So did most other creation myths. It's the explanation most primitive peoples came to when they wondered, "where'd this Earth thing come from?" and crafted stories to imagine what might have happened, because humans tend to expect things to have beginnings.
As late as the 1920's the most brilliant scientists in the world, including Mr E=MC^2, held to a static universe, ie: no creation event.
Because at the time there wasn't a lot of evidence that there had been one.
Genesis was correct. How can this be?
Luck. That is, unless you want to credit all the other incompatible-with-Genesis creation myths with *also* being somehow infallibly dictated as opposed to just fortuitously correct on that one point also...
And you can't have it both ways -- if you're going to give Genesis "credibility points" for matching the conclusions of science on that *one* point (even though the actual *details* of the Big Bang differ hugely from the Genesis creation scenario), then you're also going to have to accept the fact that numerous *other* "predictions" in Genesis are quite wrong when compared to the conclusions of science.
And as a side issue, it's amusing to note how many of the Usual Suspects among the creationists actually rail *against* the Big Bang theory for some reason. Go figure. Apparently they're not nearly as happy about the Big Bang's "confirmation" of Genesis as you are.
Even the scientists? The Bible is is revelation, not a science text or even a history book. But it is interesting to lots of people that the Torah spoke of creation, disorder and order. Perhaps not to you but my reaction to that is really quite simple. So what?
Because at the time there wasn't a lot of evidence that there had been one.
There was Einsteins own theory which taken to its logical conclusion implied a creation event. My opinion is that until Hubble he let his own prejudices against such an event blind him to the obvious ramifications of his own theory.
Luck. That is, unless you want to credit all the other incompatible-with-Genesis creation myths with *also* being somehow infallibly dictated as opposed to just fortuitously correct on that one point also...
Thats one opinion, I don't happen to share it.
And you can't have it both ways -- if you're going to give Genesis "credibility points" for matching the conclusions of science on that *one* point (even though the actual *details* of the Big Bang differ hugely from the Genesis creation scenario), then you're also going to have to accept the fact that numerous *other* "predictions" in Genesis are quite wrong when compared to the conclusions of science.
I can have it any way I want. Unlike the determinist's and reductionists I possess free will, and I thank God for that greatest gift. But the fact that YOUR interpretation of Genesis and what it predicts or says is different than mine is evidence of nothing except we may interpret Genesis differently.
And as a side issue, it's amusing to note how many of the Usual Suspects among the creationists actually rail *against* the Big Bang theory for some reason. Go figure. Apparently they're not nearly as happy about the Big Bang's "confirmation" of Genesis as you are.
That's OK, it amuses me that the determinists on your side of the aisle embrace conservatism, the two are thoroughly incompatible.
Certainly not the steady state creation myth!!!!!
Now, if the physical evidence should wind up matching Bishop Usser's calcuation, fine. That would make things a little easier. A little less faith would be needed. A point of dispute would be resolved. But if it doesn't that's fine too. It's not going to change my thinking.
The truth is the age of the earth is not that important. What is vitally important, however, is the claims of Jesus. If the Gospels are true, then even if man shared a common ancestor with apes (or oak trees), one would still have no excuse in rejecting the Lord Jesus.
So even common descent -- which has NOT been established -- would not shake my faith and I can consider it fairly objectively.
You, OTOH, would have your whole world changed -- as it's being done -- if it could shown that life required a Creator.