Biblical Scientific Accuracy is nonsense
Stars differ in glory (1 Corinthians 15:41)
So what. Look into the sky and see for yourself. Of course the ancient Hebrews could see for themselves too.
Stars follow a predictable pattern (Jeremiah 31:35)
If it is the apparent trajectory of stars over the sky, Well look into the sky and see for yourself.
Earth is round, not flat (Isaiah 40:22; Psalm 103:12)
Isaiah is clearly talking about a flat earth with a kind of solid 'sky' covering it like a dome ('like a tent to live in').
I have no idea what the Psalmist is talking about. If you travel far enough you end where you start.
Earth hangs on nothing (not built on pillars) (Job 26:7)
Then try Job 9:6. How can you decide (without preceeding knowledge) which is accurate and which is figurative?
Scientific evidence of a young universe:
1) Spiral galaxies
Complicated, but look here.
2) “Missing” supernova remnants
3) Short-lived comets
Look up 'Centaurs' and 'Scattered disc' and the argument disappears.
4) Moon moving away from Earth
Complicated - but not impossible. And cetainly not an argument for thousands of years in stead of millions.
Water cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10)
Ecclesiates apparently think that the water is running back to the spring of the rivers. If he ment 'evapuration' from the sea, why not say so?
Isaiah is simply irrellevant.
Sea currents (Psalm 8:8)
If 'Path' means 'Current' then why say 'Current'?
“Fountains of the deep broken up” (Genesis 7:11)
OK, point taken. But what are 'The windows of heaven'. Don't say 'figurative' because then you immidiately have to tell why 'Fountains' is not figurative.
Scientific evidence of a young earth:
1) Continents erode too fast
But they are replaces by continental drift.
2) Too much mud on the sea floor
3) Too much sodium in the ocean
Addition of sodium is in equilibrium with disappearence.
4) Too rapid decay of earth’s magnetic field
The field is fluctuating, not stabily decaying.
Blood circulation (Leviticus 17:11)
It takes a great deal of faith to make sense out of this. I cannot.
Scientific evidence of a recent creation
1) DNA programming for irreducibly complex protein sequences
It is not clear what the argument is. That irriducible complexity exist (Which is not in principle an argument against evolution), or that DNA is programming Proteins. The latter is a great problem, that have still n ot been solved. But to claim that it is in principle unsolvable takes more arguments.
2) Lack of missing links in the fossil record
I guess 'Missing link' means 'Transitional forms'. Otherwise it is an oxymoron.
Why is Archaeopteryx not a transitional form? It has a long bony tail that no present day birds have!
The transition from 4-bone 'Reptile-like' lower jaw, to 1-bone 'Mammal-like' jaw, is well establihed.
3) Dinosaur blood vessels in fossils
So what? In principal this it not a problem, though a suprize.