Actually Hunter, the problem lies in this statement of yours right here:

"...but if it doesn't match up with the account in the bible,...".

You see, this is where you creationists reveal yourselves to be the hopelessly brainwashed un-thinking sheep you really are.

You don't know the meaning of "Science" itself, so I don't expect you to understand String theory.

Until you get over this insistance on making all observations and theories "fit" a predefined condition, based on a single, unverifiable reference, the only real truth in your words is that they reveal you haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about.

Even if the Bible were a Scientific Journal, (which it isn't) or even an accurate historic account (which it also isn't), it would need to be reinforced by independant sources to give it credence in the matters above. There are no two Creationists who can even interpret the Bible the same way. Personal interpretation is all you really have, not facts.

If you guys would just stick to allowing the Bible to be that which it does best which is provide inspirational insight into moral and spititual matters, you'd be better off. When you start trying to use it as some factual account for reference into scientific matters you shoot yourselves in the foot and your credibility along with it.