disprove the idea that the world is billions of years old? How do you know that he didn't just create the earth billions of years ago instead(to be clear you don't, other than the disproven claims that the world was made 6000-7000 years ago)? We can mathematically verify that the earth is billions(not millions) of years old, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Again, I ask, why would God, who created math, which when calculated properly is always 100% correct, deceive man in regards to radioactive dating?

I find it rather funny how you are totally ok with math being used constantly in human society and daily life for things such as money, medicine, engineering, rockets, warfare etc., but when radioactive dating is used to measure the age of the earth, you suggest it's all bollocks and meant to deceive man into mistrusting God's word. Sorry, but you can't pick and choose when it comes to math like that. It's not logically consistent. Please explain how radioactive dating is mathematically incorrect or logically inconsistent; otherwise, your argument holds no real water outside of some bible quotes, because radioactive dating can objectively confirm that the earth is much older than 6000 years old. Saying that "God made them appear as if they were billions of years old" isn't convincing anyone but the choir.

Don't know why but my response to you was not registered as a posting yet it is there. That said the marvelous thing about God and His amazing ability is in the original Hebrew word for moved which can be translated as fluttering meaning more activity than moved. It gives a better picture of God's ability in the Spirit to be all places almost at once. Of course the Father oversees all this from His throne and so doesn't need Himself to be in immediate contact as His Spirit does that for Him so there insn't one iota of anything that can bypass Him. He was the original light when the words were pronounced being replaced by the sun, moon and stars in the following days and once they were in place and all was up and running He rested from that work because creation was finished.

Uh, right and how does any of that suggest that God created the world 6000-7000 years ago? Terrible arguments are terrible. Also--if God was finished with creation, then why are new species, strains and subspecies still emerging? Doesn't seem like creation has ended quite yet...

[basics]

Genghis Skahn,

Jesus Himself being God told the Jewish leader, " A man must be born again of the Spirit of God to enter heaven." Now these are not my words but God's. So why did He say that to this leader who had come to Him in the night not wanting his associates to know? The answer lies in the fact that man cannot work himself into heaven nor can any church system. In other words it has to be the Supernatural act of God that takes away the sins of men and that sealed by the Holy Spirit who indwells them the moment they are born again. The Jewish leader didn't understand that nor could he being invested with salvation by works.

So what is being born again about? Jesus said, " No man can come to the Father except by Me and no man can come to Me except the Father draws him." Therefore in the drawing God the Spirit reveals Jesus' actions on the cross to them bringing on repentence in that person to realise that being condemned they need Jesus to be the One Whose shed blood did take away their sin. A child cannot know the depth of their sin so being sprinkled with water cannot make the slightest difference to them. Appealing to Mary or any so-called saint for that forgiveness has no value since not one iota of their blood was shed for anyone, being only themselves sinners saved assuming all these so-called saints were saved. When Jesus said " I am the Way, the truth and the Life," He meant it just as He said that the path is so narrow that few get through to enter heaven.

As there is only one way to be a Christian it matters not what creed or nation a person belongs to because it is God that will call them out in accordance to what He has had written. The application of the Gospel is the power of God to save and as Paul told the Galatians it has to be the same Gospel that he preached because anything else is no Gospel at all adding that it carries a curse if it is different.

In answer to your last point about creation God had Moses write it all down so that the Israelites would know how and why they came into being but not exclusively now as we know also. So, in making all things up and running for sure our measurements of today are going to give willd estimates in their readings. It's funny that one dead animal fossil when measured gave different answers when measured at either end that being hundreds of thousands of years. It never fails to amaze me that the preponderance of atheists on these threads are ex Roman Catholics and yet you are all supposedly Christian by your baptisms. It shows the strength of that system does it not?

As for new species that is not true for when God finished His work in Creation He declared it all finished. Therefore if creatures appear as they do, they already existed within their kind from creation.

[Genghis Skahn]

Jesus Himself being God told the Jewish leader, " A man must be born again of the Spirit of God to enter heaven." Now these are not my words but God's. So why did He say that to this leader who had come to Him in the night not wanting his associates to know? The answer lies in the fact that man cannot work himself into heaven nor can any church system. In other words it has to be the Supernatural act of God that takes away the sins of men and that sealed by the Holy Spirit who indwells them the moment they are born again. The Jewish leader didn't understand that nor could he being invested with salvation by works.

