Evidence for God from Science

Genesis 1:14 Then God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
Genesis 1:15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth; and it was so.
Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
Genesis 1:17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
Genesis 1:18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:19 There was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

This clearly tells us that God MADE two great lights on the fourth day. So how do we square this with them "already" being there but only becoming clear on this day? It doesn't fit. Can someone shed any more light on this?

DannyM wrote:Genesis 1:14 Then God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
Genesis 1:15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth; and it was so.
Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
Genesis 1:17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
Genesis 1:18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:19 There was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

This clearly tells us that God MADE two great lights on the fourth day. So how do we square this with them "already" being there but only becoming clear on this day? It doesn't fit. Can someone shed any more light on this?

Danny, I believe one interpretation of Genesis 1:16 would read: God had made two great lights.....Meaning God had made them sometime in the past. I'm trying to find where I saw that. Maybe someone else who knows will chime in before I find it.

DannyM wrote:Genesis 1:14 Then God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
Genesis 1:15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth; and it was so.
Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
Genesis 1:17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
Genesis 1:18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:19 There was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

This clearly tells us that God MADE two great lights on the fourth day. So how do we square this with them "already" being there but only becoming clear on this day? It doesn't fit. Can someone shed any more light on this?

RickD is correct that the Day-Age position interprets Gen 1:16 as past-tense.

God separated light from darkness on day 1, yet we have God does it again on day 4 (cf. Gen 1:4; Gen 1:18). A little odd? What we have here is a statement of something new God spoke into existence as exemplified with the "God said... and it was so" refrain (Gen 1:14-15). God made two great lights falls outside this refrain and the information that follows (Gen 1:16-18) falls outside this refrain. The writer is simply providing form informatoin regarding something God had already created in the past.

Information on how to interpret via a Day-Age interpretation can be found at http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html or an old post of mine at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 5&start=11 which explains more.

Jac3510 wrote:Swimmy,

As a YEC, I don't have that much of a problem with Rich's interpretation here. Gen 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth--which is a way of saying the entire universe. That certainly could include the sun, moon, and stars.

Of course, there is no reason that God couldn't have created the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day specifically, but I don't think the text demands it. The bigger issue for both YEC and OEC advocates to wrestle with, and I don't think either side has done this much very yet, is what Moses' purpose was in placing the celestial bodies on the fourth day. I suspect it had something to do with "demoting" the sun and moon's place in religious worship. Bear in mind that the Egyptian main God was the sun-god, and Sin, the main god of the Arabians--and highly regarded by the Canaanites, was the mood-god. If, then, God can provide light to the earth before the creation of the sun and moon--if, in fact, the earth precedes their existence--then there is no reason to worship them!

Interesting points Chris. I always just thought Moses was adding more information at day 4 about the lights and where they came from for the reader. But these insights certainly provide deeper reasons as to why Moses may have left it until day four to explain the light source/s that separated light from darkness.

DannyM wrote:The demotion of the status of the sun could actually be telling us that the author of Genesis is engaged in teaching us something besides what came first and what came next. Other than an historical account, we are faced with what might be termed "a rejection of the belief in the cosmic gods," a prevalent belief at the time. There are other clues which support this idea. I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the issue, but there is certainly no "contradiction" in the early Genesis account of creation. Do you think the author would have been that stupid to have left such a gaping error?

Jac3510 wrote: The bigger issue for both YEC and OEC advocates to wrestle with, and I don't think either side has done this much very yet, is what Moses' purpose was in placing the celestial bodies on the fourth day. I suspect it had something to do with "demoting" the sun and moon's place in religious worship. Bear in mind that the Egyptian main God was the sun-god, and Sin, the main god of the Arabians--and highly regarded by the Canaanites, was the mood-god. If, then, God can provide light to the earth before the creation of the sun and moon--if, in fact, the earth precedes their existence--then there is no reason to worship them!

I'm glad to see I'm not TOTALLY alone in considering this line...

That's an interesting possibility Jac. If that were the case than that would argue for the days being used symbolically for the purpose or organization or cataloging elements of the creation rather than a sequential progression of 24 - hour days or even the longer days posited under OEC.

