Genesis 1:14-19 ( Day Four of Genesis )

"The various attempts to join together the biblical account of creation and evolution are not supportable by the various gap theories because the order of creation is in direct opposition to the views of modern science (e.g., the creation of trees before light.)"
Source: King James Hebrew-Greek KeyWord Study Bible, AMG Publishers, 1991
They said it couldn't be done, but here it is, thanks to modern science and praise to God. Yes, finally, trees exactly as described in Genesis, before, and without sunlight. And no, it's not another lame hoax. (Short)
http://genesis-science.blogspot.com/2009/10/they-said-it-couldnt-be-done-but-...
and (Long)
http://genesis-science.blogspot.com/2009/10/darwinists-admit-serious-problem-...

It has been widely theorized, that before the Cambrian Explosion, during the Precambrian or Vendian, organisms which lived during the period were primarily soft-bodied, therefore, even worse than modern plants which leave few fossils due to fragile structure, the likelihood of soft-bodied Precambrian plants leaving fossils is dramatically decreased. The Pre-Cambrian has yielded only scant fossils, but as scientists have observed with the Cambrian Explosion.... the abundance and diversity point to earlier origins. Soft-bodied organisms would have been ideally suited dwelling in a damp, dark, sunless world. For sake of posterity, many plant forms are non-photosynthetic or derive nutrition through alternate means aside from photosynthesis. For example, Protozoans who are cross between photosynthetic plant and animal, (i.e., Euglena and Volvox)

One team of researchers discovered photosyntethic bacteria, in the deep Pacific around a hydrothermal vent. Such hot springs once covered the surface of the earth amidst shallow seas, and provided a plentiful source for photosynthesis that was necessary for the proliferation and survival of many species. But let's not forget plant varieties which, even to this day are non-photosynthetic... entire ecosystems could thrive, in the total absence of sunlight... and that does not exclude even shrub-like trees, that were soft-bodied in design, complete with "fruit" and seed within (i.e., the non-photosynthetic mistletoe, which comes complete with berries and seed).
However, as suggested, with the advent of the sun, organisms would have a need to develop (or "evolve") hard-body structures (that could withstand the sun's heat) with the Sun's generating mass-photosynthesis throughout the Earth. This would allow organisms to diversify in the kind of great abundance witnessed in the fossil record and is called the "Cambrian Explosion." Just as "let the waters bring forth.. creatures.. in great abundance," is stated in Genesis, Day #5, and as was observed in the "Cambrian Explosion" by Darwin and other influential figures in Paleontology.

Genesis "Day Four" marks the epoch when the Sun began active nuclear-fusion, and Day Five marks the Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record. The only direct evidence we have of the sun's history, would be in how it interacted with Earth. The fossil record provides the evidence. Such an explosion of diverse, hard-bodied organisms in the fossil record can only be explained by the introduction of widescale Photosynthesis... which only the sun could provide, a mere 500-600 million years ago. This certainly is not the first time such a theory has been proposed, for example the KT Boundary (65 Million years ago), lead to the extinction of dinosaurs when a meteor is believed to have crashed into Earth's surface. It is suggested the fallout lead to a blackening of the skies, blocking the sun's light which lead to an extinction of a vast number of life-forms on the planet. Also, the Earth lay dormant for 3.5 billion years without any apparent major evolutionary advances, which can easily be explained with the absence of sunlight. This tremendous gap in the fossil record, remains too vast for most seasoned Evolutionists to simply ignore.

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide 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 firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Entire commentary
http://genesis-science.blogspot.com/2009/10/genesis-114-19-day-four-of-genesi...

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• science
• genesis
• evolution
• darwin
• darwinism
• natural selection
• creation
• creationism
• day four genesis

[elbowtido27]

Just because something hasn't been explained yet doesn't mean a supreme being must have done it.

[SaltWaterDiatoms]

@elbowtido27

You are missing the point entirely.

Genesis alludes to the same chronology, the fossil record has laid down for the fundamentals of paleontology. Everything from algae and the earliest plant ancestors (non-photosynthetic fungi) , the huge gap itself hints the sun was not present, followed by the introduction of animals which came from "the waters". Followed by earliest man (which are described as vegetarian). And Adam, described as not the first human, but FIRST FARMER.

[elbowtido27]

You could interpret many religions to support scientific research if you really wanted to convince yourself, though.

[SaltWaterDiatoms]

@elbowtido27

Darwinism itself, a theory (not proven) but theorized, based on scientific evidence?

Many theories and beliefs are based on scientific evidence.

It is when people read a book, take a blind shot at meaning (fail to take things into consideration such as, Heb. "day" was yowm, which also meant "epoch" or "indefinate period of time" and since some erroneously say it means only a 24 hour day (wrong), deny all of established science.

That is a problem. Science facts, first.

[kuniva101]

Although I have adopted a religion myself (not christian) I cannot dispute the thesis of evolution, it's predominately fact. Despite evolution as fact, one has to still think that pre cambrian was not subjective to evolution and in correlation with my religion I believe that it may of been subject to celestial intervention.

[SaltWaterDiatoms]

@51cacheton

You utterly failed to read. I wrote: The Hebrew word "Yowm" for "Day" often implies INDEFINATE PERIOD OF TIME, an EPOCH. The fourth "epoch" the sun began nuclear fusion (2 lights). Earth's fossil record testifies when Sunlight reached Earth = Proliferation of animal life. The KT Boundary and other catastrophic events = EXTINCTION. As was seen for 3.5 billion years of Earth's earliest history. The Cambrian Explosion marks when the Sun began nuclear fusion.

Go argue with YEC.

[SaltWaterDiatoms]

@51cacheton

My goodness. You do have a problem with filtering everything you read thru your fundamentalist YEC narrow-brain understanding of Hebrew. IT DOES NOT SAY GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE ON THE FOURTH DAY. It said that God formed TWO LIGHTS... *hel l l o o o" TWO LIGHTS, which would well explain why the whole planet was littered with either non-photosynthetic species (Late Precambrian) or limited algae photosynthesizing around hydrothermal vents for THREE AND A HALF BILLION YEARS.

[SaltWaterDiatoms]

@51cacheton

Hebrew term for Day "Yowm" doesn't always imply 24 hour literal days. Sometimes that term is used to imply an indefinate period of time, an epoch, and Darwin's rival, Louis Agassiz (famed for glacial epoch theory) proposed (in light of fossil record), "Epochs of Creation". Both men were prestigious colleagues. In light of fossil record, if "Epochs of Creation," was good enough for Louis Agassiz, then its good enough for me.

According to text of Genesis, both men were correct.

[SaltWaterDiatoms]

@51cacheton

True to Evolution/fossil record: the WATERS brought forth animal life, and 95% of species went extinct. At the time of whales (45 Mya), is the first time "Create" is even mentioned, and God merely "creates every (extant) species after its kind, which the waters had brought forth."

DESIGN is not found. WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING WITH? YEC?

Hebrew "After Their Kind" alludes to Evolution, "in likeness of earlier species." This was already proposed. It's the "Fine Tuner Hypothesis".

[SaltWaterDiatoms]

@51cacheton

I have set forth the challenge to both Darwinists and Creationists alike: Where is a word for "Design" or "(Hand)Created" even used, in the text related to the ancestors of plants? Na da... God stood afar, and commanded the Earth to bring forth (ah, sounds like Evolution to me).

God stood afar off, and Gen. 1:20 commands the Waters (precise to scientific theory), WATERS WERE INDEED WHERE ANIMAL LIFE BEGAN (See Carl Zimmer's "At theWater's Edge"), and the waters brought forth..