Which Came First — Plants or the Sun?

This is a good one from Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo). Their article is Did God Really Create Plants Before the Sun?

It’s by Scot Chadwick, about whom we know nothing. We encountered only once before — see AIG: How To Teach Evolution to Kids. Here are some excerpts from his new essay, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and scripture references omitted:

The Bible states that God created the sun after he had already created plant life, but evolutionary ideas counter that plant life came after the sun. A plain reading of Genesis 1–2 yields a chronology that is incompatible with the proposed evolutionary schedule.

Quite so. According to Wikipedia’s Genesis creation narrative, this is the sequence of events:

First day:

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Second day:

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Third day:

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.
11 And God said: ‘Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.’ And it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Fourth day:

14 And God said: ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;
15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.’ And it was so.
16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

So that’s the problem. Day and night were created on the first day, and plants were created on day three. But the Sun wasn’t created until day four. Let’s find out how Scot explains this. He says:

We may learn several things about the light God created on Day One. First, it was a created light, that is, the light did not exist one moment, but it existed the next moment. …

Second, in order for there to be distinct daytime and nighttime, this light must have been localized and therefore directional (not a diffused or ambient light), and it must have been stationary relative to the earth. For “morning and evening” to have occurred successively, the earth must also have been rotating on its axis from Day One, allowing part of the earth to be exposed to the light while the opposite side was in the darkness.

Third, the light possibly also provided adequate heat to warm the earth, allowing water to exist in liquid form….. Heat from this light or another source would also be necessary for the plants, trees, and other vegetation prior to the creation of the sun on Day Four.

Fourth, this initial, temporary light was evidently replaced with the sun on Day Four.

That seems like an odd way to go about things, but Scot tells us:

We may conjecture two possible reasons why the sun was not created on Day One. First, God may have wanted to underscore the supernatural origin of life, clearly showing that life did not come from the sun but from him. … This, of course, is contrary to the evolutionary idea that the preexistent sun (and other stars) contributed to the rise of all life forms on earth. Second, God may have wanted to undermine humanity’s inclination to worship the sun as the originator of life, by which they would have regarded the sun as a deity. God specifically forbade his people from worshiping “the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven.”

That makes sense. Skipping to near the end, before final some scripture quotes and a warning about sinfulness, Scot says:

The creation account in Genesis gives us our only eyewitness testimony of the first events of the universe. A plain reading of this text shows us how God wisely crafted his work to favor life on earth, and we can see how the unfolding of his design runs contrary to manmade evolutionary and other old-earth ideas.

Now you know why plants were created before the Sun. It’s good creation science, but if you are foolish enough to disagree, the Lake of Fire awaits you.

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

24 responses to “Which Came First — Plants or the Sun?

  1. Derek Freyberg

    So much nonsense, so little time. And, following the Hamster, “Were you there Scot? How the #$%&^^&*) do you know that the light must have been localized, that the earth must have been rotating on its axis – where is that in the Babble?”
    “God may have wanted to undermine humanity’s inclination to worship the sun as the originator of life, by which they would have regarded the sun as a deity.” If so, he did a poor job of it – there are lots of religions, both past and present, that regard the sun as a deity.

  2. Genesis does not say that it is an eyewitness account. The closest that we have to a biblical statement as to who wrote Genesis is a vague hint that the entire law, that is, the entire Torah, is the work of Moses, and certain passages are what God told Moses. But I don’t think that any part of Genesis has that attribution to God. So we have at best, third-hand report.

    But the real difficulty about when the Sun began shining on the Earth, is that on the fourth day the Sun was put in the heavens to distinguish between the day and the night, and to mark the passage of days. So how can there have been a day number 1, day number 2, day number 3, without a Sun performing that function?

  3. Ceteris Paribus

    “For “morning and evening” to have occurred successively, the earth must also have been rotating on its axis from Day One, allowing part of the earth to be exposed to the light while the opposite side was in the darkness.
    No – no – no. AIG has their cosmology all bass ackwards! There was NEVER any earthly “rotation” involved – since the earth was obviously FLAT in those ante-diluvian days! So there was simply no place for these Holy lights to go, except “UP” and “DOWN”.

