[newgeezer]

Not a hint of bias in that blurb. Nope, none at all.

[silverleaf]

Should be a good lecture.
Dr Ross has written extensively on this.

[curiosity]

I was rather dissapointed in the old earthers' arguments. If understood them correctly, they seem to be conceding that days 4-7 were 24 hour periods, but that days 1-3 could be longer periods of time because God hadn't created the sun and moon yet. Even if this agument follows (and I don't think it does), you've still got the problem of a literal reading of days 4-7 conflicting with modern geology and paleantology. For instance, land animals appeared millions of years after sea creatures, not merely 24 hours.

Frankly, arguing whether Yom is a literal 24 day is rather silly. Even if you allow days 4-7 to be indeterminate periods of time, you've got lots of other aspects of the Genesis creation storeis that conflict with science. For instance, the order in which creatures appear contradicts the fossil record. Land animals preceded birds, not the other way around. Plants could not live without the sun. Etc, etc, etc.

The only rational interpretation of Genesis 1-2 is that they allegories designed to convey certain historical truths important to salvation. The details are unimportant and not meant to be taken seriously, but are either filler, to keep the story interesting, or symbols. The fact that some details contradict each other in places ought to clue the reader into this obvious fact.

[curiosity]

Faith and Science Ping.

I don't think this debate is all that interesting. As my earlier post indicates, the old earthers don't make a good case. The debate is useful, however, to illustrate how rational believes should not argue against YECS.