Well, the first problem is that you have plants around for millions of years before you have a sun.
As I understand the reading of Genesis 1, the Bible establishes a frame of reference for the six days in Genesis 1:2 "the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Thus everything that occurred was from the point of view of the surface of the waters (what is your view on this, lucaspa?). If so, then the "creation" of the sun on the 4th day does not conflict since this occurs by the transition of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent. So light came before the 4th day, but the sun and moon were not distinguishable until the 4th day.
Second, you have whales around for millions of years before the land mammals they evolved from.
As for the whales, the model I established in the first post assumes that God created without the use of macroevolution.
Third, you have the earth around for millions of years before any of the other stars and even the sun. That contradicts everything astronomy has found.
Again, the earth was created on the first day, along with the sun, moon and stars (The word hayah is used as the creation verb, so the translation of the sun, moon, and stars as being made to appear rather than created from nothing an appropriate one).
The Gospels and historical books are not 100% literally accurate either. Luke says "all the world was taxed", but we take extrabiblical knowledge to know that not all the world was taxed.
That makes sense. I didn't make myself very clear, and I see what you mean by a less literalistic view of the Bible. When Luke says "all the world was taxed," it was a figure of speech. When I meant I take the Bible literally, that means I would take that phrase literally, but not each word literally, since it seems from context that the phrase itself is a figure of speech. On the other hand, does anyone take the Bible LITERALLY (dictionary.com: 2. Word for word; verbatim)? I don't think so. We take the Bible literally (dictionary.com: 1.Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words). So when the author of Song of Solomon 2:1 wrote "I am a rose of Sharon,
a lily of the valleys" we don't first think of a talking rose.
Do you need 100% literal accuracy for the theological messages to be true? Obviously the Exodus and Resurrection must be true for Judeo-Christianity to survive, but do all the details need to be so? Does Jesus really have to have his side pierced by a spear?
No, you're right. The essence of the Bible is not in the details, but the theological ideas. But to pick and choose what's true and what's not from the Bible isn't fair, is it? How can we confirm that the theology is true without confirmation that the archaeology, history, etc. is true?
Not with the findings of science. Speciation (macroevolution) has been observed so often that many of the YEC organizations accept it.
Uhhh, I'll let you have the last word on that one, seeing as I don't know a whole lot about evolution, and that that debate is a lot longer.
I've never heard of the Genesis as a refutation for the Babylonians, sounds interesting.
How can you make a statement like this? Did ALL Christians investigate this for themselves? Or were they just following what the leader of their denomination was stating? And did the leaders EVEN state 'we believe in an old Earth?' Or was it more like 'we believe that a young OR old Earth is compatible with the teachings of the Bible?' I'll have to see some evidence on this.
This is just a related comment, but a lot of the early church members believed in an old earth, and that was without being "biased" by evidence for the Big Bang and the old age of the earth. Their simple interpretation of the Genesis 1 text led them to believe that the earth was old. They include: Philo, Josephus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, and others. Some viewed the six days as figurative, others as longer periods, or thousand-year periods.