    In addition, as a True Believer of the sanctity of the heavenly lights, I cannot leave without pointing out that it is the MOON which is the more important light of the luminous pair. Simple logic demonstrates that when the Sun is in the Heavens, there is already plenty of light out there anyway. And the extra light from the Sun just goes to waste.

    The MOON, in contrast, takes care to shine only during the NIGHT, when the light does come in handy to find your way around if you need to get up and attend to something without tripping over a goat or something.

  4. The bible makes it very clear that the Earth is flat, so that light on Day One was obviously some kind of lantern to make the creation work easier. It was probably turned on and off in 12 hour intervals.

  5. Ceteris Paribus

    @SC:

    “It [the lamp] was probably turned on and off in 12 hour intervals.”

    Well, possibly so. But since there wasn’t any mention of any “great fish” swimming around the jacuzzi back in those days to provide the necessary oil for the lamp, it must remain a mystery.

    In any case, we can all feel blessed that God chose the duo-decimal system for His clock. Thus forever thwarting the Satanic “International System of Units (abbreviated as SI)” from completing their attempts to make us all submit to the tyranny of foreign atheistic science.

  6. How lovely it is to see a Biblical creationist deny all of science. My response is f*&^ him.

  7. My vote is for the simplest answer:

    D) The bible was written by ignorant bronze age (yes I know, Iron Age) goat herders who didn’t [know] s**t about science and reality.

  8. TomS, The place where Ham and Co. part company with reality and their own creed is here: “The creation account in Genesis gives us our only eyewitness testimony of the first events of the universe.”

    To be “eyewitness testimony” it must have been written by God or dictated and attested by Him. No such claim is made for Genesis anywhere in scripture. The utmost anyone ever said is that Moses wrote the Torah, not God, and although God is stated to have told Moses to write some things down, nowhere is it said that He dictated or inspired the whole.

    Even if we accept what is not only inevident, but actually contrary to evidence, and attribute Genesis to one author, Moses, Genesis is not eyewitness testimony. To say that it is is to add to the scriptures. To say further that it must be read literally is to go even beyond that.

    I know, I know. I should be equally enraged by the ignorance, speciousness, irrationality, denial, the sheer stupid, pig-headed, blind unreason of it. But what really gets under my skin, and always has, is the arrant hypocrisy. Ham claims to revere the text, and then he blithely adulterates it.

    And whence comes this authority to add to scripture? The authority is assumed by Ham, and it comes from nothing but the hubris and arrogance of Ken Ham.

  9. Skeptical Servant

    More Ridiculous AIG nonsense not surprising considering they take everything in the Bible literally. I can never take these guys seriously and saying the bibe is a eyewitness event is even stupider.

  10. Michael Fugate

    or it could be just a story with no connection to anything that ever happened.

  11. @TomS: “a biblical statement as to who wrote Genesis”
    Ol’Hambo’s god wrote the Bible. And the Bible is Holy. Period. So Ol’Hambo’s god is the eyewitness and hence Genesis is the only eyewitness account.

    You can’t beat creacrappers simply because they refuse to play according to our rules when it doesn’t suit them.

    @MichaelF: “just a story”
    Of course not. ‘Cuz god.

  12. Oh man, this is good. So good that I hope The Mighty Hand from Above will forgive me from going off-topic. Link in case you can read Dutch:

    https://logos.nl/henk-jochemsen-en-cees-dekker-evolutie/

    Background: last Friday there was an orthodox-protestant congress in Opheusden, NL. It’s about

    “de theologische implicaties van evolutionaire schepping”
    “the theological implications of evolutionary creation”
    ie theistic evolution. An orthodox-protestant theologian recently has published a book called Suppose Evolution is True, which of course doesn’t sit well. Former IDiot Cees Dekker was also invited.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cees_Dekker#Other_interests

    Dutch creacrap site Logos.nl has reported about. It has more courage than almost all of their American counterparts, as they have a comment section, albeit heavily (but quite fairly) moderated. Of course the site debunks Cees Dekker.

