If his argument is not well constructed then explain where.
What argument?
He offers a vague description of variable time theory, with absolutely no maths to back it up, and which is not supported by any evidence, and then simply compares the standard BB model timeline to the Genesis timeline, omitting several glaring inconsistencies.
The sentence,
A scientifically non-linear time scale in the Genesis story might also even be somehow related to the fact that a lot of people of the Bible lived to around 900 years old! But that's a different matter and may not have any connection to the matter at hand!
Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever! If the timescale is variable then people would still only live for 70 years, because, although the days and years would be shorter, the lifespans of the people would also be shorter, with the result that they would appear to be the same length to an internal observer. That's basic relativity!
This might also be a vague reference to a Big Bang event
This might be a reference to the creation of the multitude of stars in the Universe
This seems to refer to the creation of the Sun
This is somewhat hard to fully understand, but possibly describing the creation of the Earth.
Not very sure of his facts or interpretations, is he.
Since humans have now gotten to a point of being able to scientifically research their heritage, they find adequate but subtle evidence that exists that supports the theory that they evolved from lesser creatures
Um, no. There are mountains of incredibly convincing evidence that show that we almost certainly evolved from other animals. The fossil record, genetics, vestigial organs, parts of human anatomy that make absolutely no sense for a bipedal animal, but would be exactly what you expect in an animal that evolved a bipedal gait from a quadrupedal gait. Saying that this evidence is "subtle" is like saying that using a sledgehammer is a subtle way to crack a walnut shell.
If, several thousand years ago, a group of people tried to fake a Bible, and therefore Genesis 1, they would have had that same dozen or so events to chain together into a believable story for Genesis. They would have wanted to include references to the creation of earth (land), man, water, people, the Sun, large animals, small animals, fishes, birds, plants, the Moon, the stars.
If they did actually do this, they did a pretty stupid job of faking it, because the story line really wouldn't be very believable to people of the time.
The ORDER of events seems really peculiar. Why light before dry ground? Why plants before animals? Why everything before man (who would need to witness it all to be able to be aware of it)? Why ocean animals first? Why, even, a WHOLE DAY to create light, while a LOT of things apparently happened on the Sixth Day?
Really? What order would you put them in? What sort of moron would create humans before there was an Earth, or Sun, or anything for them to eat? The ordering of the creation events in Genesis is blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain, and occurs in almost all creation myths. He says that a "plausible faker" would have used a different sequence, but doesn't really offer a plausible alternative sequence!
He also posits that fakers would have had God spending far more time creating humans, in order to show how special they were. I'm sorry, but how is being created "in God's image" not pretty bloody special?
there seems to be overwhelming support for the validity of the Bible being directly from the Inspiration of God
Umm, no, not really.
To whit, take the following verses;
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Except that there are huge numbers of seed bearing herbs and fruiting trees, and animals which are poisonous, and therefore aren't "meat" for humans.
2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
So, God makes plants before he makes rain to let them survive, which doesn't mesh at all with standard theory, which has rain long before any plants.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Hang on, didn't God make all the animals before he made Adam??? I'm confused!
3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
Doesn't God know these things? Why does he have to ask? Doesn't seem very omnipotent to me.
Oh, and Adam and Eve don't die when they eat the fruit, which is what God told them would happen. Was he lying?
3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life
Really? Serpents eat dust? News to me!
3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us
Us? US???? How many gods are there?
I could keep going, but really, I think I've made the point. The account in Genesis is internally inconsistent, inaccurate, and unsupported by any science.
