There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.
…how do you know that?
Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?
Yes, your second question.
Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.
To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.
How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.
Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.
I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.
That’s what I said. That’s why it’s not irrefutable nor scientific to use testimony as scientific data.
Is the testimony of some guy born 1250 years after Abraham’s presumed birthdate less refutable ?
Because that is what the Bible is. And this is a fact…
No. The Bible was not written by one person. So, no that’s not a fact.
But also, no. I wasn’t talking about the Bible. As I said, knowledge about the science or physics of the universe was not important to know for them back then so he didn’t tell them that because it didn’t matter and they wouldn’t understand anyway.