Wow Scott, you are honestly dedicated to the topic, so I'll drop a quick reply.
Just a couple comments, no point in details.
Not all things labeled "science" are mathematically viable. I deal with this all the time, as I am closely tied to several disciplines including biology, climate, and human behaviour.
The apologists constantly attempting to quantify/justify/rectify Biblical references to "science" are totally barking up the wrong tree. Arguments from this crowd often are remarkably similar to Biblical detractors. The whole point is "faith", like it or not. The Bible is not about explaining the nuts and bolts of creation, it is about describing Man's fallen nature and his need for justification and reconciliation with his Creator, who is perfectly just beyond human understanding. More on this in a sec.
"Faith" is the belief in something that we as individuals did not directly observe. We take on "faith" that the Big Bang did in fact occur, that our $100 bills actually came from the Treasury Department, and that
Pinus monophylla is actually still recording drought episodes prior to the instrumental period. We feel that these things are true with some varying level of confidence because of the nature of the available evidence. This is completely true for the concept of Evolution in the blob-to-brilliant-monkey sense. Nobody saw it happen, it is a theory. All of the "faith" in religion is tied to perceived evidence as well. Many of the greatest mathematical thinkers of all time are/were convinced that God exists and made the universe, it is not a contradiction in terms at all.
The next step is to look at it this way: if there is a being that created everything that we can observe or detect, it pretty much stands to reason that the being is not governed by the very physical laws that were created. It also follows that the being would be completely perfect and capable beyond human imagination. Creating everything through some evolutionary process or creating everything in-situ inside exactly 6 24hr periods really doesn't matter, and both would be entirely plausible, since the being would be able to act at will.
The real question is: if the Bible does in fact remain a constant where the Human/God relationship is concerned, reinforced by an inherent conscience of Right/Wrong and the ability to observe the natural order of everything, does everything else at the nit-picky detail level actually fall into place? I would argue it does.
Funny that this thread has not been separated out into a true religion discussion thread, but instead stays in the realm of Bay Area Bumper Sticker Water Droplet Diffraction.
