"And God said" Moses (or other human author) talking to his audience.
"'Let there be light.'" What God said in the past.
"and there was light." Moses reporting that from the vantage point of his
time, God had indeed created life in the past.
In this view, the proclamations merely set a process in motion. It was not
fait accompli at that moment. The proclamation for the waters to be full of
life continies to this day. As one species dies out, new species replace
them. The proclamation started a process and the continual apparance of new
species in the geologic column is consistent with this view.
>I have some questions on some of your dates that you put into the text I
>quoted from Hugh Ross:
>
>for 6.) you put 3.85 billion yrs ago, couldn't this have been in 2.) when
>there is partial clearing of the intersolar debris and the atmosphere?
>
I am not sure I fully understand this. Hugh is the one who says that the
atmosphere did not become clear until after the plants are on land in number
5. This gives one a choice. We know from geology that the atmosphere had to
be clear long before that or that the atmosphere didn't become clear until
around 400 million years ago.I am merely pointing out that Hugh's conception
of how long the nebula hung around is problematical.
Besides this, the nebula would be blown away by the star in about 1 million
years. (see Otto Struve The Universe, 1968, p. 34 and A.W. Harris, "Dynamics
of Planetesimal formation and Planetary Accretion", in S.F.Dermott _The Origin
of the Solar system_ 1978,p. 471 ). So by saying that the sky was opaque due
to the nebula until 400 million years ago goes against astronomical knowledge
and to say that land plants were here 4.599 million years ago goes against
geological knowledge.I don't think any more recent data has changed
the view that the nebula would not last very long. Why Hugh, an astronomer,
doesn't incorporate this fact into his views, I don't know.
>for 9.) you put 220 million yrs ago. Hugh Ross states ("Creation and
>Time" pg.152):
>
> "Another point of ridicule is the mention of land mammals (Genesis
> 1:25) as part of the sixth creation day, while sea mammals (1:21)
> show up on the fifth creation day. The fossil record clearly shows
> that the first sea mammals came on the scene after the first land
> mammals. The answer to this ridicule comes from identifying the
> kinds of creatures (the chayyah, the behemah, and the remes) the text
> associates with the sixth creation day (1:25). The words refer not
> to all the land mammals but rather to three specific classes of land
> mammals:
> 1. Long-legged quadruped usually described as wild
> 2. Long-legged quadruped that is easy to tame
> 3. Short-legged quadruped
>
> Apparently, these particular land mammals were designed to
> coexist with human beings. The fossil record confirms that such land
> mammals do not show up until after the initial appearance of birds and
> sea mammals."
>
Strong's says that Remes refers to reptile or other fast moving animal.
Reptiles appear around 330 million years ago
Strongs says that Chaykahee means beast, alive, company, congretation. I saw
nothing about quadruped or long-legged in the defintion.
Strong's says Behemah means dumb beast or quadruped i.e. cattle.
Can any Hebrew experts out there help out here>
As to the concept that these animals are "designed to coexist with human
beings" I don't see that in the text. This may be the case or it may be
reading into the text what one wants to see. Once again, can a Hebrew expert
help here?