Dr. Steve Boyd keeps to the traditional translation of everything coming into existence from God. He mentions the original Hebrew has no word for "universe" and therefore the creation of the heavens and the earth means eveyrthing.

James Tabor makes the same argument as Dr. Michael S. Heiser.

That Genesis 1:1-3 is a mistranslation, and implies that genesis was not about the creation of the universe.

According to this translation, the earth existed before God started creating in Genesis????

( ~ 24:30)

Radiometric dating operates from the wrong assumptions (that all processes remained constant during all of history, which, compared to the Bible is false and therefore foolish).

Different radiometric dating methods give vastly different aging results in a systematically wrong way; according to Dr. Kurt, this is proof that they use wrong assumptions.

( ~ 19:00 )

The primary argument as made by Dr. Kurt with reference to the Bible is that God used processes during the creation that he NEVER used again. So to assume chronological dating methods based on processes that exist now is to be foolish, as you cannot go back to creation itself and use those methods; creation used different processes that do not exist anymore.

Additionally, God created all of existence... He is above it. He can certainly manipulate it. The laws of physics do not apply to Him. He has created creatures and things in an ADULT state of being... So by using dating methods that are used to calculate the age of something you can arrive at a result much older than it is in fact, for God could've created its values in an old state even though it is in fact young.

Dr. Kurt Wise argues that the Bible's claims should be accepted over human's science. As is said, man's Wisdom is but foolishness for God.

There is a degree of truth to this; the Bible (God) should be considered absolute truth.(Christian) Science therefore should assume the truth of the Bible and use science to support it. Or at least try to see if what the Bible says is true; use its claims as the hypothesis.

Perhaps this is some form of confirmation bias, but I think this doesn't matter in this instance.

History is the story of God... It serves as a narrative to describe what God has done.

Inferring based on the creation is secondary circumstantial evidence, the eyewitness account is that of God himself.