Evidence is interpreted through the lenses of a person’s presuppositions. So to presuppose the Bible is false and use this to interpret evidence accordingly and then turn around and use this to argue against the inerrancy of scripture is completely circular.
Nowhere in Einstein’s writings does he say he is invoking Occam's razor, this is most likely the case because he realized that this principle is not used in the scientific method. Even if it were used, I think you misunderstand what it means. It’s a tendency towards the theory with the fewest assumptions; however both ESC and ASC have the same number of assumptions. One assumes light is velocity dependent, the other assumes light is position dependent. So nice try. I think Einstein made it more than clear that what you are claiming is a necessity of nature is merely just a convention of man.
I never said it proved it was false, I said that these lab tests cannot be used as evidence to support the theory. If you want to believe that abiogenesis did occur, be my guest, but don’t tell me I should also ascribe to this blind faith position. I already have my own faith.
I presuppose the Bible is inerrant. So I am as confident in its truthfulness just as much as I am confident that my senses and memory are reliable, and that the laws of logic exist. Do you presuppose the universe is that old?
