The Search For Truth

[nPeace]

It's said that science attempts to discover truths about the material world.

Yes, they have discovered some truths. Oftentimes though - not getting into where certain assumptions must be used - science has failed to provide accurate answers about our world.

For example, scientists were convinced that their method of estimating the age of the earth was so accurate, they declared the age to be 4.54 billion years old... give or take .05 billion years.
However, time will tell if that changes.

Earth's Core Is 2.5 Years Younger Than Its Crust
The age of the Earth's inner core revised
By creating conditions akin to the center of the Earth inside a laboratory chamber, researchers have improved the estimate of the age of our planet's solid inner core, putting it at 1 billion to 1.3 billion years old.
The results place the core at the younger end of an age spectrum that usually runs from about 1.3 billion to 4.5 billion years

The age of the universe, too, may be adjusted. Universe Older Than Previously Thought


In many cases, science has drawn a blank.
In other words - just can't answer... as in, don't know.

For example...
The origin of water on Earth is the subject of a body of research in the fields of planetary science, astronomy, and astrobiology. Earth is unique among the rocky planets in the Solar System in having oceans of liquid water on its surface. Liquid water, which is necessary for all known forms of life, continues to exist on the surface of Earth because the planet is at a far enough distance (known as the habitable zone) from the Sun that it does not lose its water, but not so far that low temperatures cause all water on the planet to freeze.

It was long thought that Earth’s water did not originate from the planet’s region of the protoplanetary disk. Instead, it was hypothesized water and other volatiles must have been delivered to Earth from the outer Solar System later in its history. Recent research, however, indicates that hydrogen inside the Earth played a role in the formation of the ocean The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, as there is also evidence that water was delivered to Earth by impacts from icy planetesimals similar in composition to asteroids in the outer edges of the asteroid belt.

Where did Earth's water come from? Not melted meteorites, according to scientists
...researchers analyzed melted meteorites that had been floating around in space since the solar system's formation 4 1/2 billion years ago. They found that these meteorites had extremely low water content -- in fact, they were among the driest extraterrestrial materials ever measured.

These results, which let researchers rule them out as the primary source of Earth's water, could have important implications for the search for water -- and life -- on other planets. It also helps researchers understand the unlikely conditions that aligned to make Earth a habitable planet.

"We wanted to understand how our planet managed to get water because it's not completely obvious," Newcombe said. "Getting water and having surface oceans on a planet that is small and relatively near the sun is a challenge."​

What if the answers to many of these questions have been there, all along, but they are ignored?
An aged old book seems an unlikely source of truth, but the Bible has answered quite a number of questions about our world, and has gotten them right.
For example ...
The Bible says the universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1)
The Bible says the earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7)
The Bible says rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6)
...and more.

It's worth considering then, if the Bible does have an answer on the origin of water.
Surprisingly, it does .
Job 38:
8 And who barricaded the sea behind doors
When it burst out from the womb [No. It's not the womb of a woman],

9 When I clothed it with clouds
And wrapped it in thick gloom,

10 When I established my limit for it
And put its bars and doors in place,

11 And I said, ‘You may come this far, and no farther;
Here is where your proud waves will stop’?
Have you gone down to the sources of the sea
Or explored the deep waters?

The Bible long ago says that the source of the water is the earth's womb.
Millions continue to use the Bible as a source of truth - not for answering questions about the material world, but for life's most valued and important questions, for which the Bible provides reliable answers.
It's good to know that the Bible's answers are accurate, when it touches on things of a material nature.
It does reinforce the fact that the Bible is a reliable source of truth.

 

[Quintessence]

It would be more accurate to characterize the sciences as an endeavor to understand various aspects of the observable world via methodological and philosophical naturalism. It's not really concerned with "the truth" as much as developing a consistent explanation given the evidence and observations presently available (always subject to revision, and an understanding of the limits of the methodology).

In other words, sciences are not dogmatic (e.g., this is The One True Truth) and they are not prescriptive (e.g., this is how things ought to be), they are descriptive (e.g., using these instruments we observe X, Y, Z) of the world based on best knowledge using certain methods (e.g., statistical analysis of observations) and philosophical assumptions (e.g., only materialistic explanations are considered).

