It’s funny how real actual skepticism to you is the same as religious fanaticism. You are saying that I should simply accept it on authority. “Scientists are subject to peer review, therefore they must know!”
When they can do something as simple as cure HIV, then we’ll talk about more complex things like the origins of the universe.
I read studies on nutrition and every month there is something new, something that conflicts with the study from a year ago and so on and so forth, then something comes out saying, “No no, we were right before.”, and I am simply supposed to just accept the ‘Big Bang’, something that is incredibly remote and inaccessible to our meager tools on the faith that scientists really do know?
But of course your argument by ridicule is the real critical way of doing things.
Like I said, may be wrong, may be right, I just don’t know, but I’m skeptical. What part of that do you see as confirmation bias?
As I said very clearly in the post you responded to. I lack the toolkit to adequately explain it myself, so I simply reserve judgment and remain skeptical.
And no, I do not believe in a literalist interpretation of Genesis, to head that false binary accusation off at the pass.