Sun created on Genesis Day 4, Plants on Day 3?

[Hawkins]

According to the Genesis Creation account, the Sun was created on Day 4, and plants were created beforehand on Day 3. I'm curious to know, What heated the Earth for plants to survive between Genesis Creation Day 3 and Day 4?

Your intelligence is subject to the snake's manipulation, just as Adam in Eden.

God created heavens, it's a plural. God created multiple spaces. One of them is for the creation of earth. It's like a grand lab. On Day 4, the creatd earth was "plugged" into our universe. The book of Revelation also said that sun is no need, God is the light. God doesn't need a sun to provide the light required for plants to grow.

 

[jimb]

Regarding the OP: The excellent NET (New English Translation) has this footnote [with my added emphasis]: Light itself was created before the light-bearers. The order would not seem strange to the ancient Hebrew mind that did not automatically link daylight with the sun (note that dawn and dusk appear to have light without the sun).

 

[Twilight Hue]

Plants require sunlight to live, not heat

Without sunlight I would think the surface of the earth would be quite the opposite of hot.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Regarding the OP: The excellent NET (New English Translation) has this footnote [with my added emphasis]: Light itself was created before the light-bearers. The order would not seem strange to the ancient Hebrew mind that did not automatically link daylight with the sun (note that dawn and dusk appear to have light without the sun).

Yes, this is what I was talking about: the authors believed that the day was mostly lit by the solid dome of the sky.

 

[FredVB]

Whatever the people believed then when these things were written for those of Israel originally, it was revealed that God made the life on this world which he created, though originally formless, and then in six days everything to make this world according to God's perfect design, showing to the people that the seventh day is for rest, the people need that, animals used needed that too, though I do not agree to animals being used, but God did not need that, God is not needing anything. It was warm enough as God made it, light was already present, while there was no sun seen on the earth. But while this earth was without form I am sure the universe was there too. Then on the fourth day the sun was seen on the earth. Why not earlier? I do not know. But plants had light still earlier, so the sun being seen only later did not matter to that. Maybe the sun being made was not ready yet until then.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Then on the fourth day the sun was seen on the earth. Why not earlier? I do not know. But plants had light still earlier, so the sun being seen only later did not matter to that. Maybe the sun being made was not ready yet until then.

The problem is, there was no light anywhere in the universe before there were stars.

 

[Balthazzar]

Ok, so from God to light to the water to the creepy crawlies to the land, on to man and a day off. Sounds a lot like evolution to me unless you choose to insist the light was some weird supernatural, I don't know what the ****.

 

[Balthazzar]

The first light may have been part of the big boom, the second may have been the sun, but the grass came before the sun (apparently), so the environment was not yet developed from the photosynthesis and through o2 consuming creatures, or maybe it was in a different way.

I wonder if there was any electromagnetism present. Maybe from the big bang and stored in the elements but beyond this and with no sun, I doubt it. Maybe quartz played a role in the development of grass photosynthesis and maybe plant life evolved like everything else does. Either way, it sounds a lot like evolution to me.

I may not remember but " I was once an itty-bitty tad pole swimming in a frenzy."

Now, I breath air from the less dense atmosphere of the skies. I evolved.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The first light may have been part of the big boom, the second may have been the sun,

The Big Bang was no an explosion. It was expansion from a point. Don't worry, this is a very common misunderstanding. Whoever came up with the expression Big Bang was a dorcus.

Yes you are correct that light emanated from the Big Bang. But it did not last. The universe went dark. After that, light didn't return until the first stars. Those first stars did not include our sun. Our sun came BILLIONS of years later. It has been formed by the material remnants of an earlier star that went supernova. You are almost certainly aware that our sun is a star, but juuuuuust in case you don't, yeah, it is.

There is not enough light from stars that are further away to feed the photosynthesis of plants. IOW, plants could not possibly have existed before the sun. Thus, I'm afraid you are still left with the original problem, which is that Genesis has plants before the sun.

 

[Balthazzar]

The Big Bang was no an explosion. It was expansion from a point. Don't worry, this is a very common misunderstanding. Whoever came up with the expression Big Bang was a dorcus.

