The Literal Genesis Account of Creation

Your hypothesis would be easier to understand if you could provide a time line.We need a chronological sequence of signal events in natural history. The chronology has to show how events known to science are to be juxtaposed with the biblical narrative as you understand it (OP).In reference to 'the heavens,' for example, please show the placement of these formative cosmological events:-- formation of stars
-- formation of galaxies
-- formation of organic compounds
-- formation of the sun
-- formation of earth's moon
-- formation of earth's iron coreThis brings us to 'the earth.' Please show where we are to understand the beginnings of tectonic activity happening on earth, and where we should place the various 'snapshots' of its progress up to the present. For reference:Plate TectonicsPlease explain how this narrative accounts for the extinctions of the varieties of prehistoric fauna in general. Speaking of non-avian dinosaurs gives us very little information.There's no need to clutter your time line with detailed histories of individual clads. Just show where in the sequence we find:-- the Ordovician crisis
-- the Devonian crisis
-- the Permian Mass Extinction
-- the End Cretaceous eventThanks in advance for clarifying._____Edited by Archer Opterix, : spelling.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

{qs,b>Icant:[/b]
I have been told on this forum many times that the Bible is not a book of science.Indeed you have. But the subject is not what you have been told. It is your hypothesis, introduced in the OP.Your hypothesis is built on the premise that the Bible is to be understood literally as a chronological sequence of cosmological and geological events.It shares this premise with YEC interpretations.Your hypothesis further stipulates, though, that YECs misread the chronology. You propose to correct this misreading of the sequence with the chronology you propose.What your chronology lacks is any relationship at all to known events in natural history. I am asking you for a chronologically ordered sequence of events that incorporates the signal events in natural history relative to our planet.If you don't know precise placements, that's fine. Even giving a range--'no earlier than this place, no later than that place'--would be helpful. Scientists have no reason to ponder anything if it contradicts known science. That's why your glad willingness to defer to science is obliged to take the form of showing how your model is at least plausible in that realm. What I have requested is far from being anything so ambitious as 'a scientific account of creation.'I am giving you an opportunity to do what you say you want to do. You say you want to determine whether or not your hypothesis 'says something different from science.' Ignoring science completely doesn't do that job.A chronological sequence is a start. Where do the big events fit?Please show this, as far as your model allows._____

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Indeed you have. But the subject is your hypothesis, introduced in the OP.Your hypothesis is built on the premise that the Bible is to be understood literally as a chronological sequence of cosmological and geological events.It shares this premise with YEC interpretations.Your hypothesis further stipulates, though, that YECs misread the chronology. You propose to correct this misreading of the sequence with the chronology you propose.What your chronology lacks is any relationship at all to known events in natural history. I am asking you for a chronologically ordered sequence of events that incorporates the signal events in natural history relative to our planet.If you don't know precise placements, that's fine. Even giving a range--'no earlier than this place, no later than that place'--would be helpful. Scientists have no reason to ponder anything if it contradicts known science. That's why your glad willingness to defer to science is obliged to take the form of showing how your model is at least plausible in that realm. What I have requested is far from being anything so ambitious as 'a scientific account of creation.'I am giving you an opportunity to do what you say you want to do. You say you want to determine whether or not your hypothesis 'says something different from science.' Ignoring science completely doesn't do that job.A chronological sequence is a start. Where do the big events fit?Please show this, as far as your model allows._____Edited by Archer Opterix, : htmlEdited by Archer Opterix, : html.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Thanks, Equinox. Yes, that's what I'm looking for.It is not obvious, to say the least, how some of the things in List 2 happen after events in List 1. Humans get agriculture going, for example, then the earth becomes 'waste and void' and then it finally gets sunlight.But first it would be helpful to know how ICANT sees his list as relating to natural history. He has referred in subsequent comments to the extinction of dinosaurs. He clearly sees his model as addressing this subject in some way.But how? His list makes no mention of the End Cretaceous event. Where should we place it? And if that's in the picture, where is the Permian extinction, which was far more vast?_____Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

The text says the cosmos was brought into existence 'at the outset.'Not much is happening on our home planet when the curtain goes up.
It has no shape and no light. It consists of a single vast ocean. Then light is created.We are told that wraps up all the action on Day 1.
'Evening and morning' complete the day.Then we get events said to belong to Day 2.
'Evening and morning' also complete this day.Then we get events said to belong to Day 3, Day 4, Day 5, and Day 6.
'Evening and morning' complete each day.Day 7 means the end of creative work for Elohim.There is no mention of Day 7 having an 'evening and morning.' There is no mention of a Day 8. Day 7 is never said, in the text, to have ended.Then comes Chapter 2._____

Why the insistence on the KJV?Oh--because you can't have Genesis 1.1 being a dependent clause for 1.2, as most Hebrew scholars now render it. That blows the hypothesis.Never mind. Carry on.______

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

When? Please place these extinction events on your list.It would help to clarify what you are saying.____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Another Another duplicate duplicateEdited by Archer Opterix, : seeing seeing double double.