How do you reconcile that possibility with your view of a literal/historical understanding of Genesis 1 - 2?

Kurieuo wrote:

DannyM wrote:Genesis 1:14 Then God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
Genesis 1:15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth; and it was so.
Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
Genesis 1:17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
Genesis 1:18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:19 There was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

This clearly tells us that God MADE two great lights on the fourth day. So how do we square this with them "already" being there but only becoming clear on this day? It doesn't fit. Can someone shed any more light on this?

RickD is correct that the Day-Age position interprets Gen 1:16 as past-tense.

God separated light from darkness on day 1, yet we have God does it again on day 4 (cf. Gen 1:4; Gen 1:18). A little odd? What we have here is a statement of something new God spoke into existence as exemplified with the "God said... and it was so" refrain (Gen 1:14-15). God made two great lights falls outside this refrain and the information that follows (Gen 1:16-18) falls outside this refrain. The writer is simply providing form informatoin regarding something God had already created in the past.

Information on how to interpret via a Day-Age interpretation can be found at http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html or an old post of mine at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 5&start=11 which explains more.

Thanks. I read your post via link, and I believe your answer works. I'll read Rich's article a little later. While I believe your view works and is perfectly adequate, don't you think it creates confusion where the author is otherwise seemingly seeking to avoid such confusion? The Genesis account of creation reads a beginners manual for ---- ; it is neither attempting to give us a scientific explanation nor to confuse us. I'm not saying you're wrong; if it wasn't for the confusion involved in what is otherwise a pretty simply message (considering what it is attempting to explain) then I'd probably be on board. Hey, I'll keep working on it.

Jac3510 wrote:Bear in mind that the Egyptian main God was the sun-god, and Sin, the main god of the Arabians--and highly regarded by the Canaanites, was the mood-god. If, then, God can provide light to the earth before the creation of the sun and moon--if, in fact, the earth precedes their existence--then there is no reason to worship them!

So whether or not God actually created the stars on the fourth day or whether or not they just became visible, I don't think the text really says one way or another. While I think the text implies the former, I absolutely, fully concede that such a reading is not required and could, in fact, be challenged by the text of Gen 1 itself, as noted by the words found in 1:1.

Here's a question/thought, Jac. If Moses' intention was to give a firm rejection to the false gods of the Egyptians, Meopotamians etc , then aren't we still left with the problem of this being confusing for future generations? If the sun WAS created prior to the fourth day then wouldn't its demotion, while in principle fine, actually not be worth the effort when dealing with the grand scheme of trying to present an accurate-as-possible account of creation?

On the other hand, your latter possibility of "...or whether or not they just became visible" would seem to fit in nicely with both an historical account AND a snub to the cosmic gods... ??

DannyM wrote:Thanks. I read your post via link, and I believe your answer works. I'll read Rich's article a little later. While I believe your view works and is perfectly adequate, don't you think it creates confusion where the author is otherwise seemingly seeking to avoid such confusion? The Genesis account of creation reads a beginners manual for ---- ; it is neither attempting to give us a scientific explanation nor to confuse us. I'm not saying you're wrong; if it wasn't for the confusion involved in what is otherwise a pretty simply message (considering what it is attempting to explain) then I'd probably be on board. Hey, I'll keep working on it.

The fact that so many of us disagree on interpretation means confusion abounds on interpretations on Genesis 1-2 whether we like it or not. And there is much else in the Bible people disagree on also, particularly as one delves deeper into different theological issues. Does such confusion mean we should disregard much of it?

I agree the author is not intending to give us a scientific explanation. Yet, the author does use a certain writing style, such as the "God said... and it was so" refrain to identify what has happened. Jac himself has confirmed Rich's interpretation of the creation of the Sun, light, etc is acceptable and possible. We just happen to live in a priviledged time where we know much about Earth's early history that can be harmonised with Scripture.