Yes you are correct that light emanated from the Big Bang. But it did not last. The universe went dark. After that, light didn't return until the first stars. Those first stars did not include our sun. Our sun came BILLIONS of years later. It has been formed by the material remnants of an earlier star that went supernova. You are almost certainly aware that our sun is a star, but juuuuuust in case you don't, yeah, it is.

There is not enough light from stars that are further away to feed the photosynthesis of plants. IOW, plants could not possibly have existed before the sun. Thus, I'm afraid you are still left with the original problem, which is that Genesis has plants before the sun.

Besides your misunderstanding of my stance, the "expansion and great force of energy that was the big bang" would have charged some elementals actively, which creates isolated energy capabilities. Yes, the sun would have come many years later, which is agreeable with the text. The text does imply that grasses came first, and I am implying that plant life evolves also. So, if operating under our current paradigm, it would seem unlikely that plants could grow before a sun is present, so I question what that plant life might have been like and how long it took for the plants to be able to utilize a sun for their growth. Whether quartz had any part in the light aspects of the text or if it contributed to plant growth is unknown, but very possible. Superman lives, man ... somewhere but, where. Ok, so that may be a stretch for the superhero are us's but it may have some merit, if given enough creative lenience.

Anyway, I'm of the mind that we'll continue to evolve even to endure the sun in 3.5 billion years, otherwise evolution is somewhat baseless conjecture and irrelevant.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The text does imply that grasses came first, and I am implying that plant life evolves also. So, if operating under our current paradigm, it would seem unlikely that plants could grow before a sun is present, so I question what that plant life might have been like and how long it took for the plants to be able to utilize a sun for their growth.

I do understand your thinking, and I appreciate your creative mind. Not everyone is able to imagine different scenarios outside their experience.

Time to google...

Part of the definition of a plant is that they photosynthesize. There are only a very few exceptions to this rule. A few parasitic plants like Dodder lack chlorophyll and are completely dependent on other plants for their nutrients. A few mycoheterotrophic plants like Indian pipe use fungi connected to trees to obtain their nutrition. In both these cases, these unusual plants are completely dependant on other plants that do have chlorophyll and that do photosynthesize. This means they evolved after the first plants, not before. Plants also have vascular systems, leaves, and reproductive organs.

Plants evolved from earlier life forms that also photosynthesized, such as green algae. These were called charophytes or streptophyte algae. These precursors lack the complexity that plants have, such as the sophisticated water transport and reproductive systems. They are primarily aquatic, and even those rare versions that can survive in moist environments, they really lack the capacity to survive on dry land.

The long and short of it is this: plants evolved from earlier life that already photosynthesized. Logically, this means that there cannot have been plants without sunlight.

Whether quartz had any part in the light aspects of the text or if it contributed to plant growth is unknown, but very possible. Superman lives, man ... somewhere but, where. Ok, so that may be a stretch for the superhero are us's but it may have some merit, if given enough creative lenience.

Can you explain how quartz comes into the picture?

Anyway, I'm of the mind that we'll continue to evolve even to endure the sun in 3.5 billion years, otherwise evolution is somewhat baseless conjecture and irrelevant.

I agree that we will continue to evolve. However, at some point our descendants will simply be some new species. Whatever life exists in 3.5 billion years, it will not be human. I honestly think there will be no life at all at that time. This is because, due to the expansion of the sun, the level of heat will become too great. We already know what happens from a runaway greenhouse phenomenon, as we see how Venus is completely barren of life.

Anyhow, very interesting chat!

 

[Balthazzar]

I do understand your thinking, and I appreciate your creative mind. Not everyone is able to imagine different scenarios outside their experience.

Time to google...

Part of the definition of a plant is that they photosynthesize. There are only a very few exceptions to this rule. A few parasitic plants like Dodder lack chlorophyll and are completely dependent on other plants for their nutrients. A few mycoheterotrophic plants like Indian pipe use fungi connected to trees to obtain their nutrition. In both these cases, these unusual plants are completely dependant on other plants that do have chlorophyll and that do photosynthesize. This means they evolved after the first plants, not before. Plants also have vascular systems, leaves, and reproductive organs.

