Creation Timing - does it matter?

It matters to a lot of people: about half of Aussies surveyed said the matter of science and evolution prevents them from taking the claims of Christianity seriously. 

First let me caution anyone in that situation, don’t make creation timing the issue that determines your eternal destiny.
The eternity-breaker is whether or not you trust the living God.
There are other good & sufficient reasons to believe in and trust the Creator. Such as: 
. the manuscripts and archaeology of the Bible, which indicate it was reliably transmitted.
. the prophecies and storyline within it which indicate a divine source. 
. the historicity of the life, death & resurrection of Jesus, the latter giving further evidence of the divine.
Thus a supernatural Creator is still evident even without addressing the timing issue.
Maybe that's why I used to be ambivalent about creation timing - because I had those other anchor-points for trusting God through Jesus. Maybe that's why other Christians leave the timing question unanswered too, or even settle on long-age interpretations, because they have these other good foundations for their faith instead.

However... for Aussies without any of those anchor-points, it’s understandable that "science and evolution" is a problem for their belief, because what we read in Genesis 1 is so shockingly different from what most of us are taught in school about billions of years and evolution.
So it is fair to ask, “which timing is right?”

Let’s start here: "it is reasonable to expect the Creator's Account to interpret ALL observations consistently.”
I'll defend that, but for now I'm saying we do not have to discard the Bible in favour of simplistic assertions about what "the science says.” If truth is true, truths from both sources should match.
Truth should be able to research-and-uphold ALL the legitimate observations, of both sciences and the Bible.
But equally logically truth should not be able to uphold all interpretations, because some interpretations will contradict others.

So when I finally did examine enough of the observations (both Biblical and scientific), I found that when it comes to origins, most of us were not given some critical information. Like: 

1. Interpretations are not observations.
   Once you start watching for the difference between observations and interpretations, you'll see it everywhere. Like all those nature shows that bluntly say, "this took billions of years..." That's just their interpretation of observations. For example, layers in the geological column are the observations. Interpretations differ. One interpretation is slow layering of particulates over billions of years. Another interpretation is catastrophic global flooding over a few years. Same observation, different interpretations. Most of us were unaware there are different interpretations - since we were only told "billions of years," as if it were observation, when it was really only one interpretation. Moreover, in 1980 when Mt Saint Helens erupted, science did observe geological layering in mere days. Those actual observations were more consistent with the faster interpretation of geological layers. And less consistent with the slower interpretation.
2. Historical science is more interpretive than Observational science.
   Observational sciences (producing technology, medicines etc) are based on repeated observations in the present. But Historical sciences (about unrepeatable past origins) are based more on interpretations of observations. Direct observations of the past can't be made, so assumptions must be made to support various interpretations, which can mistakenly be presented as observations. All this happens under the name of "science."
3. Special creation has no conflict with scientific observations.
   It only has conflict with some interpretations of the observations. Biblical interpretations can fit all scientific observations.
4. We should not exclude an interpretation that might yet reveal the truth.
   Super-natural dimensions should not be ruled out unless proven otherwise. Because they may in fact be the reality. And ruling it out will, a priori, prevent you from identifying that truth.
   
5. The interpretation that consistently fits ALL the observations is most likely to be true.
   The interpretation with global explanatory power, able to explain observations across all logical disciplines including history, archaeology, Biblical study... is likely to be the most reliable reflection of reality.
6. ALL relevant observations should be included for interpretation.
   We don’t exclude observations simply because they have implications that don’t fit our interpretation. This seems obvious, yet observations from history, archaeology, and Biblical prophecies, are excluded by naturalists as if they don't exist. But these observations still do exist and thus should be properly explained.
7. Relevant observations include scientific observations. Eg:
   . Geological layers - with dead/drowned remains all over the earth
   . Mt Saint Helens eruption layering.
   . Genetics and natural selection - only within kinds/genus
   . & genetic entropy - losing genetic information over time
   . Biology, life coming only from life - not non life
   . Entropy - physical things lose available energy and order over time
   . Relativity, something produces physical things - not nothing
   . Biblical manuscripts & archaeology
8. Relevant observations also include Biblical observations. Eg:
   . Biblical prophecies - how are they reasonably explained?
   . Biblical storyline - how so coherent, comprehensive, despite diversity?
   . Biblical content about timing - and not just Genesis 1. Include also: Exodus20:11. Mattew19:4-6 (Mark10:6). 1Corinthians15:22 and others confirming there was no death before human sin. And passages about the needed solution to that sin-&-death problem, like Romans6:23. 1Peter2:24 (and the Isaiah 53 prophecy 700 years earlier) and 2Corinthians 5:21.
9. Interpretations derived from Biblical observations do have global explanatory power.
   That is, the Biblical observations align with observations from all other disciplines including the sciences. This is consistent with the Bible’s claims to be reliable revelation from the Creator.
10. Biblically-derived interpretations often interpret scientific observations better than naturalistic interpretations. For example, some scientific observations require supernatural origins of the universe for consistency:
    . Entropy requires a beginning of energy and order, and a source of that energy & order.
    . Relativity requires physical reality came from something, not nothing. So before the beginning of physical reality, the Something that caused it had to be other-than-physical. Other-dimensional.
    . Biology requires life only comes from Life.
    . Genetic entropy shows genetic material degrades, not evolves.
    Biblical interpretations fit these scientific observations better than naturalist interpretations do.
11. Historical accounts often provide an interpretation consistent with all the observations.
    So a historical account such as Genesis 1 can provide a legitimate interpretation if it proves consistent with all the available observations. And it does.

So where can normal people like us find specific observations with interpretations that are Biblically consistent? I recommend creation.com.

On closer inspection as an adult, contrary to what I was taught at school and most media outlets, I have found that Bible-based interpretations of origins involving special creation are more consistent with all the relevant observations than any naturalistic interpretation.

After all, it's reasonable that The Creator’s Account would interpret ALL observations consistently.