Mythological stories, the Bible or otherwise, are a different approach to understanding the observable world that don't limit themselves to methodological or philosophical naturalism. Instead it can embody the truths of lived experience, personal or cultural values (aka, the prescriptive stuff sciences don't deal in), more sublime or aesthetic or spiritual considerations, and so on. Often it contains a lot of indigenous wisdom based on real observations, but as with the sciences, its limitations and nature should be acknowledged when using these bodies of knowledge to navigate live and living.

 

[gnostic]

It's said that science attempts to discover truths about the material world.

Yes, they have discovered some truths. Oftentimes though - not getting into where certain assumptions must be used - science has failed to provide accurate answers about our world.

For example, scientists were convinced that their method of estimating the age of the earth was so accurate, they declared the age to be 4.54 billion years old... give or take .05 billion years.
However, time will tell if that changes.

Earth's Core Is 2.5 Years Younger Than Its Crust
The age of the Earth's inner core revised
By creating conditions akin to the center of the Earth inside a laboratory chamber, researchers have improved the estimate of the age of our planet's solid inner core, putting it at 1 billion to 1.3 billion years old.
The results place the core at the younger end of an age spectrum that usually runs from about 1.3 billion to 4.5 billion years

The age of the universe, too, may be adjusted. Universe Older Than Previously Thought


In many cases, science has drawn a blank.
In other words - just can't answer... as in, don't know.

For example...
The origin of water on Earth is the subject of a body of research in the fields of planetary science, astronomy, and astrobiology. Earth is unique among the rocky planets in the Solar System in having oceans of liquid water on its surface. Liquid water, which is necessary for all known forms of life, continues to exist on the surface of Earth because the planet is at a far enough distance (known as the habitable zone) from the Sun that it does not lose its water, but not so far that low temperatures cause all water on the planet to freeze.

It was long thought that Earth’s water did not originate from the planet’s region of the protoplanetary disk. Instead, it was hypothesized water and other volatiles must have been delivered to Earth from the outer Solar System later in its history. Recent research, however, indicates that hydrogen inside the Earth played a role in the formation of the ocean The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, as there is also evidence that water was delivered to Earth by impacts from icy planetesimals similar in composition to asteroids in the outer edges of the asteroid belt.

Where did Earth's water come from? Not melted meteorites, according to scientists
...researchers analyzed melted meteorites that had been floating around in space since the solar system's formation 4 1/2 billion years ago. They found that these meteorites had extremely low water content -- in fact, they were among the driest extraterrestrial materials ever measured.

These results, which let researchers rule them out as the primary source of Earth's water, could have important implications for the search for water -- and life -- on other planets. It also helps researchers understand the unlikely conditions that aligned to make Earth a habitable planet.

"We wanted to understand how our planet managed to get water because it's not completely obvious," Newcombe said. "Getting water and having surface oceans on a planet that is small and relatively near the sun is a challenge."​

Sciences, particularly Natural Sciences, required any scientist to provide “testable models” that -

(A) EXPLAINS what the natural phenomena is.​

​

(B) EXPLAINS how the phenomena (hence the mechanisms or the natural processes of the natural phenomena).​

But when they are able to EXPLAIN the WHAT & the HOW from the above models, scientists may present more testable models that often more EXPLANATIONS for more WHAT & HOW, especially with regarding to having knowledge to the earlier models, such as applications, hence, you will have models that -

(C) EXPLAINS what “uses” or “applications”. (after knowing A & B)​

​

(D) EXPLAINS how you would implement each applications.​

These explanations are essential to understanding the natural phenomena and their natural processes.

Each of these models, require TESTING these explanatory models. And the only ways to test, and to verify or to refute each of these models are through OBSERVATIONS.

Observations would come in the forms of physical evidence or in the forms of experiments. These evidence or experiments should yield more observations as to information (or DATA) about the physical properties of the evidence or experiments.

Data such as measurements, quantities, etc. The DATA themselves are evidence too, as they would provide understanding to points A & B that I had listed earlier.

These tests & observations (eg evidence and/or experiments, plus data) are the only objective means to determine if the models are correct or incorrect, or to determine if the models are PROBABLE or IMPROBABLE. And they are the only means to objectively VERIFY or REFUTE new hypothesis or existing theory.

