₦airaland Forum

MiddleDimension:
https://www.nairaland.com/3881704/history-bible-canon-discussion-scholar

hello doctoralien. Above is a link to a thread where the op was asking the likes of you a philosophical question.

Since after the first century, apostate christianity followed, why then do you take the bible which is also their arrangement?

There are a lot of things in your post i would like to counter, but i will just leave it there.

The Bible is whose arrangement?

No!

Without God, nothing makes sense. ☺

.-.

Good evening

●

Ubenedictus:
please can you name the Christians before Constantine who used your exact current bible and weren't Catholics.

Roman Catholicism did not exist before Constantine:

The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

Constantine found that, with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse, not everyone would agree to forsake his or her religious beliefs to embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:

(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and theotokos (“God-bearer”) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.

(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries AD. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman Empire, it was the de facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (this is known as theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Church leaders after Constantine found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in the concept of the Lord’s Supper/Christian communion. Even before Constantine, some early Christians had begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass/Eucharist, complete.

(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primarily on one particular god or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities.

(4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman Empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine (AD 272–337) and his successors gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course, it is best for the unity of the Roman Empire that the government and state religion be centralized. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Western half of the Roman Empire collapsed in 476, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors—Pontifex Maximus. Pope Gregory I, ruling from 590–604, is usually considered the first bishop to truly wield papal authority.

Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the origin of the Catholic Church. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology and “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

Second Timothy 4:3–4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html

Johnydon22 come and see o

Good afternoon

...

What Krauss and Scherrer’s “End of Cosmology” Scenario Means for the Epistemology of Modern-Day Cosmology

Source: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/cosmology/what-krauss-and-scherrers-end-cosmology-scenario-means-epistemology-modern-day-cosmology/

Abstract

While likely intended as a playful hypothetical scenario, Krauss and Scherrer’s essay “The Return of a Static Universe and the End of Cosmology,” about the state of cosmology 100 billion years from now, has very important implications for the epistemology of science today and the humility required when analyzing evidence.

At-a-Glance

● Secular cosmologists have shown that there will be points in time when the experimental evidence points to a false view of the cosmology.
● The problem of strict empiricism is that it prevents the acquisition of knowledge from other sources, which may sometimes be corrective to experimental evidence.
● Many scientists today lack the philosophical insights and reflectivity required to see that the limits of inquiry may be just as well applied to the present as to some distant future.
● In a comprehensive epistemology (theory of knowledge), experimental evidence is important, but is only one of many types of evidence that can be used to form conclusions, and is not inerrant, even when the experiments are validly performed.
● Sometimes theories about the universe can say more about the people forming the theories than they do about the universe.

Introduction

Lawrence Krauss and Robert J. Scherrer surprised the cosmology world in 2007 when they published an essay titled “The Return of a Static Universe and the End of Cosmology.” The paper showed that, assuming the truth of the current big bang model, in the far future (hundreds of billions of years from now) many evidences for the big bang itself will be gone, preventing future cosmologists from even being able to detect evidence for it.

In these papers, it is noted that, assuming the big bang model is true, at some point in the future, galaxies will be far enough away from each other as to not be seen. Within a galaxy, the operation of physics is relatively static. Therefore, at some point in the future, we will not be able to witness some of the more dynamic effects of expansion, which were critical in the development of big bang cosmology.

Because cosmic expansion is a fundamental piece of evidence for the big bang theory, these cosmologists note that, since cosmic expansion cannot be observed, future cosmologists will conclude, based on the data available to them, that we live in a static universe. Krauss and Scherrer call this situation the “end of cosmology” because the data available for reaching the same conclusions as these cosmologists will simply not be accessible to them.

The conclusion that Krauss and Scherrer come to after this examination of the present and future state of cosmology is that we live in a very special time in the universe. We live in a time when it is possible to make the needed observations to tell us what the big bang was like. If we lived in some other time, the data would point to incorrect conclusions about what the universe is really like and about the history of the universe.

The Hubris of Modern Cosmology

Whenever I look at a thing, I always try to look at it from more than one direction. Sometimes you learn something staring at something back-to-front that you wouldn’t see front-to-back. So, when faced with data that says future cosmology will be unable to infer a correct picture of the universe based on the available observational data, an obvious question for any philosophically minded person is, “Might this be presently happening to us?”

Think about it this way—Krauss and Scherrer have shown that, if the current consensus model of the universe is true, the observations of future scientists will lead them to misunderstand the universe. That is, there is more than one model that will produce a given set of observables, and the most straightforward interpretation of presently available data might actually lead you to false conclusions. This is what Krauss and Scherrer have demonstrated.