Plants evolved from earlier life forms that also photosynthesized, such as green algae. These were called charophytes or streptophyte algae. These precursors lack the complexity that plants have, such as the sophisticated water transport and reproductive systems. They are primarily aquatic, and even those rare versions that can survive in moist environments, they really lack the capacity to survive on dry land.

The long and short of it is this: plants evolved from earlier life that already photosynthesized. Logically, this means that there cannot have been plants without sunlight.

Can you explain how quartz comes into the picture?

I agree that we will continue to evolve. However, at some point our descendants will simply be some new species. Whatever life exists in 3.5 billion years, it will not be human. I honestly think there will be no life at all at that time. This is because, due to the expansion of the sun, the level of heat will become too great. We already know what happens from a runaway greenhouse phenomenon, as we see how Venus is completely barren of life.

Anyhow, very interesting chat!

It's a possible scenario. Quartz is one of the most abundant minerals on earth. When rubbed the right way and pressed they create light. They are also able to make sparks, but they require more pressure for this application. Otherwise, they light up much light a dim light bulb. I ask about the electro-magnetism because so much depends on it in life. The Tesla globe for example, was birthed from how the earth interacts with the sun and is much like our atmosphere. So, there may have been electrical current and light before the sun was present. Up until this realization, I had been one who insisted that the sun is required for electricity. Today, I'm not so sure.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's a possible scenario. Quartz is one of the most abundant minerals on earth. When rubbed the right way and pressed they create light. They are also able to make sparks, but they require more pressure for this application. Otherwise, they light up much light a dim light bulb.

That's really fascinating. I am delighted to learn this.

I can tell you from personal experience, I've killed every plant that I tried to grow in my apartment, which is dimly lit. Call me a black thumb. Plants require sunlight.

The Tesla globe for example, was birthed from how the earth interacts with the sun and is much like our atmosphere.

I'm confused here. A Tesla globe is not a natural thing. It is a man made invention. Are we talking about the same thing?

 

[Balthazzar]

That's really fascinating. I am delighted to learn this.

I can tell you from personal experience, I've killed every plant that I tried to grow in my apartment, which is dimly lit. Call me a black thumb. Plants require sunlight.

I'm confused here. A Tesla globe is not a natural thing. It is a man made invention. Are we talking about the same thing?

It's about evolution and increased capabilities, which I'm quite certain are very different than what we are able to witness today. Dimly lit, yup probably... plants require sunlight or a decent spectrum able to accommodate growth, so I'm curious how this may have been possible and what they may have been like before becoming what we now know them to be.

The earth functions with an electromagnetic association with the sun and the earths North and south poles. It creates an energy field. Tesla tech was birthed from an understanding of this relationship and developed on a smaller scale by Nikola Tesla.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's about evolution and increased capabilities, which I'm quite certain are very different than what we are able to witness today. Dimly lit, yup probably... plants require sunlight or a decent spectrum able to accommodate growth, so I'm curious how this may have been possible and what they may have been like before becoming what we now know them to be.

We actually do know what plants were like before they were plants. Their ancestors were photosynthesizing forms of life such as green algae.

The earth functions with an electromagnetic association with the sun and the earths North and south poles. It creates an energy field. Tesla tech was birthed from an understanding of this relationship and developed on a smaller scale by Nikola Tesla.

Interesting

 

[Balthazzar]

We actually do know what plants were like before they were plants. Their ancestors were photosynthesizing forms of life such as green algae.

Interesting

Like before they began photosynthesizing coming from the primordial soup, I wonder. Each specific type of life form went through many processes to become what we know as the living world. At some point, what we know as life existed apart from sunlight.

 

[wellwisher]

According to the Genesis Creation account, the Sun was created on Day 4, and plants were created beforehand on Day 3. I'm curious to know, What heated the Earth for plants to survive between Genesis Creation Day 3 and Day 4?