You apparently didn't read my post, or otherwise you missed the part about different interpretations of the scripture. The part in bold may be God's words(supposedly) but do not pretend as if your denomination of Christianity does not have a different interpretation of this passage than other denominations do. Many other Christian sects outside of your own consider Baptism as a symbolic rebirth in the spirit of God, so by that interpretation, this passage of the bible which you are so obsessed with, this requirement is fulfilled entirely.

A child cannot know the depth of their sin so being sprinkled with water cannot make the slightest difference to them. Appealing to Mary or any so-called saint for that forgiveness has no value since not one iota of their blood was shed for anyone, being only themselves sinners saved assuming all these so-called saints were saved. When Jesus said " I am the Way, the truth and the Life," He meant it just as He said that the path is so narrow that few get through to enter heaven.

Once again, that is your interpretation of things. It's an interpretation which many Christians disagree with. Many, many Christian sects fully endorse and believe that baptism cleanses one of sin and represents a spiritual rebirth. In fact, most of the oldest sects of Christianity believe as such. And yet you have the audacity to state some BS about Paul and the Galatians following the true gospel, despite belonging to a rather new sect of Christianity, which by it's own youth, is likely following a MUCH more corrupted form of the gospel than the one Catholics and Eastern Orthodox worshipers adhere to.

As there is only one way to be a Christian

About a hundred different denominations of Christianity would disagree with you. Your version of Christ is not the one true version of Christianity, regardless of what you believe.

It's funny that one dead animal fossil when measured gave different answers when measured at either end that being hundreds of thousands of years.

I have no idea what you mean by this and I'm pretty sure that this statement confirms that you don't even understand(or even care to understand) how radioactive dating works. If you're criticizing the standard deviation associated with radioactive dating, then your argument is terrible and it shows just how little you understand mathematics or statistics... Besides that, it's not just "one fossil", we've found thousands upon thousands of them, many of them with widely varying dates. Moreover, fossils are not a requirement of radioactive dating, despite your fixation on them; rock itself can be radioactively dated. The Canadian Shield is over 3.96 Billion years old, which is much older than any fossil found yet on earth... But hey, that mass spectrometer must be an instrument of the devil designed to deceive man, amirite? His word is almighty after all, surely it's all just a trick meant to deceive us into believing that the world isn't 6000 years old.

It never fails to amaze me that the preponderance of atheists on these threads are ex Roman Catholics and yet you are all supposedly Christian by your baptisms. It shows the strength of that system does it not?

1. It's a system which is fully endorsed by the bible--why do you think John The Baptist was so dedicated to baptisms? FFS Jesus himself was baptized. Very few Christian denominations view baptisms in such a belittling manner outside of your own bizarro version of Christianity. Mormons, Jehovahs, Christadelphians, The Churches of Christ, Baptists, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Lutherans(and likely more) all suggest and believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, and associated with the washing away of sin and spiritual rebirth... Would you tell me why your obscure version of Christianity is correct over theirs again? Just wondering.
2. No, it really doesn't. That's just a projection on your part, and not an argument in the slightest. It's just more indirect bashing of any Christian(or unbeliever) who doesn't subscribe to your own sect. What you're doing here is called sample bias, btw.

Therefore if creatures appear as they do, they already existed within their kind from creation.

No, that's just not true. That's not how evolution works(not that you believe in it, let alone understand it or care to understand it).

[basics]

Genghis Skahn,

There are two ways Scripture can be read but there is only one way it can be truly and properly understood. Peter writes that it can only be understood by the inner workings of the Holy Spirit in the person doing the reading. In other words as Jesus said, a person born again of the Spirit of God. The other way is by the dead letter which has no Spiritual input. John the Baptist made the difference between his baptising in water and what Jesus would do as his was only a preparation whilst Jesus' imputing of the Holy Spirit was the secure knowledge that a person had been saved. So, when born again believers get baptised this is their announcing to the world that Jesus Christ is their Saviour and Lord and coming out of the water is a symbol of Him coming out of the grave. The message is believe and be baptised, not be baptised and then believe. So, the crux comes down to this, is Jesus God and does His word stand above any other description or meaning of what He said? " A man must be born again of the Spirit of God to enter heaven."

Have to take the dog out as he has perched his head on my lap thus interfering with my typing so I'll get back to you later.