What they fail to do is to ask the question, “What if we are the people for whom the data is pointing in the wrong direction?” Krauss and Scherrer demonstrate that observations can in fact point to the wrong model, but they fail to see that this same situation could be applied to themselves. It could be our observations that are pointing in the wrong direction.

How would we know? The model presented by Krauss and Scherrer don’t give any way for the observers to know whether their observations imply a true model or a tail end of a model that they aren’t able to perceive and for which the evidence is largely scattered.

It amazes me that Krauss and Scherrer never seem to even consider this possibility. This is pure hubris. They simply presume that they must be the ones living in the time where their observations lead to correct conclusions, and it does not even enter their minds that they are on the other side of a different model that they themselves have trouble conceiving of, and of which much of the evidence has been long scattered.

Science and Epistemology

This leads to some important questions about science, knowledge, and science’s ability to inform our knowledge. The inability to stick the universe in a lab and run a simulation of a new universe means that all of our information about the nature of the universe is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. We may have clues and signs, but we have no guarantees that these will paint a coherent picture. In fact, Krauss and Scherrer have proven that, at least at some point in time (whether today or in the future), the available clues will paint a picture that is quite coherent but fundamentally wrong.

Part of the problem is within the subject of cosmology itself. Science grew up thinking in the small. It dealt with forces and features of the universe that could be defined and delimited. Experiments could be parameterized, and the validity of any parameter could be examined and questioned within the confines of even more parameters. We normally call this sort of science “experimental” science, because for nearly every conceivable question, objection, or parameter that you can conceive of, you can also devise an experiment to test the ideas and see if they continue to hold.

However, other kinds of science (often termed “historical” science, but that is merely a partial subset) do not have this ability to experiment. Scientists cannot test every possibility, but instead must deal with the limited sets of data they are given. In astronomy, we cannot rearrange the planets in any odd assemblage and see what happens. In geology, we cannot rearrange large mountains and give tectonics a push to see what happens. We tend to view this as a problem only in historical sciences, but it is actually a problem with any science once it escapes the confines of a laboratory.

There are undoubtedly some who will want to do away with any science that is not experimental. Not only do I disagree with this, but it is impossible to do! Humans, made in the image of God, ask big questions. The important thing is to face with humility the limitations with which we can answer them. We can use ideas from science to try to answer bigger questions about the natural world and the universe, but that is merely one possible approach among many. As Krauss and Scherrer have inadvertently shown, science based entirely on inference from observation is guaranteed to be wrong about these larger issues at least some of the time. Thus, it would be wrong to imbue them with undue authority. It is certainly an interesting perspective, but they have themselves shown that it doesn’t have the epistemological weight of other kinds of inquiry.

There is a further question of whether or not one can even attempt to answer these questions from science alone. As Stephen Hawking noted in The Large Scale Structure of Space Time, “We are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology” (Hawking, 1975, 134). In other words, there will always be questions for which nonscientific reasoning will have to be used in order to fill in gaps.

Two Epistemologies of Future Cosmologists

We can use the scenario that Krauss and Scherrer have painted to run a thought experiment. For this thought experiment, let’s suppose that big bang cosmology is true, and Hawking’s A Brief History of Time (hereafter, BHoT) is a reasonable approximation to what happened in the early universe. Now, in the intervening years, let us say that BHoT is passed down from cosmologist to cosmologist. Some people may expand it, update it, footnote it, or even write similar books, but by and large BHoT is so well written that people simply prefer to refer back to BHoT.

This handing down of BHoT from generation to generation then continues to occur over the next hundred billion years. However, as time goes on, cosmologists start noticing more and more that the observations of the cosmos do not match up with what is in the universe. BHoT refers to quasars, but nobody sees any. Other galaxies? No observational evidence exists. Expansion? All of the observable objects will be gravitationally bound and not subject to expansion.

So then we wind up with two cosmologists. Sam is an avid reader of ancient texts. He has studied BHoT extensively, as well as the footnotes and texts written about it throughout the ages. He has determined that while the present age looks like a static universe, it should really be interpreted through the lens of BHoT. After all, Hawking was around when the universe was in its earliest stages, and recorded its observations for us.

Sam, however, has a colleague, Jim. Jim insists that science relies on observations, not on commitments to ancient texts. As such, he has trouble seeing why Sam is so attached to ancient writings about the cosmos. It is clear that either they were just making up stories, or their equipment was so old-fashioned that it just appeared to look that way. Jim has been studying the cosmos for his entire adult life. He has used telescopes and even invented new kinds of telescopes. He may have even traveled between solar systems. Jim also has a lot of friends who travel with him, solar system to solar system, observing the known universe.