If you read the first day in Genesis it says;

Genesis 1; In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

This sounds like the Bible is not speaking of the modern universe forming, but speaking of when the young earth was first forming; a rotating and collapsing dark cloud of gas, dust and water. The sun is not fired up yet. Ancient thinking had the earth as the center as the universe. Wouldn't the center of that universe form with the universe? Science still use that earth reference when mapping the universe; relative to the earth. Science does not believe there is a center of the universe, even though it formed from a point; relative reference illusion. If we could measure relativistic mass we could find the center.

To answer the topic question about the sun.

In Genesis 2:6-7 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The forming earth had/has lots of water and was very hot at one time, with all that water boiling under the earth's molten sub-surface and rising as a mist. This meant clouds, fog and powerful storms. On a cloudy or foggy day, even today, you cannot see the sun, directly. You can still know it is morning, by being lighter, but the light is diffused by the clouds and does not appear to have a distinct source. But eventually the earth cools and the skies clear and the sun and stars can be seen. The Miller experiments for abiogenesis, assumed a very stormy early earth and tried to simulate lightning affecting the gases in the atmosphere.

Say you had never directly saw the sun before, due to living in a cloudy place, but you only knew its by diffused light. Suddenly, one day, the sky cleared and the sun appeared and came to a focus. It would seem like it just appeared or formed. Who would have theorized it would look that way and have any solid proof as long as it stayed cloudy? Genesis is an empirical account of what could be seen, if you were sitting at the center of the universe; earth, as it formed. It is empirical science and not rational science, just like evolution is empirical. Evolution does not predict finding specific fossils in advance, but uses what can be seen/found from the past to support the theory. This is why we have the pot calling the kettle black; same approach but different tools and times.

If you found an advanced alien space ship, you could only describe it based on what you see, and what we can compare it to. You will not be able to say exactly what it is and what it is meant to be. This is called an empirical approach to science based on observing and correlating. You can still do science that way. The Ancients used Astrology to model Astronomy and could plot the paths of stars, planets, and even predict eclipses through empirical observation and a mythological placeholder. That was functionally better than the approach of evolution, since it had predictive ability, even though it was an empirical model. Evolution cannot make predictions and covers this deficit by saying there is no sense of direction to evolution. The model has no predictive value since how can you steer from a black box. But is has lots of empirical data from the past which still can tell us many things, until a rational theory can appear.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Like before they began photosynthesizing coming from the primordial soup, I wonder. Each specific type of life form went through many processes to become what we know as the living world. At some point, what we know as life existed apart from sunlight.

Yes, that's what I've been taught as well. The oldest life forms that we have fossils of are single cell organisms that lived in water and did not do photosynthesis. But are we still discussing plants? These would not be plants.

 

[Balthazzar]

Yes, that's what I've been taught as well. The oldest life forms that we have fossils of are single cell organisms that lived in water and did not do photosynthesis. But are we still discussing plants? These would not be plants.

When and how did the ability to utilize the sun for photosynthesis start and from what? The mechanics of evolution began, continued after and will likely continue beyond our current heliosphere. Maybe we don't know.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When and how did the ability to utilize the sun for photosynthesis start and from what?

You can ask questions like that one of AI yourself: iAsk Question · When and how did the ability to utilize the sun for photosynthesis start and from what

Here's an excerpt from the response:

• The earliest forms of photosynthesis are believed to have emerged around 3.5 billion years ago. Fossil evidence, such as stromatolites, indicates that cyanobacteria were among the first organisms capable of photosynthesis.
• Cyanobacteria are prokaryotic microorganisms that utilize sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into glucose and oxygen through photosynthesis.

This was the beginning, which is what you asked for.

Much later, unicellular eukaryotic photosynthesizers formed in part by internalizing the descendants of these organisms (unicellular algae, diatoms, and dinoflagellates), and then multicellular eukaryotic photosynthesizers (plants) emerged, some leaving the oceans to form terrestrial plants.

These creatures transformed the planet's oceans and atmosphere.