Both formulating the models (the EXPLANATIONS for any new hypothesis or existing scientific theory), followed by testing the models are essential requirements to the Methodological Naturalism & to Scientific Method.

And this here, about what you say about the Bible…

What if the answers to many of these questions have been there, all along, but they are ignored?
An aged old book seems an unlikely source of truth, but the Bible has answered quite a number of questions about our world, and has gotten them right.
For example ...
The Bible says the universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1)
The Bible says the earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7)
The Bible says rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6)
...and more.

It's worth considering then, if the Bible does have an answer on the origin of water.
Surprisingly, it does .
Job 38:
8 And who barricaded the sea behind doors
When it burst out from the womb [No. It's not the womb of a woman],

9 When I clothed it with clouds
And wrapped it in thick gloom,

10 When I established my limit for it
And put its bars and doors in place,

11 And I said, ‘You may come this far, and no farther;
Here is where your proud waves will stop’?
Have you gone down to the sources of the sea
Or explored the deep waters?

The Bible long ago says that the source of the water is the earth's womb.
Millions continue to use the Bible as a source of truth - not for answering questions about the material world, but for life's most valued and important questions, for which the Bible provides reliable answers.
It's good to know that the Bible's answers are accurate, when it touches on things of a material nature.
It does reinforce the fact that the Bible is a reliable source of truth.

…is both laughable and absurd.

There are no EXPLANATIONS to anything you say. None of the verses you quoted, offer any understanding WHAT the natural phenomena are, nor HOW do they (phenomena) work.

And the “God did it” isn't an explanation.

The “God did it” is simply a facade for ignorance (or stupidity) in believing in superstitions & in the supernatural, and accepting such beliefs through blind faith.

The Job examples are just more superstitions of the “God did it”.

Whoever wrote Job, has made or portrayed God as primitive superstitious bragging idiot. Nothing God said is true, while rebuking Job is true…certainly nothing God said were “scientific“ true.

For instance, Job 40:9…

Job 40:9 Have you an arm like God,
and can you thunder with a voice like his?

Thunders are not anyone‘s voice, not God’s, not that of Zeus/Jupiter, not Thor’s, nor Indra’s.

The verse offers no explanation as to what thunder is, nor explain as to how thunder work. So the author is nothing more than superstitious ignorant idiot, with no understanding of meteorology and no understanding to the physics of sound waves.

The sound of thunder is a natural cause, due to the rapid expansion of atmospheric temperature and air pressure, after lightning. What you hear is the shockwave from that air pressures.

All sounds travel through some sorts of medium, but in most case, that medium is ”air”.

But sounds would also bounce off solid medium, such as ground, hills, building, etc, that can cause echoes and reverberate. So when you hear the distant thunder in long, low rumble, that because the sounds reverberate, as the sound bounce off more solid medium than air.

Thunders are not some supernatural voice, only primitive superstitions would be relied on, but superstitions are based on ignorance, not on any real knowledge.

I have given you you what thunder is in layman’s terms, without the idiotic ”God did it” superstition. But if you want something more detailed & scientific, then I would suggest you pick up science textbooks on meteorology or google it.

The book of Job is even more idiotic than the Genesis creation. Much of what Job, his friends and God say (as well as the author himself), only demonstrated just how little they know about the natural world.

superstitions (eg ”God did it”) are not explanations, they are unsound and unrealistic personal beliefs. And accepting such beliefs, are just blind faith.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's said that science attempts to discover truths about the material world.

No, science seeks knowledge of our physical existence. The search for truth is someone else's vain frustrating quest.

Yes, they have discovered some truths. Oftentimes though - not getting into where certain assumptions must be used - science has failed to provide accurate answers about our world.

Sounds like your setting up a religious agenda based on intentional ignorance of science.

For example, scientists were convinced that their method of estimating the age of the earth was so accurate, they declared the age to be 4.54 billion years old... give or take .05 billion years.
However, time will tell if that changes.

Earth's Core Is 2.5 Years Younger Than Its Crust
The age of the Earth's inner core revised
By creating conditions akin to the center of the Earth inside a laboratory chamber, researchers have improved the estimate of the age of our planet's solid inner core, putting it at 1 billion to 1.3 billion years old.
The results place the core at the younger end of an age spectrum that usually runs from about 1.3 billion to 4.5 billion years

The age of the universe, too, may be adjusted. Universe Older Than Previously Thought


In many cases, science has drawn a blank.
In other words - just can't answer... as in, don't know.

