Punchy said:
Are you referring to Genesis or how young earth creationists interpret Genesis?
I'm referring to the literal interpretation as used by, but not limited to, YECs.
The Bible says: "In the Beginning" Science confirms that there was a beginning. Science talks about "Adam" & "Eve" this confirms that there was a common ancestor. I can give you many, many, many examples of where Science confirms that the Bible is true.
The Bible says 'rabbits chew their cud', the Bible says "he could see all four corners of the Earth", the Bible says "the Sun was stopped in the sky", the Bible says God created the Earth in a number of days, and so on and so forth. So on face value it appears the Bible has a great deal in error. Unless you interpret it differently (see below).
There is nothing that says Genesis is not accurate. What science falsifys is some of the traditions and some of the popular misconceptions or misinterpretations of the Bible. That is why I say, Science helps us to better understand out Bible. If it were not for science we may never have known that some of our traditional interpretations of the Bible are wrong.
This is one of the more sensible views to take. But bear in mind that it is
obvious now that anything in the Bible is true, because if you find a contradiction with reality you change your interpretation to match reality.
I applaud you for doing so, but you need to realise that it makes it utterly unsurprising the Bible appears to never be wrong - the same could be said of
any book if a similar approach was taken for its interpretation.
You can either interpret the Bible as it appears and find it is in error, or interpret the Bible in light of science and find that it is,
unremarkably, consistent with our knowledge of the world. Perhaps worse, if the Bible appears to be in error without science to show you
how to interpret it, perhaps you should be wary about drawing conclusions using the Bible when you have no science to guide you in what it is talking about.