I'd question your interpretations here, but beyond that, centuries separate the Genesis accounts (which most certainly predate 1,000 BC) and Job and Isaiah. There are clear links between the cosmography found in Genesis and the cosmography of Sumero-Akkadian civilizations.

Because our faith-powered rockets keep failing! I blame Joseph. He's seemed pretty doubtful that it could work, with his fancy-schmancy physics degree. His lack of faith is disturbing our rocket!

That makes sense if you don't consider defending DOMA, or seeking to have it brought under judicial review for constitutionality, to be getting anything done.

They may both say "it should be left to the states" which is true, strictly speaking. Yet they differ in the federal government's role in this decision -- specifically, whether states should be required to respect another state's decision to allow gays to marry, and whether federal employees can receive benefits tied to marriage.

The underwriters usually have a 15% over allotment of the stock that they can manipulate to support the price if it breaks the syndicate bid. If Morgan Stanley did't have to buy more than that 15% of the issue to support the price on the day of the IPO then they might not have lost any thing.

Reference Greenshoe Green Shoe Manufacturing was the first IPO to have this allotment which is why its been called that ever since.

A good chunk of the Old Testament was written by people who thought the world was flat and that there was a crystal dome above where the celestial bodies were set. That's why you had stories like Joshua's Long Day, which is, of course, utterly impossible, but was believable by a people who thought the Earth itself was stationary.

My understanding is that the two accounts are literally two different accounts, one of clearly polytheistic or henotheistic origin, and the other a monotheistic recasting of the more ancient myth.

Moses didn't write Genesis. It seems unlikely that Moses even existed.

Some very brilliant fellow once noted that Creationists will accept any level of evolution up to the point where they have to accept that humans evolved from monkeys. Darwin realized it even in the mid-19th century, which is why Origin plays a little coy with human evolution, although Darwin knew perfectly well that if everything else on Earth evolved from a common ancestor, so did we.

Years ago, during my days on talk.origins, someone pointed out that even if Omphalism (the notion that God made the Universe look a certain way, light created in transit from galaxies, fossils stuck in the ground, etc.) is true, from a methodological perspective it would be irrelevant. Since science can only work with observations, if the observations are the product of God faking it, then we can only work with the idea that they're true anyways. In other words, Omphalism doesn't make God more important, it only makes him more irrelevant.

Then there are the severe theological issues that go along with claiming God is a liar.

But are spiritualists in fact making more sense of it. The power to invent a claim in and of itself does not grant the claim any sensibility or explanatory power.

While science cannot prove anything beyond any question, there are theories that are so well demonstrated, such as evolution is, that you might as well consider it proven. Do we have all the answers, no we don't. But we have enough of them to know that if evolution is incomplete, a more complete theory is still going to be an evolutionary theory. Just as Darwin lacked a verified system of inheriting traits, but still produced a theory with substantial explanatory power, so to with current scientists.