For example...
The origin of water on Earth is the subject of a body of research in the fields of planetary science, astronomy, and astrobiology. Earth is unique among the rocky planets in the Solar System in having oceans of liquid water on its surface. Liquid water, which is necessary for all known forms of life, continues to exist on the surface of Earth because the planet is at a far enough distance (known as the habitable zone) from the Sun that it does not lose its water, but not so far that low temperatures cause all water on the planet to freeze.

It was long thought that Earth’s water did not originate from the planet’s region of the protoplanetary disk. Instead, it was hypothesized water and other volatiles must have been delivered to Earth from the outer Solar System later in its history. Recent research, however, indicates that hydrogen inside the Earth played a role in the formation of the ocean The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, as there is also evidence that water was delivered to Earth by impacts from icy planetesimals similar in composition to asteroids in the outer edges of the asteroid belt.

Where did Earth's water come from? Not melted meteorites, according to scientists
...researchers analyzed melted meteorites that had been floating around in space since the solar system's formation 4 1/2 billion years ago. They found that these meteorites had extremely low water content -- in fact, they were among the driest extraterrestrial materials ever measured.

These results, which let researchers rule them out as the primary source of Earth's water, could have important implications for the search for water -- and life -- on other planets. It also helps researchers understand the unlikely conditions that aligned to make Earth a habitable planet.

The knowledge of science is always subject to change based on the discovery of new knowledge and research.

"We wanted to understand how our planet managed to get water because it's not completely obvious," Newcombe said. "Getting water and having surface oceans on a planet that is small and relatively near the sun is a challenge."​

What if the answers to many of these questions have been there, all along, but they are ignored?
An aged old book seems an unlikely source of truth, but the Bible has answered quite a number of questions about our world, and has gotten them right.
For example ...
The Bible says the universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1)
The Bible says the earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7)
The Bible says rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6)
...and more.

It's worth considering then, if the Bible does have an answer on the origin of water.
Surprisingly, it does .
Job 38:
8 And who barricaded the sea behind doors
When it burst out from the womb [No. It's not the womb of a woman],

These answers based on ancient myrhology are justified to be ignored

9 When I clothed it with clouds
And wrapped it in thick gloom,

10 When I established my limit for it
And put its bars and doors in place,

11 And I said, ‘You may come this far, and no farther;
Here is where your proud waves will stop’?
Have you gone down to the sources of the sea
Or explored the deep waters?

The Bible long ago says that the source of the water is the earth's womb.
Millions continue to use the Bible as a source of truth - not for answering questions about the material world, but for life's most valued and important questions, for which the Bible provides reliable answers.
It's good to know that the Bible's answers are accurate, when it touches on things of a material nature.
It does reinforce the fact that the Bible is a reliable source of truth.

If the water came from the womb of the earth where did that water come from?

Unfortunately, millions of people remain intentionally ignorant relying on the Bible for answers to scientific questions.
Nothing remotely accurate above, Science has since come up with better answers as to where the earth's water came from, and of course over time more knowledge of science will provide even better more complete

 

[nPeace]

Sciences, particularly Natural Sciences, required any scientist to provide “testable models” that -

(A) EXPLAINS what the natural phenomena is.​

​

(B) EXPLAINS how the phenomena (hence the mechanisms or the natural processes of the natural phenomena).​

But when they are able to EXPLAIN the WHAT & the HOW from the above models, scientists may present more testable models that often more EXPLANATIONS for more WHAT & HOW, especially with regarding to having knowledge to the earlier models, such as applications, hence, you will have models that -

(C) EXPLAINS what “uses” or “applications”. (after knowing A & B)​

​

(D) EXPLAINS how you would implement each applications.​

These explanations are essential to understanding the natural phenomena and their natural processes.

Each of these models, require TESTING these explanatory models. And the only ways to test, and to verify or to refute each of these models are through OBSERVATIONS.

Observations would come in the forms of physical evidence or in the forms of experiments. These evidence or experiments should yield more observations as to information (or DATA) about the physical properties of the evidence or experiments.

