By and large that is correct. I operate with the biblical texts as primary truths, and all other texts and observations as secondary, or subservient, to those texts.
I listed several in Post #128. I'm not going to do it again. You are blatantly incorrect, here. Talk to some scientists, and you'll realize you're wrong, here.
I do not believe radiometric dating to be an accurate discipline.
This one made me laugh out loud. I'll warn you that you're talking to someone who works with nuclear physics and statistics for a living and spare you the humiliation of addressing this point, unless, you want to prod me with a proverbial stick.
By and large that is correct. I operate with the biblical texts as primary truths, and all other texts and observations as secondary, or subservient, to those texts.
No, you operate with your own "infallible" interpretation of Biblical texts as primary truths, to the exclusion of any other possibility of their deeper meaning. Plenty of Bible-believing Christians of strong faith are able to accept evolution because they are not so arrogant in their interpretation when confronted by common sense.
By the way, since we're talking about the Bible, why not address one or two of the points I made about the Bible in Post #128, which already replies to the point you just wrote.