Do you even know what the Bible account of creation is, I mean literally is? There is not one word or hint or suggestion the heavens and earth of Genesis 1:1 are young. AND Genesis 1:2 describe a complete destruction of this earth even to saying it was flooded. Moses does not address the specifics of this, although he does point to the source by using the phrase 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil.'
Literal evidence does not conflict with the literal words of the Bible...
“Do you even know what the Bible account of creation is, I mean literally is? There is not one word or hint or suggestion the heavens and earth of Genesis 1:1 are young. AND Genesis 1:2 describe a complete destruction of this earth even to saying it was flooded. Moses does not address the specifics of this, although he does point to the source by using the phrase ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil.’
Literal evidence does not conflict with the literal words of the Bible...”
The premise of the opening post is that the Universe is young and conforms to the account of Genesis. So the opening poster thinks that Genesis does.
Yes I have read the bible account many times. It does say that God created the heavens and the earth is 6 days. It is very specific that there was morning and there was evening each day. If the bible did not say that the heavens and the earth are young then there would be no reason to try and reconcile the bible account with the now known fact that the earth is in the neighborhood of 4.5 billion years old by claiming that the days mentioned in genesis 1:1 are not literal days. What reason is there to conclude this? It does not say anything of the kind. Either Genesis can be taken literally or it must be interpreted. That would mean different people deciding it means different things which is exactly the situation you see today. So your assertion is false.