[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "And so forth.
The Bible is loaded with scientific gems."

Sure, but the Bible nowhere says that science itself is evil.

Kalamata: "They are presented as facts, and they have been all of my old life. This is a recent textbook example:"

• "...was most likely..."

• "..may have shapes . ..."

• "...events may have occurred..."

• "...may have been preceded..."

• "...catalytic RNA would differ..."

• "...If that vesicle could..."

• "...daughters would be protocells..."

• "...protocells likely carried only limited..."

• "...early protocells would have increased..."

• "... many additional changes would have been possible..."

• "...RNA could have provided the template..."

• "...the stage was set for a blossoming of new forms of life..."

Kalamata: "That is pure 100% propaganda, and is typical of textbooks."

Sorry, but as you can see, I found no speculation presented as "facts".

Kalamata: "Nearly all push the Miller-Urey experiment as if it was a big deal, rather than a dud."

Certainly Miller-Urey was a big deal if, as your man Tour claims, nothing more significant has been done since.

Kalamata: "The Bible is historically and scientifically accurate.
If you had believed the word of God, in particular his creation and flood histories, you would not have been so easily brainwashed by promoters of evolutionism and the big-bang."

The Bible itself nowhere claims to be "scientifically accurate", and it's impossible that it should, since the Bible's whole purpose in being to demonstrate God's rule over nature.
The Bible is not trying to accurately portray nature as it is, but rather to show God's mastery of nature.

To God it's irrelevant whether we agree "scientifically" with the Bible, what matters is we agree that God rules over whatever we think science tells us today.

Kalamata: "Further, they have no clue how to predict the age of the universe..."

In fact they have several different methodologies, all of which roughly agree.
The current estimate of 13.8 billion years is simply considered the best of the group.

[Kalamata]

>>Sure, but the Bible nowhere says that science itself is evil.

Don’t be silly.

******************
>>Sorry, but as you can see, I found no speculation presented as “facts”.

I am not surprised YOU found none. The phrases you posted are typical of those found in evolutionary “research” papers and text books; so where does the “evolution is a fact” hype come from? I read those same phrases, over and over again, in high school, undergraduate and graduate schools; and I came out believing evolution to be a fact. It is definitely hyped, and intentionally so.

******************
>>Certainly Miller-Urey was a big deal if, as your man Tour claims, nothing more significant has been done since.”

You don’t read or listen well. This is Dr. Tour at about the 12:40 mark:

“All life we know composes those four building blocks. So they try to make those four building blocks. Then they publish a paper making bold assertions about origin of life from these function-less crude mixtures of stereochemically scrambled intermediates, much like Miller did in 1952.”

In my world, the last sentence is characterized as mockery.

******************
>>The Bible itself nowhere claims to be “scientifically accurate”, and it’s impossible that it should, since the Bible’s whole purpose in being to demonstrate God’s rule over nature. The Bible is not trying to accurately portray nature as it is, but rather to show God’s mastery of nature.”

No, God’s Word accurately portrays history, science, nature, and the future.

******************
>>To God it’s irrelevant whether we agree “scientifically” with the Bible, what matters is we agree that God rules over whatever we think science tells us today.

Are you claiming these are idle words?

“But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” — Mar 10:6 KJV

Or, are are you saying we should throw the Bible in the trash and rely on our “reason”, like the Pharisees in the time of Christ? Just curious . . .

******************
>>In fact they have several different methodologies (to predict the age of the earth,) all of which roughly agree. The current estimate of 13.8 billion years is simply considered the best of the group.

None agree. For that reason, the results from radiometric dating must be cherry-picked to keep the myth alive.

Generally, radiometric-dating labs require an estimated age of the rocks before they will proceeed (they need to know the answers before they will take the test.) Some scientists decided to test the accuracy of radiometric dating, but without telling the labs how old the rocks were. These are the results in million-years, using the K-Ar method (real dates are in parentheses):

Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 1.6±0.16 Ma; 1.41±0.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (122 BC) 0.25±0.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (AD 1972) 0.35±0.14 Ma
Mt. Lassen plagioclase, California (AD 1915) 0.11±0.03 Ma
Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii (AD 1959) 8.5±6.8 Ma
Mt. Stromboli, Italy, volcanic bomb (September 23, 1963) 2.4±2 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (May 1964) 0.7±0.01 Ma
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 22.8±16.5 Ma
Rangitoto basalt, Auckland, NZ (<800 years old) 0.15±0.47 Ma
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<200 years old) 21±8 Ma
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<1,000 years old) 42.9±4.2 Ma; 30.3±3.3 Ma

Pretty wild stuff, huh? How about the 200 year-old basalt dating to be at least 13 million years old. LOL!

The “millions of years” nonsense came along decades before radiometric dating arrived on the scene. Now that radiometric dating has been invented, it is manipulated and hyped to make rock dating appear to be scientific.

Mr. Kalamata