This is what's called the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy: "The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are overemphasized. From this reasoning, a false conclusion is inferred." You've ignored everywhere the biblical and scientific accounts differ. For example, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" contradicts the science. The "heavens" had been in existence for many billions of years before the earth (it looks like you changed the biblical account to make the creation of the earth later than that of the sun, which is the correct sequence). Genesis has night and day existing before the sun and earth. The genesis account leaves out much of the scientific account, such as universal expansion and early inflation, or the formation of galaxies. And yes, the biblical day in these accounts was a literal day. That doesn't change just because we now know that that there were more than six days needed to get from the Big Bang to today and believer want to correct that error by changing the meaning of words as hoc. Also, there is no day of rest in the scientific account. The universe has been assembling itself every day for billions of years. You also didn't comment on the discrepancies between the two creation accounts.
WE DO KNOW THE EARLY EARTH WAS DARK, WET AND STERILE. Just as Genesis states.
Nope. Only the last is correct, sterile.
The early earth was lit and had no surface water. It also glowed like lava. The sun already existed when the earth formed, and earth was too hot to be wet (Hadean eon). From
When did oceans form on Earth?
"
For many it would be difficult to envision an Earth without its blue blanket of oceans. However this is precisely what the early stages of our planet were like. An ocean-free Earth existed, perhaps for several hundred million years as a consequence of extremely high surface temperatures following planetary accretion. The formation of oceans on Earth represents no less than a global-scale cooling of Earth's surface to temperatures at which water is stable as a liquid phase."
This is what early earth looked like before the crust hardened and the oceans formed. There is H2O there, but not liquid surface water. It is believed that much (but not all) of that water arrived later in asteroids and comets during the 200 million years known as the late heavy bombardment.
Not surprisingly, you didn't try to rebut any of the above, presumably because you can't. You cannot rebut a sound argument. If you can successfully rebut an argument, you have shown that it was unsound. Let me remind you of what rebuttal is. It's a counterargument to a claim or argument that, if correct, makes the rebutted statements incorrect. So, for example, when you say that the Genesis accounts accurately anticipated the scientific account, my naming discrepancies between them makes your claim wrong unless you can show that mine is wrong. If you cannot show that my counterargument is flawed, then you have been demonstrated to be incorrect.
That's where things stand now, and will continue to stand, since you have no counterargument to any of those claims. You can't demonstrate, for example, that you haven't committed the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy and come to a fallacious conclusion, because you have.
Did you want to address any of that in a way that indicates that you understood it and either agree with it or show why it cannot be correct, or will you now also ignore the rebuttal to your claim of the early earth being dark and wet? I believe that what I wrote is correct. If so, it cannot itself be rebutted. But it would be nice if you acknowledged that you have no rebuttal. It would illustrate that you have understood the argument and understood what a rebuttal is.
