b) God stated that God created the universe in a particular order, at a particular date, that is at odds with the Macroevolutionary model--that, along with Macroevolution being very far from a watertight hypothesis, is why so many Christians are Creationists.
Great answer, although I'm sure most Catholics would argue that Christ did not have to die at the last supper in order for the Transmutation to have taken place, after all he turned water into wine which was a clearly observable fact from all witnesses to the event, why could he have not actually Transmutated the Sacrament, the answer of course is that nothing prevented him from doing so (although I'd have to say it would be icky).
b) God stated that God created the universe in a particular order, at a particular date, that is at odds with the Macroevolutionary model--that, along with Macroevolution being very far from a watertight hypothesis, is why so many Christians are Creationists.
Another great answer, but again my argument remains the same, why out of all the books of the Bible do we have to take Genesis as literal fact when we know so many passages were merely mans interpretation of what God had reveled to him?
Could not an observer of today been better able to acnowledge both the greatness of the act of Creation and been better able to interpret/describe what he was he was seeing to us today?
Why is it so hard to fathom that the observer of Gods Revelation to him of Creation was only describing it in a way he could understand?