The Genesis account, if true, excludes macro-evolution

I have a feeling you didn't read the article that I posted like I read the article you did. I was unable to view the YouTube video. but I'm guessing it had Kent Hovind in it. I am very aware of his work I've seen multiple debates with him in it. your link talks about dating the earth using genealogy. My link compares the age of the earth using different genealogies that start and end with the same people but end up with different ages which shows how unreliable using genealogies really is. and just F 11 says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth did that take place before day 1 of creation or I or did it take place during the days of creation? if you read the Hebrew for the day that the Sun and Moon were created alright you'll see in the Hebrew they don't use the word for created it I have more to do with taking objects that already exist and moving them into place. This is in contrast to my other days of creation. Just how many days took place before the Sun was put into existence and how are the days measured before the Sun was put into place? if you've heard Kent Hovind talk about the word yom I would like to point out several examples that the word yom is used for more than one literal day. But I will point out just one because my link points out others. Look up in several translations hours long did Jacob feel he worked for rachel. In Hebrew it says it felt to him as yom echad. It isn't typically translated as "one day", even in the most literal translations like KJV. Part of the problem is that we read Genesis in English, not Hebrew. The word used for day isn't always one 24 hour period of time. As for radiometric dating, Christians like to point out the known limitations of radiometric dating. Let me ask did Christian scientists discover these limitations or did secular scientists discover these limitations and why were these limitations discovered? When we learn the scientific method in school, we are taught to understand how reliable and to how many decimal places or result is. Scientists want to do the same with all thier tools, including radiometric dating. That is why various forms of radiometric dating are used on the same rock samples and performed in multiple independent labs. It turns out that they all agree almost all the time. The results not just agree with each other, they agree with the predicted age based on other geological observations. Young earth creationists question the reliability of radiometric dating and point out the flaws found by those testing them m what they fail to show is that there is evidence that they are unreliable. There is a mound of evidence in favor of their reliability. There is even a debate on the topic on this very website (surprise surprise) where one side gives multiple examples of how radiometric dating has been verified by the scientific community. If you find this a contentious issue, I'd be glad to debate the age of the earth. I grew up a young earth creationist myself until I started asking my opponents how they knew I was wrong, and they showed me. There are many many other ways to show the earth is old, not just radiometric dating. Are you able to show that radio metric dating can be shown inaccurate at least 20% of the time it is used in practice? The following debate gives multiple proofs that it is reliable. http://www.debate.org... I contend that if the Bible and nature disagree, is probably not the Bible that's wrong; it's your understanding of the Bible. Several verses say the earth shall not be moved, yet today we understand it revolves around the Sun. Just saying...