My primary message here is that the universe is more than physics or natural sciences. The universe is about feelings and ideas. The universe is about morality and values.
Humans live in the physical natural world of physical needs, but also in the human world of rational needs, and in the spiritual world of spiritual needs. All of these worlds are real and have their own rules of evidence, just as chemistry and physics are different.
Now on BioLogos we are talking about the interface of theology and science. That is not easy when many people like @T_aquaticus do not believe in God and therefore do not accept the rules of theology. In this case we need to fall back on the rules of philosophy which is the other bedrock of our understanding of reality.
The issues as I see it is that @T_aquaticus does not accept the rules of philosophy either, even when we are talking about concepts that fall under the rubric of philosophy in this boundary situations.
Now do I accept the rules of evidence for philosophy and science as equal? Certainly not in the sense that they are the same. They are different as they must be, but they are equally valid in the context for which they are intended, which I what we need to discuss, but instead I am told that the solid evidence that I present is not evide4nce because it does not meet the arbitrary a priori criteria that @T_aquaticus accepts.
Science has changed a great deal over the past 100 years or so. Does this make science false?. Indeed the understanding that the universe has a beginning as theology claims has been verified only in the last 100 years contrary to the historical view you present without justification.
I can live with that also, but faith is not a booby prize. Faith is evaluating all the available evidence including the theological, scientific, and the philosophical evidence, knowing that it is not absolute, and making a commitment based on the best evidence available, rather than viewing all the evidence available and not making a commitment to the Truth.