Evolution of "light"

Um, not really. In the Genesis account, God adds light to the universe after the fact.In reality, light is a fundamental force of the universe. It's as old as the universe. (Also there's no god - thought I'd throw that in just to tweak you.)So no, they don't agree.

After the universe. See, God moves over the waters at the beginning, right? Before he creates light? How can there be water if there's no universe? There can't, so we know that the Biblical accounts says that first comes the universe, then water, then light.But the cosmological model says that the universe comes first, light at the same time (since it's a fundamental force in the universe), and water after millions of years.Clearly the accounts don't agree. The order is wrong. What's hard to understand about that?

What, yours? That's hardly mankind's fault.

How does that make any sense? You've accurately presented the difference between the two models at hand, but then in your very next sentence you assert that there's no difference.Now you're just not making any sense.Anyway, so what? If the Genesis account can be liberally stretched to agree with the cosmological evidence, so what? You've hit the one thing that the Genesis account can be made to look accurate on. It's wrong on every other point. Or at the very least, no more right than any other mythological account.

Dude, take a biology class. There's nothing magic about an ecology's dependance on sunlight. Light is simply a ready source of energy that helps catalyze certain chemical reactions. It's called "photosynthesis".Light isn't alive. It's not some kind of magic "life force" or essence or something. Maybe you need to read a little less science fiction and open a textbook.