The Literal Genesis Account of Creation

They (nobody specifically) must accept the science that is blatantly obvious, but they don't want to accept the science that conflicts with their world view.

But the idea of the earth only being 6-10k years old is false

Bible=God formed man, animals, and fowl out of the dust of the earth, thus they have a common ancestor (mother earth).

Many think this experiment shows Life could not have formed on earth as is presently believed.

What scientific, verifiable, proven thing of science did I reject?

Many think this experiment shows Life could not have formed on earth as is presently believed.

The issue being discussed would be off topic here of course so you should open another thread or add it to an appropriate abiogenesis thread.

Why, I would be happy to discuss "this new life form"!Care to join me in a new thread?

There are other scientific theories out there and it they are proven correct I will still be correct.

For most cosmologists, the refutation of the steady-state theory came with the discovery of the cosmic background radiation in 1965, which was predicted by the big bang theory

Steven Weinberg wrote in 1972,The steady state model does not appear to agree with the observed dL versus z relation or with source counts ... In a sense, the disagreement is a credit to the model; alone among all cosmologies, the steady state model makes such definite predictions that it can be disproved even with the limited observational evidence at our disposal. The steady-state model is so attractive that many of its adherents still retain hope that the evidence against it will disappear as observations improve. However, if the cosmic microwave background radiation ... is really black-body radiation, it will be difficult to doubt that the universe has evolved from a hotter, denser early stage.

As of 2006, the majority of astronomers consider the big bang theory to be the best description of the origin of the universe. In most astrophysical publications, the big bang is implicitly accepted and is used as the basis of more complete theories.

Even after Hubble's observations, Fritz Zwicky proposed that a static universe could still be viable if there was an alternative explanation of redshift due to a mechanism that would cause light to lose energy as it traveled through space, a concept that would come to be known as "tired light". Subsequent cosmological observations have shown such a model to be an unviable alternative, leading most astrophysicists to conclude that the static universe is essentially falsified.