each day events.

[Extirpated Wildlife]

I thought that i had read that the evolutionary transition of events and the creation transition of events are basically identical.

Is this correct? 

 

[MSBS]

In broad outlines you could say this about biological evolution. There are some conflicts though, like flowering plants being created on the third day but no animals until the forth and fifth days.

 

[paulewog]

Or light on the first day and the sun and moon and stars on the second day?

(Or was that the third day? I forgot when the sun came to be, I never could keep the days straight)

 

[Soul_Searcher]

Hi Quizzler, I believe that is correct. In the Genesis 1 account of creation, the order that the universe and life is created pretty much follows what would be the evolutionary path, with man being a late-comer in both.

 

[paulewog]

/me wonders why that is.... maybe because God knew there should be a world to live in before animals and people lived in it.

/me guesses that evolutionists figured that out too when they come up with theories

hehe

 

[MSBS]

Actually palewog, the sun, moon, and stars are created on the fourth day.

Plants on the third day (before the sun....plants w/o sunlight?)

BTW, my mistake, animals where 5th and 6th days.

I just reread the creation account in genesis, and it does seem you could interpret animal evolution as being in agreement with the biblical account , even though some major phyla are not mentioned. Plants come in to early though, and it misses the co-evolution of some types of insects with flowering plants in the cretaceous.

 

[WinAce]

Doesn't it mention that birds and *all* sea creatures were made before *all land creatures*, despite birds and sea mammals descending from those land creatures?

 

[Sinai]

If the sun, moon and stars were all made on the fourth day, that would be contrary to what science says. If, on the other hand, the sun, moon and stars became visible from the earth on the fourth day, then that would not necessarily be at odds with the scientific record.

You can find biblical support for either position in the scriptures in question. Those who prefer the first interpretation tend to say that the actual words used say that God made those heavenly bodies, and the time frame when the sun, moon and stars are discussed being made is during the fourth day.

Those who hold to the second interpretation point out that the moon would be considered a great light only from the vantage point of the earth; thus, they contend, God apparently gave Moses a vision of what transpired during the various time periods, and on the fourth one the earth's atmosphere apparently cleared sufficiently for the sun, moon and stars to be clearly visible.

 

[MSBS]

Sinai,
You still have a bit of a problem with plants showing up before the sun is visible. This doesn't quite work from a scientific perspective.

 

[Sinai]

Are you referring to the greenhouse effect, MSBS? Or do you have something else in mind?

 

[MSBS]

Well, with plants being all created on the third day, what difference would it make if the sun was there but could be seen or was not created until later....You still have photosynthesising organisms with no sunlight available to them.

 

[Sinai]

Are you suggesting that photosynthesis does not occur on cloudy days?

 

[excreationist]

Problems with an old earth and the days in Genesis:

Day 3: Plants bearing fruit and grain

Day 4: Made the sun, moon and stars

Day 5: Made sea creatures and birds

Day 6: Made livestock, creatures that move along the ground (insects?) and wild animals.

I think according to mainstream science, the sun would have been visible when fruit and grain plants first finished emerging... I mean the sun is sort of visible even if it is a bit cloudy. Fruit trees are usually pollenated by birds, insects and other animals I think...

The existence of fruit and grain plants (on the land) before any sea creatures is a problem... and having birds and sea mammals before land creatures is also a problem...