Data such as measurements, quantities, etc. The DATA themselves are evidence too, as they would provide understanding to points A & B that I had listed earlier.

These tests & observations (eg evidence and/or experiments, plus data) are the only objective means to determine if the models are correct or incorrect, or to determine if the models are PROBABLE or IMPROBABLE. And they are the only means to objectively VERIFY or REFUTE new hypothesis or existing theory.

Both formulating the models (the EXPLANATIONS for any new hypothesis or existing scientific theory), followed by testing the models are essential requirements to the Methodological Naturalism & to Scientific Method.

And this here, about what you say about the Bible…



…is both laughable and absurd.

There are no EXPLANATIONS to anything you say. None of the verses you quoted, offer any understanding WHAT the natural phenomena are, nor HOW do they (phenomena) work.

And the “God did it” isn't an explanation.

The “God did it” is simply a facade for ignorance (or stupidity) in believing in superstitions & in the supernatural, and accepting such beliefs through blind faith.

The Job examples are just more superstitions of the “God did it”.

Whoever wrote Job, has made or portrayed God as primitive superstitious bragging idiot. Nothing God said is true, while rebuking Job is true…certainly nothing God said were “scientific“ true.

For instance, Job 40:9…



Thunders are not anyone‘s voice, not God’s, not that of Zeus/Jupiter, not Thor’s, nor Indra’s.

The verse offers no explanation as to what thunder is, nor explain as to how thunder work. So the author is nothing more than superstitious ignorant idiot, with no understanding of meteorology and no understanding to the physics of sound waves.

The sound of thunder is a natural cause, due to the rapid expansion of atmospheric temperature and air pressure, after lightning. What you hear is the shockwave from that air pressures.

All sounds travel through some sorts of medium, but in most case, that medium is ”air”.

But sounds would also bounce off solid medium, such as ground, hills, building, etc, that can cause echoes and reverberate. So when you hear the distant thunder in long, low rumble, that because the sounds reverberate, as the sound bounce off more solid medium than air.

Thunders are not some supernatural voice, only primitive superstitions would be relied on, but superstitions are based on ignorance, not on any real knowledge.

I have given you you what thunder is in layman’s terms, without the idiotic ”God did it” superstition. But if you want something more detailed & scientific, then I would suggest you pick up science textbooks on meteorology or google it.

The book of Job is even more idiotic than the Genesis creation. Much of what Job, his friends and God say (as well as the author himself), only demonstrated just how little they know about the natural world.

superstitions (eg ”God did it”) are not explanations, they are unsound and unrealistic personal beliefs. And accepting such beliefs, are just blind faith.

The Bible is not a science text book.
The writers of the Bible, or the characters are not scientist.
We can test the Bible though, with regard to its reliability.
We only need that, and if it stands up, we know we have a reliable source of truth.
I think the evidence shows it stands up pretty well.

 

[Viker]

The Bible is not a science text book.
The writers of the Bible, or the characters are not scientist.
We can test the Bible though, with regard to its reliability.
We only need that, and if it stands up, we know we have a reliable source of truth.
I think the evidence shows it stands up pretty well.

What test? How would we test? What evidence?

 

[nPeace]

If the water came from the womb of the earth where did that water come from?

Would it not be put there, by the one whom the same Bible says created the universe?

Unfortunately, millions of people remain intentionally ignorant relying on the Bible for answers to scientific questions.

I don't know of anyone who is "relying on the Bible for answers to scientific questions".
I do know of millions who realize that the Bible is truthful... even when it touches on things that scientists discover.
Things that weren't waiting for scientists to come along and say, "Ah. Here it is."

Nothing remotely accurate above, Science has since come up with better answers as to where the earth's water came from, and of course over time more knowledge of science will provide even better more complete

Of course. God knows how long it will take to even know it's accurate.

 

[nPeace]

What test? How would we test? What evidence?

The Bible is accurate where history is concerned; when it touches on science; regarding fulfilled prophecy...
It's ahead of its time, and is timeless.
You can test these to see if this is true.

 

[Viker]

The Bible is accurate where history is concerned; when it touches on science; regarding fulfilled prophecy...
It's ahead of its time, and is timeless.
You can test these to see if this is true.

