Genesis 1:1-5 — Day One

Well I suppose the most plain answer to that is that we just did. Matters and energies existed before light.And that seems to be all there is to it. We know that light requires various matters and energies to exist; so it would be silly to suggest that it can exist prior to those matters and energies. Without any other evidence, it's just fanciful guesswork and special pleading to say that light came about before matters and energies (unformed Earth, remember) when logic and evidence dictates that it be otherwise.CJ

Let's start with photons. Do you have trouble accepting the claim that photons are required for the existence of light?CJ

Well; I've made no mention of time spans, and there is certainly no matter of time span mentioned between Genesis 1:1—4; that is, there is no indication as to how long the formless Earth and its energies sat before the creation of Light.Once Light exists as a separate entity from non-Light (Darkness), then we can at least vaguely get a measure of time passing between the formation of various things, but prior to that I cannot see how we can make any claims regarding the elapsed time between creation of matter and energy and the formation of Light.CJ

quote:

---

Wikipedia on Photons:

​

Photons are emitted in many natural processes. For example, when a charge is accelerated it emits synchrotron radiation. During a molecular, atomic or nuclear transition to a lower energy level, photons of various energy will be emitted, from infrared light to gamma rays. A photon can also be emitted when a particle and its corresponding antiparticle are annihilated (for example, electron-positron annihilation).

---

To produce a photon we need matter doing stuff, which means we first need the matter.

I think you're misreading this. By 'first' I simply mean before Light; between Light and Earth, Earth was the first to be made. That's not really on topic for here. The main point in this thread is that Earth was created first and then Light. It was not the Sun being created followed by the formation of the other matter as evolutionists would have you believe. You're reading far too much into what I'm saying. Nothing simply means no matter or energy (in the physical sense). 6,000 years ago? By what measuring standard? What more reasoning could you require other than the simple fact that it is specifically stated as to when Light was created. There is, of course, nothing in the text to suggest that this was merely a 'making visible on Earth' event. It was a from-scratch creationprior to which everything was in darkness. There is no other way to read the text. There is no other way to interpret the scientific evidence.CJ

I'm saying there was Light before the Sun existed, yes. But I think even evolutionists would agree with such a statement.CJ

Well that's obviously nonsense. If the Genesis story is true, then there certainly would have been light before the Sun had been created since that is specifically what the Genesis story claims as true.CJ

Well that doesn't tell me the standard used. For example, by the standard of today's years, the Earth and Universe are most certainly more than 6,000 years old. If this is your objection then you have no objection. My entire point from the OP forward has been that the light and heavenly bodies could not exist before there was matter and energy to form them from. If what you are saying is that these things weren't *poof* created with their own separate matters and energies, then I completely agree with you; they were formed from the matters and energies that already existedthat were created in the initial act of Gen 1:1. I do not see it as a necessary disagreement. It is a matter of missing information. While it is a little much to get into in this thread, the simplest explanation (and one that is consistent with other evidence) is that years were actually longer further back in the history of the Earth and Universe. The years were indeed between 5k and 10kthere's no need to be too precise about this, but the closer we get to the Creation, the longer each year is. Those initial years would have each been as long as a few thousand or more of our modern years.The figure of 4.5 billion years is calculated with a modern year's time length as the standard. The figure of 6k years is more or less calculated using both the modern and ancient length value of years.CJ

What?This is nonsense! It has nothing to do with the Biblical account of Creation.Please point me to the part of the text that describes the life forms existing before Genesis 1:2.Please point me to the part of the text that describes the cities existing before Genesis 1:2.Please point me to the part of the text that describes the destruction of life forms before Genesis 1:2.Please point me to the part of the text that describes the destruction of cities before Genesis 1:2.Please, support your assertions! Yet no mention of living creatures. Just that strange word, 'void'... I wonder what it means.CJ

But as everyone knows, it is not the rotation of the Earth that determines the length of the years but rather its revolution around the Sun. More gibberish. A year is specifically the time it takes the Earth to go around the Sunirrespective of the number of days that takes to happen. A year is not calculated by multiplying one day by 365.25. Where do you think the number 365.25 comes from? It is the number of days that pass during a complete revolution of the Sun by the Earth. What a contradiction! If the calculators are using information given in the Bible than they cannot be basing their figure on 'present day knowledge of what a year is today'. Time then was differentit moved slower. Days were longer, years were longer, people lived longer; in almost every place time moved slower. Only in some places is this excess time recordedparticularly on the molecular level (radiocarbon dating, for example), and this is what scientists measure for realizing the very old age of the Earth (relative to our modern notions of years, etc.). The folks who lived in those days, however, wrote and recorded their lives with words like 'year' and 'day' that represent their understanding and experience of those lengths of time.If we don't recognize that they are talking about years of a different length, then we will end up with numbers that are completely in contradiction to the evidence. And that just makes us look stupid.CJ

The quantum electron-entanglement paradox was unstable in these early days. The effects of time passage were (and still are) apparent in different degrees to different biological and non-biological entities. So there were people who really lived for 150 years as measured against the outside world since the time force (quantum electron-entanglement) affected various matters differently.As this paradox has stabilized in recent times we see a shift toward the time passage for different things being more in sync with one another.CJ