[basics]

Genghis Skahn,

When Jesus told the parables of the wheat and tares or the sheep and goats He was emphasising that many have entered the field or pen but are not saved nor are they truly Christian. When asked if they should be ripped out He answered saying no for the angels at the last day will do that. He said that many will cry out that they did this in His name and that in His name yet He will cast them out into outer darkness, why? Because none were born again of the Spirit of God meaning that He neither knew them personally or they Him. Therefore is it surprising that a tare looks far better than an ordinary sheaf of wheat yet their fruit is poisonous to them that eat it. Clearly this happens in the case of false Gospel providers as Paul itterates to the Galatians for their gospel is not of Christ nor of Paul's preaching. Now your problem is that the conglomeration of so-called churches which adhere to infant baptism are the tares whose gospel is poisonous simply because they ignore what God has said on the subject, watering it down so that numbers count. That problem gets bigger when Jesus said that the path is so narrow that few get in.

Yes, Jesus was baptised by John and when John cried Lord it is you that should be baptising me Jesus replied, " let it be for now," So, what's more important, being baptised by the Holy Spirit or being baptised with water? Clearly He was fulfilling John's role in preparing the way for Jesus so that no man could accuse Him of being a hypocrite.

Now getting around to the age of the earth I stand by the Bible's timeline and all that God told Moses to write on the subject. John tells us that there was nothing created that was not created by Jesus Christ. The first words in Scripture tell us that Elohim a plural word created everything and when it was finalised He rested on the seventh day. All was up and running as a mature planet and surrounding system. It didn't take God billions of years to do that nor does it take man billions of years to make diamonds or coal or stalagmites or to fossilise anything. I have many books written by scientists who believe from their investigations and studies that the Biblical explanation is by far the safest to believe. I know a little about bangs or explosions and not one ever came about without chaos and yet we are made to believe that one big bang brought about all the order that our universe reveals. Out of the so-called bang we live on a water soaked planet yet where are all the others? God made everything to its kind and that hasn't changed ever whether plant or animal or human. No my friend, it is you that has got it all wrong.

[TheLeft]

TheLeft,

Don't know why but my response to you was not registered as a posting yet it is there. That said the marvelous thing about God and His amazing ability is in the original Hebrew word for moved which can be translated as fluttering meaning more activity than moved. It gives a better picture of God's ability in the Spirit to be all places almost at once. Of course the Father oversees all this from His throne and so doesn't need Himself to be in immediate contact as His Spirit does that for Him so there insn't one iota of anything that can bypass Him. He was the original light when the words were pronounced being replaced by the sun, moon and stars in the following days and once they were in place and all was up and running He rested from that work because creation was finished.

I don't even know where to begin replying to this gibberish. It's now apparent that it is utterly pointless to try and argue with you as anything I say will be completely ignored in favour of more unsubstantiated fundamentalist claptrap.

I'll give you some advice. If you want to have a discussion, try actually reading what other people post.

[basics]

I don't even know where to begin replying to this gibberish. It's now apparent that it is utterly pointless to try and argue with you as anything I say will be completely ignored in favour of more unsubstantiated fundamentalist claptrap.

I'll give you some advice. If you want to have a discussion, try actually reading what other people post.

TheLeft,

I have read what other people wrote or write and I understand where you are coming from yet I have to still insist that you are all wrong because nothing can make anything as the big bang is supposed to have done. I said that the maths were correct as we see it now but it couldn't have been that way before, why? Because of the intricasy that surrounds all things and is in all things that a huge explosion could not do. Why is the earth so different from any other planet? How do all the laws of anything apply to a chaotic explosion and why is there light at all? Oh, you can all fling in your arguments but as yet you can't explain why it is so mathematical yet you grasp some maths but as yet don't provide why? God was there when He made all things and did so in the most numerical and mathematical order yet you wilfully refuse to see it not because of the maths but because you refuse to believe there is a God to Whom you are responsible.

[Cyclops]

...

Why is all creation in a fallen state again?

No answer. I will have a stab.

1. The OT as a muddle of bronze age memories and iron age lierature (including propaganda, aspirational legal fantasies, erotic poetry and a lot of contradictions) but generally agrees on a few points: there's no afterlife, God is an arbitrary tribal chieftain (sometimes angry, sometimes indulgent) who approves and enforces Patriarchy and the world (and the things in it) are generally good. Owning slaves is good, having sex is good (including raping your enemies wives), wine is good and so on.

2. In the collision with Hellenism the texts and praxis of Judaism encountered with a whole bunch of other questions, and became infected with a number of ideas. Chief culprit is Augustine of course but its happening earlier (the Essenes seem to respond to a lot of curly Greek questions).