How is it accurate where history is concerned?
Science? How does one test these things? I want to know.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Bible is not a science text book.
The writers of the Bible, or the characters are not scientist.
We can test the Bible though, with regard to its reliability.
We only need that, and if it stands up, we know we have a reliable source of truth.
I think the evidence shows it stands up pretty well.

Share with us these tests and the results. Show us that evidence so that all may see it and evaluate it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Bible is accurate where history is concerned; when it touches on science; regarding fulfilled prophecy...
It's ahead of its time, and is timeless.
You can test these to see if this is true.

Can you provide the testing and analysis? To what degree is the Bible historically accurate? Is it 100% accurate? 90%? 75%? ...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Would it not be put there, by the one whom the same Bible says created the universe?


I don't know of anyone who is "relying on the Bible for answers to scientific questions".
I do know of millions who realize that the Bible is truthful... even when it touches on things that scientists discover.
Things that weren't waiting for scientists to come along and say, "Ah. Here it is."


Of course. God knows how long it will take to even know its accurate.

Literalists rely on the Bible to provide answers to scientific questions.

In your last two sentences in your second paragraph you are claiming the Bible to be a science book.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Bible is not a science text book.
The writers of the Bible, or the characters are not scientist.
We can test the Bible though, with regard to its reliability.
We only need that, and if it stands up, we know we have a reliable source of truth.
I think the evidence shows it stands up pretty well.

In your opinion then, when man observes, analyzes and tests aspects of what can be viewed as God's work, what is found won't be mentioned in the Bible, but should be considered valid? Given it was found with the gifts of the senses, intelligence, and honest observation and scholarship that believers see as blessings from God.

Evolution for instance is the observation of what I believe is God's work. Abiogenesis is another set of valid hypotheses about the physical origin of life. The Bible says nothing about these and it doesn't describe the mechanisms of creation. How then is it possible to deny such things?

 

[sun rise]

The Bible is accurate where history is concerned; when it touches on science; regarding fulfilled prophecy...
It's ahead of its time, and is timeless.
You can test these to see if this is true.

We've already seen proof that the "history" in the Bible is not accurate if you take tales as literally true and not designed as teaching stories and inspirational fiction. Some insist on taking teaching stories as literally true.

 

[nPeace]

We've already seen proof that the "history" in the Bible is not accurate if you take tales as literally true and not designed as teaching stories and inspirational fiction. Some insist on taking teaching stories as literally true.

We? Maybe you. So we don't want to be stingy. Please share what you know. This is a good place, and now is a good time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's said that science attempts to discover truths about the material world.

Yes, they have discovered some truths. Oftentimes though - not getting into where certain assumptions must be used - science has failed to provide accurate answers about our world.

For example, scientists were convinced that their method of estimating the age of the earth was so accurate, they declared the age to be 4.54 billion years old... give or take .05 billion years.
However, time will tell if that changes.

Earth's Core Is 2.5 Years Younger Than Its Crust
The age of the Earth's inner core revised
By creating conditions akin to the center of the Earth inside a laboratory chamber, researchers have improved the estimate of the age of our planet's solid inner core, putting it at 1 billion to 1.3 billion years old.
The results place the core at the younger end of an age spectrum that usually runs from about 1.3 billion to 4.5 billion years

The age of the universe, too, may be adjusted. Universe Older Than Previously Thought

You falsified your opening statement by showing that science doesn't discover truths, but draws conditional conclusions based on the evidence and understanding of it.

In many cases, science has drawn a blank.
In other words - just can't answer... as in, don't know.

For example...
The origin of water on Earth is the subject of a body of research in the fields of planetary science, astronomy, and astrobiology. Earth is unique among the rocky planets in the Solar System in having oceans of liquid water on its surface. Liquid water, which is necessary for all known forms of life, continues to exist on the surface of Earth because the planet is at a far enough distance (known as the habitable zone) from the Sun that it does not lose its water, but not so far that low temperatures cause all water on the planet to freeze.

It was long thought that Earth’s water did not originate from the planet’s region of the protoplanetary disk. Instead, it was hypothesized water and other volatiles must have been delivered to Earth from the outer Solar System later in its history. Recent research, however, indicates that hydrogen inside the Earth played a role in the formation of the ocean The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, as there is also evidence that water was delivered to Earth by impacts from icy planetesimals similar in composition to asteroids in the outer edges of the asteroid belt.

