My phrase “eye-witness scientific testimony” is a reference to the fact thousands of scientists are eye-witnesses to how natural law controls the events of nature and the progress of the Cosmos.
None of them are eyewitnesses to origins or to actual evolution. The natural law to which you appeal is the product of the Creation and Creator which you deny. You can’t have it both ways.
While many books of the Bible were written by unknown individuals, with unknown purposes in mind, about events that know no other corroboration. And frequently, when we have two sources about the same events, they differ.
The authors are generally known and the purposes are generally known. There are some events that have no other corroboration, but that is common in history. Many events of the Bible are corroborated. The supposed differences often turn out not to be different at all.
Which is all to say that your arguments and objections are not based in fact and good argumentation and have been answered long ago.
We have been back and forth before and I don’t have time to go back and forth again, considering how very differently we approach the issue. I find your view to be philosophically incoherent and scientifically untenable. For the life of me, I can’t see why anyone is convinced of it. It makes so little sense. But again, I simply don’t have time for it right now.
My point is posting this was actually on another thread and this was unfortunately separated from the point it was intended to address by starting another thread.
The point is that one cannot believe the resurrection and deny creation without engaging in special pleading.