There must be some problem with the foundations of the Bible, as I can think of many different sects that claim to have the only truth and are in fact doctrinally different. For example, the Baptists believe that their interpretation of scripture is correct, as do the Catholics. They both believe that the other is mistaken in their beliefs, and they both follow the Bible. That shows to me that there must be some underlying problem
A star seems like a poor analogy for an asteroid. It would seem more likely that they would mention something along the lines of a fireball, as while a meteorite looks rather like a "shooting star" out in the atmosphere, near the earth, while burning up, it would probably resemble much more closely a fireball, perhaps of the type when Soddom and Gomorrah were destroyed by balls of sulfur burning up, where the Bible described it in one way. The writer of Revelation probably meant something quite different.
I find it interesting that in the article you quote about unrelated species, it mentions that the Eukaryotes have been around for about 2 billion years, which is a tad long for the creationist timetable. It must not throw too big of a "monkey wrench" into evolutionary theory.
No, evolution does not state that life arose from non-life. That is abiogenesis. The various evolutionary theories only deal with the change in the gene pool of a group of organisms from one generation to the next. Debating origins is unrelated. I see evidence of evolution all around me: dog breeds, for example. According to some theories, enough microevolution leads to what is called macroevolution. But really, they can be almost the same thing, with the prefix relating to the time scale, and not the actual mechanism of evolution.
Perhaps we are not meant to know everything, after all, if we did, we wouldn't need to debate anything, would we? I don't pretend to know everything, but instead rely on scientists who research the types of thing we are discussing here, and who can hopefully interpret the evidence properly. They won't stay scientists very long if they are always being demonstrated as skewing their results based on wishful thinking. I may not understand God, if or if he does not exist, but I do not believe that if he exists, he created the world as described in Genesis.
It is true that more than one person is claiming that their dates are skewed. But nearly every time, those making the claims have religious beliefs to defend. Thusly, I cannot trust them not to skew their facts in an effort to support their own beliefs. Most sources that support creationist themes (and evolutionist ones, for that matter) online have little accountability for what they say. When its published in a book format, that's another matter. The creationist books I have read have usually badly maligned the facts. Here is a link to one critique of one creationist book, and you will understand why I am often skeptical of creationist writings:
https://skepticfiles.org/mcdowell/4_cretin.htmWhy doesn't the pressure at the bottom of the ocean now cause mountains to build down there at a rate to create a Mount Everest in a year? Water presses in a very even fashion, it doesn't put pressure on rocks in such a way as to form mountains. Why did the mountain building slow down so rapidly after the flood?
I suggest that this debate will continue going on and on with no real change in either of our views, as we both seem to be thoroughly convinced of the following:
1. We are following the true position.
2. The other is mistaken in their beliefs.
3. There is reason to believe what we believe.
It seems as if we are really not getting anywhere, and thus I suggest we end this debate, as it is probably not productive use of our time.
Topic: evolution vs. biblical theory