I believe that the Bible really is the Living Word. There always seems to be some more we can draw from it. I do not think God intended it to be superficial and always easy to gain complete understanding. Investigating nature can also get quite complicated and puzzling. But the main things are the plain things. Deeper meaning can be drawn out by further reflection and investigation. This is particularly the task of the theologian when it comes to Scripture, and the scientist when it comes to nature.

In general I believe Genesis 1 is quite straight-forward to read. Heck, I read it as a child without the same insights I have now and I understood the main things. Just because I have a deeper understanding now, that does mean my previous understanding was necessarily wrong. My understanding now is just much deeper.

I'm not sure if that helps much, but hopefully my response helps to answer your questions.

Kurieuo wrote:I agree the author is not intending to give us a scientific explanation. Yet, the author does use a certain writing style, such as the "God said... and it was so" refrain to identify what has happened. Jac himself has confirmed Rich's interpretation of the creation of the Sun, light, etc is acceptable and possible. We just happen to live in a priviledged time where we know much about Earth's early history that can be harmonised with Scripture.

I agree that this explanation is possible and even acceptable. I'm just trying to come to terms with why the author would allow this confusion in an otherwise uncomplicated narrative. I'll concede the "confusion" is on my part and not yours. So maybe I'm loading the "dilemma" right from the start with my own idea of what is confusing...

Kurieuo wrote:I believe that the Bible really is the Living Word. There always seems to be some more we can draw from it. I do not think God intended it to be superficial and always easy to gain complete understanding. Investigating nature can also get quite complicated and puzzling. But the main things are the plain things. Deeper meaning can be drawn out by further reflection and investigation. This is particularly the task of the theologian when it comes to Scripture, and the scientist when it comes to nature.

I too believe the bible to be the Word of God; it is infalible. I've just got this itch telling me that there has to be a "simpler" explanation.

Kurieuo wrote:In general I believe Genesis 1 is quite straight-forward to read. Heck, I read it as a child without the same insights I have now and I understood the main things. Just because I have a deeper understanding now, that does mean my previous understanding was necessarily wrong. My understanding now is just much deeper.

Hey, perhaps I'm still at child stage; when you wrote the post via link (2004) I was three years away from getting into some serious bible study. Perhaps that's what it is, K: I'm still a puppy in terms of theology and the like.

Kurieuo wrote:I'm not sure if that helps much, but hopefully my response helps to answer your questions.

Your link to that past debate did help; thank you.

[quote="Kurieuo"]http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

From Rich:

"In verse 14 we have that unusual construction again of "let there be." It is not a statement of creation, but a statement of appearance. At this point, the clouds present at the initial creation of the earth were completely removed so that the bodies themselves appeared for the first time on the surface of the earth. The passage tells us that the lights were allowed "to be" so that they could be signs of the seasons, days, and years. It was necessary for the creatures of day 5 that the heavenly bodies be visible. We know that many of the migratory birds (created on day 5) require visible stars to navigate, hence the need to actually see these bodies. Verse 18 gives us another hint. The lights were placed in the sky to "separate the light from the darkness." Does this sound familiar? It is the exact Hebrew phrase used for God's work on the first day when, "God separated the light from the darkness" (Genesis 1:4) By using this phrase, the text is recounting the formation of the Sun, moon and stars from the first day. If we accept that God created the Sun, moon and stars on the fourth day, then He didn't really create the heavens in verse one. So, the 24-hour day interpretation suffers a contradiction between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:16."

One question. Wouldn't it have been required that the clouds were completely removed, and the bodies' appearance on the surface of the earth, for the plant life on day 3?

I don't want to get very wrapped up in this discussion as I have several others that require a lot of thought, and I have very precious little time these days, but I did want to respond to some of the points/questions raised:

Kurieuo wrote:Interesting points Chris. I always just thought Moses was adding more information at day 4 about the lights and where they came from for the reader. But these insights certainly provide deeper reasons as to why Moses may have left it until day four to explain the light source/s that separated light from darkness.

Sure. I know I never got back to you on the theology of Gen 1 thread, but this is the kind of thing I was getting at. I realize that in our scientific era we want to know how things work for the sake of knowing--chronology and objectivity is very important to us. But I don't think that God wrote anything in Scripture to merely satisfy the original audience's curiosity, much less our own, and still much less to satisfy questions that the original readers simply wouldn't really worry about so much.

