AA, a lot of the posts following your original post are sort of "nit picky" about specific words, or over all conclusions. While those posts may be correct, I think everyone here is missing the bigger point.
You've struck upon something important here.
Keep in mind that 2,000 years ago, people thought that the Sun was 1 meter in diameter.
The people 2000 years ago had ideas about the world that we not necessarily correct. Obviously, the Sun is not 1 meter in diameter.
Does this make the philosophy of these people any less valuable? Does this make their veiws on man's purposes on Earth less valuable? No.
It does, however, make us have to consider some parts of the Bible as things written by people before the discovery of X, Y or Z.
In the (not too distant) past, Doctors didn't know about germs and viruses. They didn't have any devices which could see them. So they thought that illnesses were caused by "bad humors" and frequently bleed patients nearly to death.
You would not go to a doctor today who believes such things.
Similiarly, you should not rely on a 2000 year old book to provide you with detailed descriptions of scientific evidence. The people then simply did not have the vocabulary to describe the science. You can't explain "germs" if you don't know what a "germ" is.
AA I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here (haha great pun!).
We are not trying to prove that God doesn't exist. Proving God's existance / non-existance is outside of the scope of science. It's simply not something that science has anything to say about.
The problem is that there are a lot of things that science does have stuff to say about. Those things are often at odds with parts of the Bible. There are things in the Bible with are just false.
But here's the thing, those parts are NOT the important parts of the Bible.
No scientist is going to try to use science to discredit the teachings of Jesus. No scientist is going to try to use science to argue against the 10 commandments. Etc, etc.
The _only_ problem that arrises is when people follow this logic:
I believe in God, I believe that the Bible was written by God, God can not be wrong therefore the Bible can not be wrong, therefore my interuptation (or my pastors interuptation) can not be wrong.
Even if you want to believe the first 4 pieces of that, you can't say that you are infalliable.
Assuming God wrote the Bible and the Bible says "the stars fell from the heavens". This does not necessarily mean "the stars actually literally physically fell from the heavens."
This could be poetry, this could be metaphor, this could be a lot of things. The stars could represent something. The heavens could be symbolic of something.
The same holds true for Genesis and the Creationism stuff. A "day" doesn't have to "24 hours". God created all the animals doesn't have to mean ALL of them appeared at the same time.
Look for a deeper interuptation of the Bible and I think you will progress much further spiritually.
Side note: The idea that the Bible contains things which are scientifically correct is not really much of a justification. The Bible contains A LOT of information. Surely some of it has to be scientifically accurate, just like parts of Greek Mythology are scientifically accurate.
If I write "Rain falls down and spiders shoot laser guns", part of that is scientifically correct. Doesn't mean all of it is.