Six Days of Creation are what the Bible says and what it means! Follow-up to the last post for Bible brains...

We'll get back to the Biblical flood in stages.   This post is a specific follow-up to the last.   The last post made it clear that Cosmologists have come up with better explanations for a God-created world with time and existence created first and later the stars and then the rest of creation, including our Sun, Moon and Earth.   An expanding Universe stretched by God could have allowed the farther reaches of the Universe to experience 15 billion years while 6 days passed by on Earth.  Go back and read the entire post from yesterday, including the videos, and you will see what I mean. The YEC cosmological hypotheses do not suffer from the missing 96% so-called Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which for now seem not only missing but nonexistent.

Pixabay / Ylanite Koppens

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati  has a doctorate in physical chemistry and is an FM chessmaster as well.  He is also a dedicated political science guy who is well-versed on political events and concerns here in the USA and also back Down Under.   He is also an expert Bible brain as those of you who love the Bible can tell from the following article:

William Lane Craig’s intellectually dishonest attack on biblical creationists



by 
William Lane Craig (1949– ) is a well-known Christian apologist, with earned doctorates in both philosophy and New Testament studies. He has written over 30 books, and is a very skilled debater, with one atheist admitting:
As far as I can tell, he has won nearly all his debates with atheists. … I’m not the only one who thinks Craig has won nearly all his debates. For some atheists, it is rather maddening. … Craig is a skilled debater, an encyclopedia of facts and quotes, and a careful rhetorician. If you make a logical mistake, Craig knows exactly how to skewer you for it (and for this, I respect him). … This is especially embarrassing for atheists because Craig’s arguments and debates are easily available, and he uses the same arguments all the time. So it should be easy for atheists to prepare for a debate with Craig.1
Much of his material is very useful, and I’ve cited his work plenty of times, e.g. in:
However, the big bang has long been a part of his argument for a beginning. But this is fraught with biblical and scientific problems (see The mind of God and the ‘big bang’). Indeed, many secular cosmologists are abandoning the big bang because of all the fudge factors needed to prop it up. So what will happen to a large part of Craig’s apologetic armoury? (See Secular scientists blast the big bang: What now for naïve apologetics?)
Thus it is no surprise that he endorses the error-prone big-bang-adoring progressive creationist Hugh Ross as “evangelicalism’s most important scientific apologist. … I enthusiastically support his work.” However, this was in an article where Craig sharply criticizes Ross for his heterodox view of the Triune Godhead and Christ as both fully human and fully God, arguing that Ross borders on the kenotic heresy (see The Kenotic Heresy and Genesis compromise).

Email Post