Not only Christian litralists believe 6 day creation -see position of Islam. Not question the Koran, to contradict Allah is blasphemy and vilification under the Victorian Religious Vilification law.

*****
Law of Islam: http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&CR=376&dgn=4

Question: Is it true that Allah created the universe in 6 days?

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.
Yes, Allaah created the heavens and the earth and everything in between in six days, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And indeed We created the heavens and the earth and all between them in six Days and nothing of fatigue touched Us”[Qaaf 50:38]

This indicates that what the Jews, upon whom be the curses of Allaah, say is false, as they said that He got tired when He created the heavens and the earth in six days, so He rested on the Sabbath. Exalted be Allaah far above what they say.

More details are narrated in the Qur’aan. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Say (O Muhammad): ‘Do you verily disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two Days? And you set up rivals (in worship) with Him? That is the Lord of the ‘Aalameen (mankind, jinn and all that exists).

He placed therein (i.e. the earth) firm mountains from above it, and He blessed it, and measured therein its sustenance (for its dwellers) in four Days equal (i.e. all these four ‘days’ were equal in the length of time) for all those who ask (about its creation).

Then He rose over (Istawa) towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: ‘Come both of you willingly or unwillingly.’ They both said: ‘We come willingly.’

Then He completed and finished from their creation (as) seven heavens in two Days and He made in each heaven its affair. And We adorned the nearest (lowest) heaven with lamps (stars) to be an adornment as well as to guard (from the devils by using them as missiles against the devils). Such is the Decree of Him, the All‑Mighty, the All‑Knower”[Fussilat 41:9-12]

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid (www.islam-qa.com)

Philo and Aslan,

Islam as cited above alludes to the question, "Can God be fatigued"? By divine definition, I would have thought not.

Thanks Philo for the interesting comparisons made.

Pericles,

It's hard talking to someone who can't tell the difference between "an assertion, an argument, a proof, or a fact."

My statement is an argument in the form of a conditional proposition. ie. if evolution is science as Popper defines it (a matter of fact), then it is falsifiable (a logical conclusion from Popper's view). Given that number of problems and contradictions in evolutionary biology, when do we finally conclude evolution has been falsified?

Oliver,

You clearly have not understood the articles I referenced. Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology does not involve a "preferential timeframe for the Earth" nor a different "space-time frame".

Re creation of a mature star - your objection assumes naturalism which is inappropriate for divine creation scenarios.

Light takes 8 hours to travel from sun to earth but your objection is irrelevant any way because light was created on day 1 and the earth was not formed until day 2.

According to BB, universe only expanded at rate > C at the very beginning. Most cosmologists believe the universe is either stable (not expanding at all) or contracting.

The very existence of stars and galaxies is a mystery to cosmologists. They simply should not be there, but there they are!

The observation of quantised red-shifts is also a problem. In fact, these red shifts (which have been known for 30+ years) categorically demonstrate that the cosmological principle (universe has no centre and no special places) is false. Since BB comology relies on this principle, it is too is false ie. falsified!
See http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/galaxy.asp

Oops!

It actually takes 8 minutes for light from sun to reach earth, not 8 hours! I knew it was 8 something! :-;

It also only takes 5.3 hrs for it to reach Pluto.
See http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=197

No idea where you dreamed up the figure of 13 hours...

"Big bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and in some cases untestable, assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth."
- Geoffrey Burbidge, Professor of Physics at the University of California, San Diego, "Why only one big bang?" Scientific American, 266/2(1992) 96.

"There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are...The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists."
- James Trefil, professor of physics at George Mason University,
"The Dark Side of the Universe", pp. 3, 55

Aslan and Pericles,

Evolution

My take on what Popper is we should not take the “meta” proposition of Darwinism as a scientific theory, because it is not falsifiable in that form. Nonetheless, as I argue above the “axiom” can be broken down into many scientific theories and then triangulated for fit. I think it is too broad a statement to say the axiom of evolution is destroyed by any contradictions in evolutionary biology, if some exist. Rather in the realm of the scientific disciplines it is better to say some experiments and observations seem to confirm and some experiments and observations seem refute certain tests. Evolution is not falsified, nor is it falsifiable – that is Popper’s point.

Cosmology

“It is important to realise that this description requires that the universe have a preferred frame of reference” (Harnett’s Model 3, which concurs with Humphey’s White Hole Cosmology, p. 99.

My objection not only concerns a mature star existing in the first week but also a third generation mature star. Some of its fuel has been used as can be measured and the distribution of light and heavy indicates (a) the heavy metals were created inside an earlier star and its nova and (b) having the gaseous planets towards the outer planetary system and the solid planets towards the centre indicates creation taking hundreds of millions of years.

Light takes eight “minutes” to travel from the Sun to the Earth. Your source stated eight hours, presumably as the radius of the solar system. This is incorrect. Pluto/Neptune only signify the limit of the planetary system. The orbits of comets are greater. The accepted parameter is 8.7 billion miles from the sun (heliosphere). However, light and gravitational effects go into deep space.

"The universe is expanding" would be the more widely held proposition, I suggest. Stars and galaxies are composed of elementary particles under the influence of gravity: Perhaps, a subject of study but not mystery in the literal sense. Redshift is caused by the recession of light and for want of a better word “stretching” light as the universe expands

Nice try Aslan

'It's hard talking to someone who can't tell the difference between "an assertion, an argument, a proof, or a fact."'

You can't avoid answering a question simply by blustering.

"My statement is an argument in the form of a conditional proposition. ie. if evolution is science as Popper defines it (a matter of fact), then it is falsifiable (a logical conclusion from Popper's view)"

Can't complain about that bit, but the "conclusion" you drew from the above 'if-then' exercise does not fall under the same rules. Let me remind you of your phraseology:

"...evolutionists must eventually acknowledge the fact that the overall profusion of divergent and contradictory phylogenies, pertaining to all forms of life, falsify macroevolution itself"

This is where you cheated, and I ask again, where is your evidence for this? Who says that evolutionists "must" follow your instructions? You happily accuse everyone else of making unsubstantiated assertions, but equally happily continue to do so yourself.

You try - belatedly - to redeem yourself by rephrasing your assertion (do you recall me suggesting that you rewrite history to suit yourself?) in the form of a further question - "[G]iven that number of problems and contradictions in evolutionary biology, when do we finally conclude evolution has been falsified?" This at least has the virtue of being unanswered, leaving the reader with no confusion as to whether evidence is being offered. It clearly is not.

This duplicity can only be the product of immature thinking or hypocrisy, and I am sufficiently charitable to believe the former rather than the latter.

Have a great day.