Scientist are starting to agree with the Biblical account of creation, why aren't atheists?

You have to have a very vivid imagination to get "Scientists are starting to agree with creation" out of that.

First of all, science says that that the universe was featureless and dark. That would mean that no stars or planets existed. The Bible says that the earth and "waters" existed, but were dark. That's not the same thing at all.

What is the point you are trying to make?

Faith is a gift. Atheists do not believe because they have not been called by God's grace. What exactly do you expect from them?

Quotes taken out of context don't prove very much, but you are correct that there are truthful messages in the Bible. However, Genesis was not meant to be read literally, and is not "scientific" although there are clear paralells between the scientific view of the origins of the universe, and the biblical account. Genesis 1 and 2 when viewed metaphorically do present very striking similarities to scientific theories, but the message (God created the universe) is lost when you look at it in literal terms.

This paralell you point out here, is obvious to persons of faith, but will have little impact on atheists, for reasons stated before.

Science does not seek to prove the Bible or the existence of God, or to disprove any supernatural origins. Science simply seeks to understand our physical reality.

As Galileo said: "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

Since atheists are not interested in how to go to heaven, I don't think your argument will have much impact. But good luck!

Where is WATER included in the current understanding of early cosmology? And if "hovering over the waters" isn't literal, how do you know the rest is? And how many scientists think the universe was created in 7 days?

If you want to believe in Sky Daddy, go ahead, but science offers no protection for you.

Perhaps you did not understand what the article in Scientific American was saying. There was no support there for anything resembling the "Genesis model".

The Bible asserts that the Sun was created after the earth, and if memory serves, after plants. This is obviously incorrect. We know that many stars (galaxies of them) formed and died before our sun ignited and that that happened before the earth form, and that the moon formed or was captured in some way after that.

Did you know that the plytheistic Greeks had a similar account of the state of the Universe before "creation"? And the Nordic peoples? And just about every culture on the planet?

It's no more evidence for your God than it is for Buri or Chronos.

Opaque, not dark. And the Big Bang was probably 11 billion years or more before the Earth was formed. Exactly how do these correlate with Genesis Ch1?

Does the term "confirmation bias" mean anything to you?

This doesn't mean that scientists are believing in creationism. It doesn't mean anything. Of course the universe is dark and big, look up at the night sky you can see this.

They both state an obvious fact.

The bible is a bunch of stories that have been twisted over all the many years. Many parts are just outrageous and they are some small parts that could be true, period...

Next?

On the contrary. Science continues to disprove creationism. Your argument is silly at best.

Yeah right,and it the world was built in six days?Adam and Eve were real?please,science shows that the bible is nonsense.