The issue here is that you are using the word "trust" in a way that it doesn't deserve, considering we're on a blockchain on the fringes of society, Tsk. Apparently everyone else in society can only use Twitter and Discord and Reddit, simply because those are what are mainstream and well accepted. Popular.

The keyword we need to bring up is "Trustless," in the sense of "code is law" or "math is law," or even the idea that the data, logic, and scientific method are trustless, because we do not necessarily need "peer review," as much as we need the external existence of reality.

So when you say you "trust science," I'm not really sure what your intentions are.

Obviously this entire conversation is taking place in the realm of someone who is so mistrustful of mainstream knowledge, that they question even Galileo, Copernicus, and other centuries old discoveries, to hearken back to the firmament model.

There is no place to be told that we should "trust science more than random people on the internet." In the context of this specific debate regarding the firmament, the issue is so fundamentally about the lack of trust people have in major institutions, that the only answer is the raw math, equations, and data itself.

In effect, random people on the internet are roughly as trustable as any random scientist, priest, politician, or even engineer or doctor. At least from the view of someone like @Kencode. Of course we are not here to be naive about how to function in society regarding the existence of technology and techniques, but in many ways, @Kencode's concern is very likely not necessarily a belief in the firmament, as if he absolutely knew all the facts about creationism and the firmament, but rather, the idea that modern science is so suspicious and untrustable, that all previous answers need to be reviewed again, including the firmament, creationism, and even non-big-bang theories that may lack any supernatural god element, but are still not what is currently accepted as science.

Trust has no place here and even mentioning it is a dark blight upon the topic of science. Having a better record of being right means nothing to me. Only the truth is true.

Faith, trust, and belief are blights blights blights, and even using that word in the context of a debate about the firmament is just not going to convince anyone. If you want to defeat @kencode, then you need to stop using the word trust, and stop asking him to trust people. That's not going to work. He views these institutions as liars, and until you can prove that at least some of what they say is true, why wouldn't he grow even more suspicious the more you tell him to have faith? You should just deliver him the data, the logic, and the usage of the scientific method, and importantly, do these experiments in real life, and get him to do them too. These are debates about the truth of reality, and unless you both go outside and embrace the light of the sun, all you will know is darkness.