Genesis 1; "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." This sounds like the Bible is not speaking of the modern universe forming, but speaking of when the young earth was first forming

The earth formed over about 100 million years beginning about 4.5 billion years ago, when the universe was about 9 billion years old. The ancients' understanding was that the earth was flat, immovable, setting on pillars, covered by a dome encrusted with the visible celestial objects above which were waters through which the rain fell, and created over six days. It was a typical primitive cosmology except for the timeline, which was likely added to compel a day off of work every week once the Hebrews settled and there were large central synagogues serving large areas of settlement so that the people could travel to the synagogue for instruction and to support the clergy with contributions.

The work week complete with a weekend was enshrined by claiming that the world took six days to create, which was followed by a day a rest, which the Hebrews were commanded to emulate with the creation of the Sabbath. There were no days of rest for able-bodied people for the centuries preceding civilization, and no need to give the clergy money when they were also hunters traveling with the horde, so a commandment was needed to support the notion of a day off and a new unit of tie was created. Natural units like days, months, and years were either too close together or too long.

There were no waters when the earth was formless gas and dust in the remnant of the solar nebula following the collapse of the gas and dust that became the sun. It's a myth, and it's incorrect.

Genesis is an empirical account of what could be seen, if you were sitting at the center of the universe; earth, as it formed.

No, it's a book of myths. The creation story attempts to explain why the world exists and how it formed, but the myth is not empirically derived. It was fabricated in the imaginations of the mythologists. Nobody witnessed the earth when it was forming. And we know that there were no deep or waters until the earth accreted and cooled. It was about 700 million years old when its oceans formed.

Evolution does not predict finding specific fossils in advance

The theory postulates that life transformed continuously over billions of years from a primeval ancestral population of unicellular marine organisms to the tree of life we find today. Just how much of that was preserved as fossils and what fraction of those fossils can be unearthed is unknown. Many intermediate forms have already been uncovered since Darwin's theory was published.

no sense of direction to evolution.

Evolution is unintended, that is, it is not the work of a sentient agent creating something it imagined, but not undirected. Natural selection shapes populations to their environments.

The model has no predictive value

That is incorrect. It predicts. for example, that therapeutics tested on the beasts can tell us about how they will affect man, and that viruses can evolve and become relatively immune to existing vaccines.

I asked AI at iAsk Question · What are some of the predictions of evoution theory?:

Predictions of Evolution Theory

1. Adaptation to Environmental Changes
One of the primary predictions of evolution theory is that populations will adapt to their environments over time through natural selection. This means that individuals with traits that confer a survival or reproductive advantage are more likely to pass those traits on to the next generation. For example, if a population of insects is exposed to a new pesticide, those individuals with genetic variations that confer resistance are expected to survive and reproduce, leading to an increase in the frequency of resistant traits in subsequent generations.

2. Genetic Variation and Heritability
Evolution predicts that there will be genetic variation within populations, which is essential for natural selection to occur. This variation arises from mutations, gene flow, and sexual reproduction. The theory posits that heritable traits can be passed down from parents to offspring, allowing advantageous traits to become more common in the population over generations.

3. Speciation Events
Evolutionary theory predicts that over long periods, populations can diverge significantly enough due to isolation (geographic or reproductive) and different selective pressures that they may evolve into distinct species. This process is known as speciation. For instance, Darwin’s finches on the Galápagos Islands provide a classic example where different species evolved from a common ancestor due to varying environmental conditions and food sources.

4. Extinction Risks
The theory also predicts that species unable to adapt quickly enough to changing environmental conditions or new competitive pressures are at risk of extinction. This prediction has been observed in various contexts, such as habitat destruction or climate change impacting species survival rates.

5. Co-evolution
Another prediction is co-evolution, where two or more species influence each other’s evolutionary trajectory through interactions such as predation, competition, or mutualism. For example, flowering plants and their pollinators often evolve together; changes in one can lead to adaptations in the other.

6. Evolutionary Constraints
Evolutionary theory suggests that there are constraints on how organisms can evolve based on their evolutionary history and existing biological structures (phylogenetic constraints). These constraints can limit the directions evolution can take for certain lineages.

In summary, evolution theory provides a framework for understanding how life adapts and changes over time through mechanisms like natural selection, genetic variation, speciation events, extinction risks, co-evolutionary dynamics, and evolutionary constraints.