I think that Gen 1 was created/revealed precisely at is is written for very theology reasons. That doesn't make it non-historical. I think every word of the Bible is that way. For instance, I take Gen 5--the genealogy of Adam--to be very purposely constructed and placed. 1) It sets the stage for Gen 6 by showing the depravity of Cain's line compared to Seth's and the impact of their intermingling, and 2) it demonstrates the reign of death as a direct result of Adam's sin (thus, the repeated dirge, "And he died").

One thing everyone needs to do is spend more time looking at the THEOLOGY of Gen 1 rather than merely the form. Of the utmost importance would be the original audience: the Exodus generation. They were leaving Egypt and about to go into Canaan. What were the lessons they would need to know? What argument is Moses making with the creation story, and how is that argument developed throughout the rest of Genesis and the Pentateuch? I think the fourth day is the easiest of the bunch to answer . . . I'm not the first person to make the above discussion.

I guess what I'm saying is that I take very seriously the statement that the Bible isn't a science book. That doesn't mean it contradicts science, but it does mean that it wasn't written for the purpose of revealing scientific truth. So if not scientific truth, then what kind? Obviously, theological. Every word of Scripture is designed to teach of something about God . . . so says I, anyway.

Thoughts?

Canuckster wrote:That's an interesting possibility Jac. If that were the case than that would argue for the days being used symbolically for the purpose or organization or cataloging elements of the creation rather than a sequential progression of 24 - hour days or even the longer days posited under OEC.

How do you reconcile that possibility with your view of a literal/historical understanding of Genesis 1 - 2?

Not necessarily. It is well known that history in antiquity wasn't meant to be dry and objective. It was intended to teach a specific lesson, and as such, it was presented that way. That does not, however, mean that the presentation was in any way non-historical. I absolutely take Gen 1-2 to be literal history. I simply take it that the history that actually happened was presented in such a way--a truthful way!--as to emphasize a certain theological fact.

My own idea--to which I owe a great debt to such scholars as Keil and Delitzsch, is that Gen 1-2 are a single unit, with the first creation story being designed to teach that God is the supreme authority over all the universe; the Universal King, if you will, and that mankind is His viceregent over this creation. The order of creation is designed to show the level of importance in this kingdom of each part of creation. The second unit is designed to teach that although God reigns supremely over creation, He also reigns covenantally through mankind. Gen 3 demonstrates that mankind broke that covenantal rule, and 3:15 points to God's promise to restore that relationship. I could continue, but I think that gets the basic idea across.

So far from supporting the idea that the days were symbolic, I think the view I take requires them to be actual days (which, I will concede, could, theologically, be taken as eras), for the simple reason that if the history isn't real, then Moses' statements about God aren't grounded in reality--the reality in which Israel lived and breathed. Remember, God wanted them to act based on who He is. That requires the history of His acts to be real history, not a myth in any sense of the word whatsoever.

Danny wrote:Here's a question/thought, Jac. If Moses' intention was to give a firm rejection to the false gods of the Egyptians, Meopotamians etc , then aren't we still left with the problem of this being confusing for future generations? If the sun WAS created prior to the fourth day then wouldn't its demotion, while in principle fine, actually not be worth the effort when dealing with the grand scheme of trying to present an accurate-as-possible account of creation?

On the other hand, your latter possibility of "...or whether or not they just became visible" would seem to fit in nicely with both an historical account AND a snub to the cosmic gods... ??

I'm confused as to the point you are trying to make, or perhaps that you've confused my point. I don't have a problem in principle with saying that the sun, moon, and stars became visible on the fourth day. Now, I'm not impressed with the "let there be" argument being a strange construction for creation, but I won't go into detail about that here. Perhaps another time in another thread. I'm doing quite a bit of work on Gen 1 as it is, which I will be more than happy to post for your (all) consideration later.