Where did Earth's water come from? Not melted meteorites, according to scientists
...researchers analyzed melted meteorites that had been floating around in space since the solar system's formation 4 1/2 billion years ago. They found that these meteorites had extremely low water content -- in fact, they were among the driest extraterrestrial materials ever measured.

These results, which let researchers rule them out as the primary source of Earth's water, could have important implications for the search for water -- and life -- on other planets. It also helps researchers understand the unlikely conditions that aligned to make Earth a habitable planet.

"We wanted to understand how our planet managed to get water because it's not completely obvious," Newcombe said. "Getting water and having surface oceans on a planet that is small and relatively near the sun is a challenge."​

The fact that we are ignorant of many aspects of the natural world are why science was developed. That ignorance of things exists is not a surprise and does not indicate what we have discovered through science is wrong. You're using a computer and manipulating the fonts and adding emojis in what I see as gratuitous action is evidence that science gets much correct.

What if the answers to many of these questions have been there, all along, but they are ignored?
An aged old book seems an unlikely source of truth, but the Bible has answered quite a number of questions about our world, and has gotten them right.
For example ...
The Bible says the universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1)
The Bible says the earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7)
The Bible says rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6)
...and more.

It is a book with general statements similar to the general statements of many faiths. It isn't a science book and the demand to deem it literal is an ideological demand and not a requirement to belief.

It's worth considering then, if the Bible does have an answer on the origin of water.
Surprisingly, it does .
Job 38:
8 And who barricaded the sea behind doors
When it burst out from the womb [No. It's not the womb of a woman],

9 When I clothed it with clouds
And wrapped it in thick gloom,

10 When I established my limit for it
And put its bars and doors in place,

11 And I said, ‘You may come this far, and no farther;
Here is where your proud waves will stop’?
Have you gone down to the sources of the sea
Or explored the deep waters?

The Bible long ago says that the source of the water is the earth's womb.

These aren't answers to the source of water on the Earth. They are poetic and colorful claims with no details and mechanisms to support them. People fill in the gaps with information gleaned from science, but they are still not the science answers you claim they are. But I enjoy that irony.

Millions continue to use the Bible as a source of truth - not for answering questions about the material world, but for life's most valued and important questions, for which the Bible provides reliable answers.

You have just shown us that the Bible provides colorful claims that taken literally tell us nothing about the origin of water and show no level of the accuracy you claim for it.

It's good to know that the Bible's answers are accurate, when it touches on things of a material nature.

The Earth has a womb? How is that shown to be accurate?

It does reinforce the fact that the Bible is a reliable source of truth.

One has to believe that it be read literally and already accept that it is truth for it to be seen as truth. Objectively, your interpretation of it is not fulfilling your claims for it.

 

[nPeace]

How is it accurate where history is concerned?

See here. If that's not enough, and you believe you need more, you can let me know.

Science? How does one test these things? I want to know.

Well, the Bible got quite a number of things right, well before scientists discovered them.
I mentioned a few in the OP. See here. If that's not enough, and you believe you need more, you can let me know.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We? Maybe you. So we don't want to be stingy. Please share what you know. This is a good place, and now is a good time.

What about you sharing what you claim first. This is a good place for it that YOU created and NOW is a good time for it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

See here. If that's not enough, and you believe you need more, you can let me know.

Why don't you just give a "brief" list with "brief" explanation without all the emojis and color that just seems to serve confusion.

Well, the Bible got quite a number of things right, well before scientists discovered them.

What would that be?

I mentioned a few in the OP. See here. If that's not enough, and you believe you need more, you can let me know.

You quoted some claims, but I didn't see answers. Do it again.

 

[fantome profane]

For example, scientists were convinced that their method of estimating the age of the earth was so accurate, they declared the age to be 4.54 billion years old... give or take .05 billion years.
However, time will tell if that changes.

Earth's Core Is 2.5 Years Younger Than Its Crust
The age of the Earth's inner core revised

So you understand that if scientists are saying the earth crust is 4.54 billion years old and the earths core is 2.5 years younger, that means the earth core is 4.54 billion years old.