I've got to admit, I think you're more wordy then me!, lol.

You can do two posts. (I had to do that once since I had 17000 characters.)

I didn't say that all the Bible was supposed to be interpreted literally (ex. miracles) but just the certain aspects we were dealing with. Some places are quite obvious while others are a little harder. You can use the easier parts of the Bible to explain the rest, though, so that is how most of our interpretations are correct. I have read the Pilgrim's Progress (I was too young to get anything out of it, lol). If the Bible was all symbolism, then we would have nothing, I repeat, nothing to base our faith on or even the existence of God. Still, it would be hard to interpret certain parts of the Bible metaphorically (ex. geneologies, history).

Basically, I just quote out of this one book, "Origins Answer Book". Ok, here it goes:

"Carobon-14 dating is useful for much archaelogical work, when used with great care. As with all age estimating systems, many variables and assumptions are involved.
Creationist dating experts believe Earth was devastated by a worldwide flood cataclysm thousands of years ago. They stress that such an event would have to be taken into account to properly calibrate the Carbon-14 method. There are other problems and erroneous age estimates, as well.
Both Creationists and Evolutionists agree Carbon-14 would be useless for estimating the age of anything that is supposed to be millions of years old. Carbon-14 has a relatively short life, and there would be no useful measurable amount left in 30-100 thousand years.
Conventional Carbon-14 techiniques appear to produce fairly accurate age estimates from about 1000 B.C. to the present. However, when it comes to "dates" older than this, there appear to be some problems. Many Creationists seriously question the accuracy of radiocarbon "dates" older than 3 thousand years, and certainly any radiocarbon estimates greater than about 4-5 thousand years."

(on "Other Radioactive Methods")
"Age estimates which are obviously wrong or contradictory are sometimes produced. For example, new rock in the form of hardened lava flows produced estimated ages as great as 3 billion to 10.5 billion years, when they were actually less than 200 years old.
A popular and supposedly foolproof method was used on two lava flows in the Grand Canyon that should be ideal for radioactive age estimation. The results were similarly bad. Young basalt rock at the Canyon's top produced an age estimate of 270 million years older than ancient basalt rock at the Canyon's bottom. The problem seems to arise from basic wrong assumptions in the method (rubidium-strontium isochron). If such a sophisticated method is so flawed, geologist Dr. Steven Austin rightly wonders, 'Has anyone successfully dated a Grand Canyon rock?'"

Also, these dating methods have been created with Evolutionist idea (the idea that the earth is billions of years old). They allow millions of years to fit their theory when in reality, only more recent years show accurate results.

That could be one explanation. Still, there are many more contradictory results from everywhere in the world.

Let me just post my quote.

Was I saying that since the Bible is old, it is good? No. I was saying that what the Bible says still corresponds exactly with new scientific evidence. If this evidence didn't exist back then and the Bible is still right, then it adds more evidence that the Bible actually is true.

Ok.

Both Creationists and Evolutionists alike agree that there is natural selection and variation within a population. This does not give evidence for Macro-Evolution, though. It only shows that species will adapt to different environments. (Creationists believe this is because all species were created with a large amount of information which is being passed down along the generations. The DNA that doesn't work with a certain environment is then not passed along because that creature doesn't survive as well.) Also, you must remember, that all this variation is within a certain "baramin" (basically, species). All these variations are still classified under one species, finch. This is clearly not support for Macro-Evolution which claims that a basic creature evolved upwards, gaining information, and changing from one species to another. We do not see this today.

This is because (I pretty much just said this) animals were created with information. The information is passed along and when the animals dispersed, there were many different environments. Certain genes went better with certain environments and other genes eventually died out.

Read above.