I think the world is quite comfortable with an ambiguous concept of god, just not THE God of the Bible. People are comfortable with the god of theistic evolution because they instinctively know it isn't that mean old God from Genesis that destroyed the world with a flood because of sin, and offers only one narrow way to salvation in Jesus Christ.
What the world believes and is "comfortable with" has absolutely no bearing on a proper interpretation of scripture. There remains questions as to uninterrupted histories, species diversity, plant life, etc. that can not be answered given the time frames involved. In addition there are myriad Christians whose considered reading of scripture leaves them of a different opinion, and based squarely on His word. Attempting to misrepresent those who disagree with your view is not only offensive but wrongheaded.
This tells me that you see everything through evolutionists' glasses, with cartoon giraffes and elephants popping up out of a tiny bathtub toy ark, and a goofy flintstones world.
Is it possible that that you were inculcated from the beginning and are incapable at understanding that peripheral parts of scripture can be interpreted differently?
That was a general criticism of compromising Christians. They either believe that Genesis is an allegory, or that the flood was a local one that had no effect on the rest of the world.
Once again can you show me where exactly I referred to scripture in these two cases as "allegory"?
To me it's just saying that the earth, or terrestrial ecosystems, are going to facilitiate reproductions of each of those kinds of animals. And in the next verse it explicitly says that God made them that day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
I would strongly suggest again that a certain humility and openness should be required to any thoughts on Genesis/Creation. That reasoned people can arrive at differing thoughts on the various issues related in Genesis 1 inform us that there is no absolute certainty but only opinion involved. The person that would suggest absolute certainty on this is merely fooling themselves, and given more to arrogance than to scholarly authority.
I don't see any mention of "Facilitate" as the verse is talking about the initial creation of life, not of subsequent reproductions. A "plain" reading shows that the verse is in a present moment not in the earth facilitating some future events such as reproductions... that is adding to scripture rather than dealing with the actual content.
It should be very clear that any reading or interpretation of
Genesis 1 revolves around fiat or commands as the sole instrument of creation,
"And God said". That the sole and only operative agent was God's commands is further supported in Psalm 3:6, Heb. 11:3, and
2 Peter 3:5. Therefore, any "God made" statements are explanatory, for on each day it is clear that God has not Done something but rather to have Said something, not to have Made something but to have commanded something.
The distinction is also that the fiats were mediate not immediate. Gen. 1:3 reads "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light", quite pointedly an immediate command. Yet how can one not take note that subsequent commands are directed in a mediate way directly to the land/water. Again, it could have been written "And God said, let there be vegetation and there was vegetation"... but this was not the case so why avoided? The command was directed at pre-existing created matter and "it was so". I would suggest that based on the plain reading of the account that "what was so" is God setting in motion all of the laws for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced? The immutable God ordered the processes then just as we see today.
There is much more detail but one will notice that each day is structured in a similar way. There is nothing in this brief overview that is not based on a literal and plain reading of Genesis 1.