I wholeheartedly agree. My current favorite pertains to radiocarbon dating, which I think may be what you were getting at -- when there's some routine RC date of, for example, 35K BP, the "RC dating is fatally flawed" canard come out; when there's a RC date under 6023 years (6004 BC to 2019), suddenly RC dating "always confirms the Bible". :^)
Yes, absolutely. That is what I am getting at. But it gets even worse, I have been seeing complete rewriting and redefinition of chapters and verses blown completely out of context and reassembled to make them fit a “desirable scenario and timeline” to try and prove. If they are going to prove it then prove it honestly. To selectively manipulate like that is dishonest as hell and makes me not even want to be part of it anymore.
Here is the difference... Science has not made it a priority point and agenda to prove Biblical works wrong at all cost. Yet, the other way around is a full on crusade that excuses and allows dishonesty as long as it can help prove ALL non-biblical science as wrong. They know they are lying to themselves about much of this history, yet they just can’t bring themselves to repent and admit the deceptive dishonesty.
There is a simple compromise that could benefit all historians from both camps and maybe we could actually solve some historical mysteries, maybe the compromise might actually help Christians more than they think in proving their side of the argument...
HONESTY!