As far as I understand you, if the sun was created on the first day, but didn't become visible until the fourth day, the theological point still stands. The sun is a created thing, not a god. It is not the author of light. The same God that created the sun is the same God that gave the world light. Try to imagine, for a moment, how important light was to an agrarian culture . . . it ranked up there with water! So the Israelites learned that their God was their source of light, blessing, and protection, not the Egyptian sun-god.

Anyway, so says I on all of that.

Thoughts/critiques always welcome.

Kurieuo wrote:http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

DannyM wrote: From Rich:

"In verse 14 we have that unusual construction again of "let there be." It is not a statement of creation, but a statement of appearance. At this point, the clouds present at the initial creation of the earth were completely removed so that the bodies themselves appeared for the first time on the surface of the earth. The passage tells us that the lights were allowed "to be" so that they could be signs of the seasons, days, and years. It was necessary for the creatures of day 5 that the heavenly bodies be visible. We know that many of the migratory birds (created on day 5) require visible stars to navigate, hence the need to actually see these bodies. Verse 18 gives us another hint. The lights were placed in the sky to "separate the light from the darkness." Does this sound familiar? It is the exact Hebrew phrase used for God's work on the first day when, "God separated the light from the darkness" (Genesis 1:4) By using this phrase, the text is recounting the formation of the Sun, moon and stars from the first day. If we accept that God created the Sun, moon and stars on the fourth day, then He didn't really create the heavens in verse one. So, the 24-hour day interpretation suffers a contradiction between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:16."

One question. Wouldn't it have been required that the clouds were completely removed, and the bodies' appearance on the surface of the earth, for the plant life on day 3?

Why's that? Maybe if there was no sun/sunlight. You might be interested to read http://www.reasons.org/does-old-earth-c ... the_plants

Jac3510 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Interesting points Chris. I always just thought Moses was adding more information at day 4 about the lights and where they came from for the reader. But these insights certainly provide deeper reasons as to why Moses may have left it until day four to explain the light source/s that separated light from darkness.

Sure. I know I never got back to you on the theology of Gen 1 thread, but this is the kind of thing I was getting at. I realize that in our scientific era we want to know how things work for the sake of knowing--chronology and objectivity is very important to us. But I don't think that God wrote anything in Scripture to merely satisfy the original audience's curiosity, much less our own, and still much less to satisfy questions that the original readers simply wouldn't really worry about so much.

I think that Gen 1 was created/revealed precisely at is is written for very theology reasons. That doesn't make it non-historical. I think every word of the Bible is that way. For instance, I take Gen 5--the genealogy of Adam--to be very purposely constructed and placed. 1) It sets the stage for Gen 6 by showing the depravity of Cain's line compared to Seth's and the impact of their intermingling, and 2) it demonstrates the reign of death as a direct result of Adam's sin (thus, the repeated dirge, "And he died").

One thing everyone needs to do is spend more time looking at the THEOLOGY of Gen 1 rather than merely the form. Of the utmost importance would be the original audience: the Exodus generation. They were leaving Egypt and about to go into Canaan. What were the lessons they would need to know? What argument is Moses making with the creation story, and how is that argument developed throughout the rest of Genesis and the Pentateuch? I think the fourth day is the easiest of the bunch to answer . . . I'm not the first person to make the above discussion.

I guess what I'm saying is that I take very seriously the statement that the Bible isn't a science book. That doesn't mean it contradicts science, but it does mean that it wasn't written for the purpose of revealing scientific truth. So if not scientific truth, then what kind? Obviously, theological. Every word of Scripture is designed to teach of something about God . . . so says I, anyway.

Thoughts?

I have no problem employing historical critical methods to better understand the text, context, or deeper theological meaning that may have been intended by the original authors. I would caution anyone who upholds Biblical inerrancy to be careful in how far they go and to not take divine inspiration out of the picture. Let's be clear, historical critical methods examining why the Genesis 1 text was ordered the way it was is how a theory as the one you proposed would have come about. While I find your proposal reasonable, I've seen much more read into texts particularly when applying redaction critical methods.

