Well, I have resolved the sun, the Sabbath, and the day issue., so why stop there, right?
You haven't even started to resolve anything. Can you start by actually explaining what you think 'material logic' is.
There is all the philosophy and logic in the world, and yet people choose to go on material logic to explain how the Almighty God created the universe.
You simply do not understand the nature of God's revelation of himself. He has relvealed himself through scripture, and he has revealed himself through nature. The Bible even tells you as much! You're probably not remotely familiar with Romans 1 but it says this:
[sup]20[/sup]For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature,
have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,
in the things that have been made.
Your confusion about 'material logic' is this; you think if science can describe a particular phenomenon then God is not present or has no influence over that phenomenon. This is not what scripture teaches. Again I'll use that verse from Colossians that you seem incapable of dealing with:
Col 1:16, 17 - For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. [sup]17[/sup]
And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
The Bible states that we can know something about God in how he has created; it also states the it is Christ through whom
all things hold together. God is both the maker and sustainer of all Creation. Any TE you ask will say that they believe and affirm this essential truth of Christianity. You however refuse to deal with this essential Christian truth either because you can't, or because you do not know how. Of course either of those would be a considerable blow to your ego which you certainly aren't going to allow.
There is nothing atheistic about methodological naturalism (which is what I'm presuming you mean by 'material logic' - again why make up phrases when there are perfectly good ones which actually mean something useful?), neither is the scientific method atheistic. This is becasue it does not posit God as an explanation for natural phenomena because it simply can not; God being pretrenatural cannot be observed, measured or tested emprically.
This is all that science can deal with. Science doesn't say there is no God; it simply says it cannot answer that question.
This fundamental misunderstanding of science (don't be ashamed, you're not ther first and wont be the last) is what leads to your god-of-the-gaps. Creationists like you think that science must be able to tell us that God exists becasue ironically Creationist elevate Science to a level it does not warrant; they think that if something cannot be described scientifically then it cannot be 'true'
You see all these creationist claims that have been 'refuted' by science, but how have they been refuted? Because someone came up with a material explanation that, no matter how unlikely it may be, must conclude that is the way they theorize it?
Creationists make scientific claims, these claims are then refuted by science. If Creationists don't want to be refuted then they shouldn't pretend that their pseudo-science is in any way scientific.
Another gibberish phrase which betrays a lack of depth to your argument.
Science simply claims anything and everything for itself, prescribes it's brand of logic an ideas, and tells creationists to eff off, pretty much.
Quite simply this is false, science has a realm in which it can speak to and describe. Your error in this regard has already been addressed. And again there's no need for the foul language (well not if you don't want to give the impression that you have nothing better to say)
But the truth is that the evidence for creationism is everywhere. It just depends on what pair of eyes you are perceiving everything with.
The truth is that Creationists come over very postmodern whenever it suits them.
The fact of the matter is that creationists have a base. Science does not.
The fact of the matter is you create a false dichotomy.
Nothing is truly 'empirical' until all is shown to be true.
Please to at least educate yourself as to what words mean before bothering to use them.
For example, look at the horizon problem with the Big Bang. Now, the Big Bang theory has many hints that such an event happened, but it has multiple issues with the horizon issue towering above them all.
So pray tell what is this 'horizon issue'? You wouldn't happen to be parrotting Creationist PRATTs without having a clue what they mean?
It's actually absurd to front the idea as true, because it clearly is just a common belief that is lacking in several ways. (which echoes certain other theories as well)
More handwaving in the form of meaningless gibberish
If one cannot solve the problem, then everything after it is obsolete. The distance of light travel through billions of years is obsolete, for example.
More meaningless gargage.
In all actuality, the fact that the universe is uniform is really evidence for Creation.
What do you mean by 'the universe is uniform'? Do you have any idea what these things mean?
And if material reason takes a mighty purge in that respect,
More gibberish. 'mighty purge'? Do you gibve any thought to the sentences you construct?
why stop at that point? Why not take it a step further and actually heed the Bible?
Again, a false dichotomy.
See, what would you think, hypothetically, if common descent happened to be proven false? Would your material reasoning not shift? And if so, would it even be sensible to continue with material logic?
Creationism has no working methodology to 'do science'; Creationism is pseudo-science and only ever produces anything because it pigg-backs off of those doing proper science.
That is the irony of it, really. We manifest our perceptions in what appeals to us the most.
And what appeals to you is bravado, empty boasting, grandstanding, strawmen, fallacious arguments, handwaving, ignoring questions, self-contradiction etc etc
I find it amazing that man goes on to draw it's own conclusions, and then says that it all must be the way that they see it or else God is a deceiver.
No, it's because the Bible tells us that God has revealed himself through nature.
It doesn't even make sense. Unless you know everything, you cannot really know anything. And that is a pure and simple fact.
Lol! Thanks for admitting that you know nothing, does that mean you wont be pontificating anymore through because you know nothing?
It just so happens that science runs into more problems in this modern era then it ever has before, and for good reason.
More baseless assertions, all today's techonological innovations are grounded in modern science. Creationists do come over all hypocritical in this respect.
It's like a tower- you start building it, and patch mistakes, and add more on one side, and counterbalance the other the best you can.., and eventually, you have one ugly tower.
An apt description of Creationism.
So it is no wonder that science has reached a point where, initially, we thought we'd have figured out a lot more by now.
Really? Who thought this?
We discover new things all the time, no doubt, but as far as consolidation., one can pretty much forget about it.
More baseless meaningless assertions.
And this is all what people use to dismiss creationism. If you believe in God, and believe that He is outside the laws of physical reality that we dwell in, then why attach material reasoning?
Because the Bible tells us to use 'material logic' becasue it reveals something about God's nature to us.
Like I stated before, Him deceiving anyone is just a big load. People have simply deceived themselves.
Like I have demonstrated before, you have been deceived by your own puffed up ego.
which translates as day one. The others have ordinal numbers (second, third, fourth, etc.). Also, days 2-5 lack a definite article ( הַ, ha, the), while days 6 and 7 have one on the numeric. The literal translation of creation week would be day one, a second day, a third day, a fourth day, a fifth day, the sixth day, and the seventh day. 
?
