Then perhaps for you there is hope, but I think you are perhaps trying to fudge your own beliefs albeit with at least some desire to value the core conclusions of science generally.
Cognitive dissonance?
Do you really think that the Earth is young because real facts and evidence indicate that is so, or are you more compelled to presuppose that the Earth is young because that's what Genesis would have us believe, if presumed to be an inerrant historical narrative? You can't really have it both ways.
[I can if it's true]
Differing opinions are one thing but evidential support is what tends to settle scientific arguments. I don't know what you mean by "squelched" science. Science isn't about someone's opinions it's about being demonstrably falsifiable should it be false. Science is being constantly challenged by science itself but creationism doesn't contribute anything of value to that process.
[Squelched science is where the courts have to intervene to say a particular viewpoint is not allowed to be taught, like the Scopes trial (yes I include that one) or the Dover decision. Squelched science is trying to punish climate change deniers.]
Yes but your holy scripture was actually written by people with sophisticated language skills who were just as able as we are to "spin a yarn", to use allegory, to embellish, to use folklore myth and legend. They wanted to be heard and to be entertaining,
[those genealogies are sure entertaining--they ought to make a movie out of those things!] they weren't simply putting down what they saw outside, they had an agenda as we all do.
[That's a conclusion based on the evidence, but it's not the only conclusion. See how easy this is?]
There are always a few with strong personal opinions outside the herd perhaps, which is a good thing too, but as I say it's evidence and facts that usually forces science together in the end, not doctrinal beliefs.
Science provides conclusions that we can compare with the evidence to judge for ourselves how believable or not it is. Nothing is deemed to be proven truth.
[Ok, if I judge for myself and come to the YEC conclusion, why do you think you need to be a missionary for something else????? On the other hand, if your mission leads toward strengthening false conclusions that can drive people away from a saving faith in Jesus Christ, toward eternal damnation, you can see why we would push back a little, right?]
An honest creationist.
Science at least isn't written in tablets of stone.
There was, a couple of years ago, but now seems to have largely gone away. The scientist in charge who found the supposed "soft tissue" that excited YECs is very much a Christian but nevertheless dates the demise of her dinosaur to well over 60 million years ago iirc, despite her findings.
Firstly I will concede my bias that imo if anything of scientific value is to be found on creationist websites then it is purely coincidental, or perhaps taken from a more scientific source if they think something helpful to YECism exists. Say if it can be pointed to as a possible contradiction or can be quote mined. I accept my bias here and will try to keep an open mind, but for them a literal Genesis will always trump any science that seems to contradict it, there are no open minds to be found there.
[Sometimes we can be a little too fervent in our denials before the facts are completely known, admittedly. Sometimes we don't understand the scriptures well enough to figure out how they apply to a certain scientific discovery or conclusion. Sometimes the scientific conclusions are wrong. All 3 conditions need to considered regularly.]
Science otoh isn't a religion and it expects to be wrong sometimes.
[Science isn't a religion, but men that do science are very religious, just sometimes the religion is Christianity, sometimes it's atheism, sometimes it's something else. Richard Dawkins is one of the most religious men I know. Very fervent! He's definitely a missionary!]
Not too sure what you mean by "better than art". A painting is what it is, but clever words can be used to paint a mental picture that needn't always relate to facts. Many legends and myths are part of many cultures, it's just human nature to tell stories and to embellish.
[So you agree that scientists can and will do this too?]
I can perhaps tell that for you a behemoth could only mean dinosaur? But if it were true then it seems to have been a herbivore maybe a hippo which the author has used his own word for.
[That tail like a cedar thing really hurts that interpretation, but the word by itself could definitely have other interpretations--the description seems to narrow the field considerably.]
Job seems to have been intended as a moral tale which like it or hate it shows that not everything in the Bible was intended to be taken literally.
[The problem with that is that the reason for bringing up behemoth in the passage is to show the power of God. Think about it--how powerful is God if He can only refer to imaginary creatures to show His power.]
Would you like to claim then that coelacanths are only a few thousand years old, and tell me why you and scientists seem to disagree about that?
