To others --- see, didn't I tell you that YEC folks are usually great!
Nice to hear it because i'm a loner on this in my limited circles.
And I will bet a donut that this is because of your view of certain chapters in Genesis, right? Faith should always trump science if that faith is truly in Truth itself. It's up to science to wake-up.
I too favor a literal interpretation since modern astronomy does support, IMO, an Earth forming in a void (within the accretion disk) and the Sun being that light that was commanded come forth to give Earth both Day and Night.
Certainly this is true if we consider
all general consensuses. This is why "herd mentality" is a pejorative.
But it can be argued that most general consensuses are on solid ground. Engineers have little choice to think otherwise and their handbooks would not be handbooks if the vast amount of empirical evidence didn't justify their establishment.
So, like the Sun's color, we need to always scrutinize the science before giving too much weight to any one hypothesis or theory. This is what science itself is supposed to do.
Yes, and I just posted this same thing, oddly enough.
It might help if I share my views of science since when one understands its limits then less challenges will likely be improperly flung at it, and vice versa.
To have a hypothesis or a theory, it must be one that is objective-based. Objectivity means things that can be tested by others. If I perform a test that gets a cool result, but then no one else on the planet, including me, can replicate the result, then I have no objective-basis to argue for a hypothesis. I can offer it, alternatively, as supposition, and hope somebody can replicate it enough to make it objective.
The other side is subjectivity. Philosophy and religion are subjective-based realms that may or may not include objective evidence (facts) that often support their claim, though sometimes the opposite is true.
But do we dump all science including the bullet-proof equations for gravity and the Maxwell equations, etc.?
I think it's fine to make any particular claim for science demonstrate enough logical arguments and empirical evidence that would make it more credible than not. No science can be absolute, or truth, or even proven, so it's really a matter of how demonstrably probable it is, IMO.
5
2
1
