The tentative title is:"GENESIS -- A scientist looks at the first four verses", and it compares the sequence of statements in Genesis (favorably, it turns out) with their current counterparts in scientific knowledge and theory.
Everyone who has seen it has said that it reinforces their belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God...
I dispose of "the elapsed time question" quickly, because it is a "sidetrack" to the central message. I (a physical chemist AND a Bible scholar) am very comfortable with the issue as shown in the "frame". It is both scientifically and Scripturally correct.
Trying to cram "24 hours" (mentioned nowhere in the entire Bible) into the discussion merely muddies the fact that God claimed to have completed Creation in six of his "work days". (And He was the only Observer around for most of that time -- notably so for those first days when neither a rotating earth nor the sun [earth's day's "rotational reference"] existed at all...)
IOW, rather than get into an on-stage argument with a "YEC fanatic" or a "Science-only agnostic", I would prefer to skip the "E-T matter" entirely. But, I hope to "put it to rest" by presenting each "side" in a way that an advocate of that side cannot deny represents the recorded data-- and by stating that both views, as presented, are acceptable to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FWIW, this discussion has caused me to re-think the order in which I present the frames dealing with elapsed time. Perhaps I will share that (revised) small section of the presentation with you, later...
Oooooh, I like your title dear brother! I am soooo eager to see your presentation!