Science is seeking the truth, but will never find all of it. Religion claims to already have it, and no longer seeks it. What would convince you the Bible is wrong? You're willing to believe that animals talked, that the world was created in 6 days, and that God made thorns on the spot to punish people, all in the face of what is naturally possible in this universe, because you can satisfy the dissonance by saying "God did it." What aren't you willing to believe miraculously happened so that the Bible is still literally true wherever you prefer it? Believers in Allah and Joseph Smith and Krishna all do no better, invoking miracles to cover the impossible. Your truth is proclaimed as being out of the reach of society -- it cannot be gathered by man but through the self-proclaimed holy book -- which conveniently explains why it is free to be at odds with the knowledge of society. It is not evident. It is a dogma. Even if it is completely true, I cannot rationally expect it to be. It was written by men who had no large amount of knowledge about the world, and even less access to it. It doesn't read like a book a super-being would dictate. It exhibits no special knowledge of reality except where it is reputed to be 100% accurate. It offers nothing that isn't claimed by dozens of other religions (all of their members are having supernatural experiences, or so they would have me believe). And finally, I've been there before. I was so sure God was real, but I realized that I had nothing backing that up. Just faith. Faith is not the truth, and it could not fill my desire for it. I stopped having faith and started seeking the truth. When the evidence did not make it apparent to me that there was an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god watching over me, I stopped taking it for granted that there is one. If I see evolution dismantled, I'll move along. What this forum has attempted to wield is nothing more than information we do not yet have. In any situation where I cannot provide information, it is implicitly taken as supporting you when all it actually does is indicate my own ignorance or that of mankind.
That's good. You just keep letting the scientists sort out your worldview for you. They've already done it. I'm sure they're right about evolution and old age theory. Well... whatever the truth is we know the Bible doesn't have it, so we'll just kick that out of the running right off the bat.
Maybe you're right, but I'm not willing to take it on just faith when it's far, far more likely you're wrong. The problem for me is not the Bible, per se, but that, for it to be true, it would require gross apologies for breaking so much of what I regard as established. I do not consider the stars high in the firmament, for example, because there is no firmament (I think that is established) and the stars are not at uniform distance, and it is physically impossible for Sisera to have fought with stars because of what they actually are (this too), but the authors clearly thought he did, meaning they didn't know what or where a star was. What concessions do you make for the non-manifest foundations of Earth and the the foundations of the non-existent firmament? These things might be read as metaphor now, but they certainly weren't always. You can always believe them as much as anything else. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." Of course, anyone that values their image as a reasonable person will default to saying it was just speaking in metaphors and that science has enriched us with the knowledge of what God meant as metaphorical, which he never intended to be taken any other way. Well, now it looks like the biblical creation was a metaphor or even an allegory.
Ignoring pre-acceptance of the Bible for a moment, and supposing I wish to approach it for answers science has not yet given, I do not desire to say the physical mechanics of the universe were broken so that I can explain the otherwise (and still) unexplained, and then to posit the existence of an unobservable god responsible for breaking them, and then that this god is Yahweh. There is no "how" to be found for anything God supposedly did or does, only that it is or was done, and all incidents of supernatural interaction are handily fleeting so that they cannot be observed, or are said to be unobservable in the first place. There are no answers in the Bible, unless you wanted to know whether the Biblical God exists. It can't even prove that, but if you're willing to trust it, you can say that God exists and then you can move on to establish just what it did, does, doesn't, and didn't. Not with evidence, but via interpretation of text written about not just what we cannot observe now, but about what is actually supposed to be unobservable to anything, minus a few choice individuals. So take humanity's ignorance on the origin of Aves and bask in it. Throw your criticism for how gullible I am for taking the word of scientists, and slam me for not taking your even less-evidenced concept as my own. Do you really mean I should be persuaded to your view by the fossilized tracks? Just that? What if birds did originate in the Triassic, as much as we doubt it now? Is it reasonable to assume they have always existed because of the fossilized tracks? If birds have existed since the dawn of time, science will keep finding evidence supporting you and I'll eventually be persuaded to a different point of view.
Sorry for going off topic (by a huge amount), but I would not simply endure an attempt to vex me for my willingness to see what the future brings.