Looking at scripture, it is abundantly clear that the correct view of origins is Biblical Creationism; the account of origins is both historical, and "literal", from the day God said "let there be light" to the day He scattered the nations from a city they built in defiance of Him. This is clear, so much so that compromisers constantly admit that this is what the Bible tells us, it's just "not supposed to be taken literally".
This is an unbelievably strange state of affairs. From the fact it is a novel interpretation not shared by anyone prior to the 1700s, compromising with the known fantasies of misotheists like Charles Lyell, to the fact this method is only applied to Genesis 1-11, Old Earth compromise is just plain weird. Nevertheless, it does try to appear rational.
One particular strategy is to suggest minor alternative interpretations for every "proof text". For example, when scripture says "before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;" (Genesis 2:5), does that necessarily have to mean there was no man on earth, or just in the garden? There's just an endless string of "this could mean that", and "that could mean this".
But there's a problem. Many, in fact, but for sake of this article, let's just focus on one. The Bible, as all Christians agree, is given by inspiration of God. Furthermore, it is perspicuous. God is an excellent communicator, and His word is designed to do exactly that (Psalm 119:97-100, 130; 2 Timothy 3:15-17). Thus, compromisers are left with only four options.
The first, which they are completely incapable of doing, is to find sound and solid reason to accept their many wild reinterpretations. Tell us why, especially after all these centuries, we should take these "well it could also means" seriously. Tell us why, although reading scripture without a heavy bias against Creationism would lead us to Creationism, there actually is room for Old Earth beliefs. Bonus points if you can explain why we didn't discover this until long after the Apostolic age.
The second is that although scripture leads us to the Creationist viewpoint, God is just a terrible communicator. He meant to tell us He created the heavens and the earth over long and undefined amounts of time, but just couldn't figure out how to tell us until atheists started babbling about magic explosions and monkey men. That really does sound like an omniscient God worthy of our faith. That is, if you can figure out exactly what it is He wants you to put your faith in.
The third is that Perspicuity is a myth; God intentionally concealed the truth about our origins inside a fable, and only Old Earthers have cracked His code. If you're too dumb to figure out the code, like 99% of the Church up until the 1700s, tough bools, but those who have figured it out will not be mislead by this omniscient deceiver. Why has He deceived millions? And if He's got both the power and desire to deceive millions, how do we know He won't do it to us? Who knows? Just accept it because 99% of scientists do...
But the absolute best option is to just stop swimming against the torrent and go where scripture leads us, repenting of our failure to do so. God is very obviously a Creationist, and insists we appreciate the details He has given us, rather than contradict it for sake of appearing "wise" to those who are foolish enough to reject Him entirely. Evolution, the Big Bang, and other atheistic fairy tales, are not real. They are lies, set against the knowledge of God. Scripture tells us to oppose such things. Therefore, unless you want to believe God speaks gobbledegook, you ought to be a very firm Creationist.