    “Niet overtuigd zijn van een heel oude aarde stelt hij [Dekker – MNb] gelijk aan ontkennen van wetenschap. Henk Jochemsen is genuanceerder:”
    “Cees Dekker states that not being convinced of a very old earth is equal to science denial. Henk Jochemsen is more nuanced.”

    Here it comes, a piece of neo-Orwellian newspeak that’s almost as good as Savvy Sarah’s contribution a couple of days ago.

    “….. [Cees Dekker] niet wil dat we een conflict tussen geloof en wetenschap creëren. Daarbij ziet hij over het hoofd dat hij zelf juist dat conflict creëert, door geen ruimte te laten voor en andere visie, en geloof in de historiciteit van Genesis als onwetenschappelijk af te schilderen.”

    “…..[Cees Dekker] does not want us to create a conflict between religion and science. What he forgets is that he himself creates that conflict, by leaving no room for another position, and paint belief in the historicity of Genesis as unscientific.”

    Yes, my dear companions in the evil Darwinist conspiracy, it’s us who are to be blamed for the Controversy.

  13. Oops, the creacrap God once has deluded me into wickedness. I forgot a few hashtags. Next attempt:

    [*Description of blunders deleted*]

    On the positive side: this once again is a great opportunity for the Mighty Hand from Above to demonstrate His True Unbeatable Power. Tremblingly and humbly I cast myself down at His Holy Feet once again, because what else can I do? Persisting in my evil ways can’t be an option.

    [*Voice from above*] Even one as wretched as you will have his errors corrected.

  14. How enormous must be my misdoings. I give up. Only the One can save me.

  15. @mnbo
    they refuse to play according to our rules when it doesn’t suit them.
    They refuse to play according to their rules when it doesn’t suit them.

    One of their rules is that it is true if and only if it is in the Bible.
    The Bible does not say that the Bible is an eyewitness account.
    The Bible does not say that the Bible is to be read literally.
    The Bible does, on occasion, cite a non-divine source as a witness.
    etc. etc. etc.
    Creationists do use mere human fallible reasoning to add to or to subtract from the universal or literal understanding of the Bible.

  16. It’s our rule that they should play according to their own rules, TomS.
    You can’t beat creacrap.

  17. The Genesis 1 story makes much more sense by itself than Scot Chadwick’s foolish and ignorant attempt to explain it (especially if we ignore the arbitrary division of the fiats into six days of creation and one of rest, which presumably some later priest added in a cack-handed attempt to support the seven-day week with Saturdays reserved for being godly).

  18. Interesting how they tend to gloss over the whole firmament thing. Maybe he was standing in one of the corners of the earth and bumped his head on it.

  19. Re “The creation account in Genesis gives us our only eyewitness testimony of the first events of the universe.” Uh, whose eyes were those? On what day were eyes invented?

  20. There is an old interpretation of the Bible which observes that the Bible does not explicitly say that the Sun and Moon were created on day 4 – it says that they were placed in the firmament then. That is taken as meaning that they became visible then.
    If only this author were more aware of the history of the Bible.

  21. “God specifically forbade his people from worshiping “the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven. That makes sense”

    Really, because if you claim 6,000 years then over 1,000 years exist before God got someone to write it all down. OECs have an even bigger problem.

  22. Ussher’s date for the Exodus was 1491 BC, which would be about 2500 years until from the creation week. But that is only a few generations for handing down oral traditions from Adam – if one follows the tradition that
    Moses learned of the events by word of mouth.
    Another tradition is that Moses learned of the events from the ancient wisdom of Egypt (Acts 7:22).
    Yet that is far from being eyewitness testimony.
    If we follow the tradition that the Pentateuch was dictated by God to Moses, then we rely on copies upon copies for 1,000+ years.

  23. It seems apparent to me that Genesis was written by Jesus Himself.

    First off, there’s the screamingly obvious alliteration, always a sure tell.

    Plus, the Apostle John tells us that Jesus was Himself there at the Beginning, with God.

    Finally, it’s an irrefutable explanation as to why Genesis was written in the Third Person Omniscient POV.