For example, when I undertook theology and interpreting the scriptures subjects, my lecturers spoke of leaders in Israel using God's name as justification to conquer other nations and take their land. That God may have in fact instructed Israel and given them the promised land, was not an option up for consideration. Noone I know except myself flinched. Even though we were apparently studying theology, the supernatural appeared to have no place when it came to what formed a valid insight or explanation of the text.

So I just caution anyone who values Scripture as God's special revelation to remain alert. That said, I personally affirm the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which I believe adequate captures well the principles of Biblical inerrancy. In particular I find Article III, IV, VI, VII, VIII and IX particularly relevant here:

III
WE AFFIRM that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.
WE DENY that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

IV
WE AFFIRM that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.
WE DENY that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

VI
WE AFFIRM that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.
WE DENY that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

VII
WE AFFIRM that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.
WE DENY that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

VIII
WE AFFIRM that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.
WE DENY that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

IX
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
WE DENY that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

Regarding the theology of Gen 1 thread, and not to cause an indepth discussion here, but I found it quite suspect given I believe in Article III and VI that you would only find interpretations of creation acceptable that were limited to the Pentateuch. I can understand you are trying to get the authors understanding, but at the same time, Article VII also applies.

I don't know if this would help... But it is a breakdown of the Genesis account in alignment with science..

The scientific proof for Genesis

1. God creates the heavens (the universe, stars, sun) and the earth. The universe had a finite beginning. Genesis 1:1

Fact: Scientists also agree that the universe had a finite beginning starting with the Big Bang.

2. The earth was covered in water and darkness was over the water. Genesis 1:2

Fact: Research has confirmed both theoretically and observationally (via studies of Earth's oldest rocks) that indeed water initially covered most of the earth's crust. The first atmosphere was also full of volcanic debris and other harmful gases from the initial creation that would have prevented any light from coming through it.

3. God allows light to permeate through the darkness unto the earth. Genesis 1:3

Fact: After a while, the solar winds would have blown away the volcanic debris and gases exposing some light in the first atmosphere. Scientists also agree that light would have been the first thing needed to conduct plant life through photosynthesis and heat up the earth.

4. God creates thick clouds or water vapor in the earth's atmosphere. Genesis 1: 6-7

Fact: Scientists agree that the earth would require a stable water cycle of condensation and future precipitation for life's survival. This water vapor cover would be an ideal environment (greenhouse) for growing plants, trapping heat and melting ice. Also known as the second atmosphere, this vapor layer was so thick that the stars, sun and moon were not clearly visible.

5. God separates the dry land from the water in one place. Genesis 1: 9-10

Fact: Most scientists agree that the land was one land mass called Pangaea that formed out of the water then split apart to make the other continents.

6. God creates plants on earth. Genesis 1: 11-12

Fact: Scientists agree that plants were the first living organisms to colonize the earth before the complex land animals (deer, fox, bear) and fish. Plant life is crucial for the creation of oxygen, the removal of carbon dioxide, and creating sugars and food for the mammals.

7. God clears the clouds and allows the sun, moon and stars to be discernible in the skies and to mark the days and seasons. Genesis 1: 14-16

Fact: In the first and second atmospheres a water vapor canopy, gases, and other debris surrounded the earth. After the plants started to develop, these dense atmospheres diminished (exposing the stars, sun and moon) as the plants produced enough oxygen to produce our third atmosphere which includes the ozone layer which now protects us from the ultraviolet radiation. The ozone layer is critical for sustaining life and giving us clear skies to see the heavens.

8. God creates marine life. Genesis 1: 20-22

Fact: Most scientists agree that marine life did indeed arise before the land animals and man. With light, breathable air, dry land, oceans, plants, water cycles, and an ozone layer to protect them, the world is now ready for sea creatures and animals and eventually humans.

9. God creates animals. Genesis 1: 24-25

Fact: Scientists agree that virtually every animal phyla (including chordates and many phyla now extinct) appeared during a short geological moment.

10. God creates mankind. Genesis 1: 26-27

Fact: According to the geologic time scale, scientists agree that mankind was one of the last mammals created on the earth. Exactly like the Genesis account.