In particular dualist Gnostic ideas about another world being better than this one latched on to the old misogyny creating a pretty nasty mess where the body and women and this world are bad, and the mind and men and the next world are better.

So a good Christian can honestly say "this world is fallen, will be destroyed etc" despite God saying this world and all the things in it are good. The Bible as a collation of texts contains so many contradictions it can be made to say both "yes" and "no" to almost anything.

I'm sure here are other timelines where Judaism becomes a matriarchal cult (with minimal editing of existing texts, maybe less than the current constellation has suffered), or a polytheistic sex religion, or even a solemn agnostic philosophic tradition. I mean the old Near eastern religious tradition has given us Babylonian priest kings, Egyptian God Kings, time serving Hellenic public servant priesthoods, rabbis, Popes and Caliphs. Just within Christianity the mutations are endless, with prophets (false and otherwise), monarchs, polygamists, celibates, anchorites, communists, suicidal zealots and boring apparatchiks.

Its all in there, you just have to pick and choose.

[basics]

conon394,

What do you mean again as our fallen state hasn't altered since Adam fell from grace?

Cyclops,

Where does the Old Covenant say there is no afterlife? When God declared His creation as good that was before the fall which brought about His curse on all things, why? Because Adam like you had been persuaded that God wouldn't kill anyone yet death is as much a part of life as you are.

[TheLeft]

TheLeft,

I have read what other people wrote or write and I understand where you are coming from yet I have to still insist that you are all wrong because nothing can make anything as the big bang is supposed to have done.

But it wasn't 'nothing' though.

I'm sure you'd have seen the news this week regarding the first ever picture of a black hole.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47873592

Black holes are regions of space whose gravitational forces are so strong that nothing, not even light or radiation can escape. The mass of a black hole is so vast that it can warp spacetime to an almost infinite point. Sometimes the gravitational pull of a black hole is so vast that it compresses down to an almost infinite point. This is called a Singularity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

The Big Bang Theory (and I'm not referring to that crappy sitcom here) proposes that all matter and energy was compressed into a singularity which then erupted spreading matter and energy across spacetime.

The evidence for the Big Bang Theory is pretty compelling and I really can't be bothered to go into further detail because it will all be ignored by you anyway. But if you were interested to see the evidence then here's an easy to digest version:

https://www.schoolsobservatory.org/l...igbang/bb_evid

But the main important point is that it is just a theory. With the evidence we have available from observations of the universe and various calculations. Should further evidence become available that contradicts this theory, then something new will be proposed and evaluated by the scientific community accordingly.

I said that the maths were correct as we see it now but it couldn't have been that way before, why? Because of the intricasy that surrounds all things and is in all things that a huge explosion could not do.

It wasn't an explosion. There was no air for any form of combustion.

Why is the earth so different from any other planet?

It's not different at all. The same laws of physics apply throughout the universe. On the contrary, it's religious people that claim the Earth was made first, then the rest of the universe.

How do all the laws of anything apply to a chaotic explosion and why is there light at all? Oh, you can all fling in your arguments but as yet you can't explain why it is so mathematical yet you grasp some maths but as yet don't provide why?

Cool. If you really want to examine the maths, then you can start here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

There's plenty of well referenced mathematical equations which you can try and refute.

God was there when He made all things and did so in the most numerical and mathematical order yet you wilfully refuse to see it not because of the maths but because you refuse to believe there is a God to Whom you are responsible.

I refuse to see it because there is no evidence beside hearsay and an old book. I may as well throw a Batman Comic at you and say this is the proof that Gotham City, Batman and the Joker exist. You can't just expect to say "God exists and I don't have to prove anything because... Reasons", and expect to win any argument.

I genuinely do not understand how you get to pick and choose which science and which mathematics you get to believe in. How does that work? Clearly by the virtue that you are writing this on an internet enabled computer you must therefore believe some aspects of science and maths. By the virtue that you go to the shops, buy things with money and are able to calculate the expected change you get back, you must believe in maths. So how come when the science or maths arrives that contradicts the Bible, it's heresy and can't be believed? Maths is just a tool and science is just a method used to quantify and observe the universe. Nothing more. By decrying them all you are doing is shoot the messenger and not the message.

It's just logic. Who do you honestly think has a better grasp of the universe? All the modern day scientists world over with their PhD's, million dollar equipment that enables us to see into the far reaches of the cosmos and peer review system which cuts the intellectual wheat from the chaff? Or a bunch of Iron Age Goat herders who had no education, had no understanding of the universe and could barely read or write?

Occam's razor...