Jim and all of his friends agree that there is absolutely nothing in their observations that would lead them to believe that the universe was anything but static. Sam, though not having read Krauss and Scherrer, makes the suggestion that perhaps it just looks that way now, and that, after so much expansion, the expanding parts are too far away to be seen. Jim is laughing now. Sam’s excuse is that the evidence has disappeared? What will he think of next!

As you can see, Sam and Jim follow two different epistemologies. Sam takes seriously what has come before him, and Jim is only willing to consider facts that are experimentally verifiable. According to Krauss and Scherrer, in this hypothetical scenario, it will be Sam who is closer to the truth, not Jim.

That alone is not evidence for any particular alternative to experimental evidence, but it does demonstrate both that experimental evidence is merely one of the modes of knowledge, and that traditional knowledge cannot be a priori excluded from consideration. I don’t suggest to provide an entire epistemology here, but merely to offer up the suggestion that good epistemology is a far deeper well than many people today admit.

Conclusions

I don’t claim to know which particular cosmological model we should follow. There are several interesting contenders, such as the Hartnett-Carmeli model and Jason Lisle’s Anisotropic Synchrony Convention. What I do know is that hubris about the reliability with which experimental observations alone, untempered by any other consideration, is not only likely to lead in the wrong direction, Krauss and Scherrer have shown that it is mathematically guaranteed. A better path is appropriate humility toward the limits of what we can observe, what we can know, and what we can prove. This is expressed much more carefully in a paper on the same topic from three decades earlier by Rothman and Ellis. Having more of a philosophical background (as opposed to Krauss’ stated antiphilosophical stance, as demonstrated in Ross Andersen’s article “Has Physics Made Philosophy and Religion Obsolete?”), Rothman and Ellis pointed out that it might be that “our theories reflect not so much the features of the Universe but rather the age in which they were invented.” If only present cosmologists would maintain such humility at the task before them.

4kings:
See I'm busy reading another thread.
What do you think.

If you don't have an answer to that then this thread should not have been opened.

Lol. I understand. Continue reading your thread.

4kings:
It builds or suppresses it.

I'm confused. You mean the immune system "builds or suppresses mutations", or that mutations build or suppress the immune system?

4kings:
Which kain question be this one.
The formation of your immune system, malaria resistance , bone density and so on, do they lead to shorter life span or diseases?

Does the immune system form by mutations?

4kings:
How do mutation occur?

Mutations occur when errors creep into the genetic instructions of a cell.

So, how did Felix exaggerate on mutations?

4kings:
Felixomor na me u dey call idiot , no wahala.

Anyways mutation occured during your birth process and after and going by your post you should have a short life span and diseases.
The issue was to address your exaggeration on mutation.

How did he exaggerate on mutation?

Know!

,

Not a chance!

Up

..

No!

.

Source: https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/did-god-really-create-plants-before-sun/


Abstract

God created plants on Day Three of Creation Week, the day before he created the sun. But he had already created a light source on Day One that evidently fulfilled many roles the sun would eventually fulfill. This article explores the order of some of the events in Creation Week, the nature of the light that God created on Day One, the length of the “days” of Creation Week, and how God provided for the needs of plants throughout the week.

At-a-Glance

● The order of events in the Genesis account diverges from the schedule proposed by evolutionary theory.

● God created a light source on Day One, which was replaced with the sun on Day Four.

● Each day of Creation Week was a regular, 24-hour day.

● God created plants on Day Three within the life-sustaining habitat he had provided for them.

Introduction

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. Even in an old-earth creationist view where a day could refer to an epoch of time, how could plants survive for thousands of years without the sun? At least two things are important to consider when reading this creation account: the order of events and the length of the days. What does the Bible say, and how are we to understand this issue?

What Happened When During Creation Week?

On Day One of Creation Week, God created an initial, temporary light source:

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (Genesis 1:3–5)

On Day Three of Creation Week, God made all kinds of vegetation to cover the earth:

And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. (Genesis 1:11–13)

On Day Four of Creation Week, God placed the sun, moon, and stars “in the expanse of the heavens”:

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 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. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. (Genesis 1:14–19)

From this historical account, we can discover many things about the initial light God created as distinct from the sun, how the days were regular 24-hour days, and how plant life would have thrived under these conditions. In all these things we may rest and rejoice in God’s wise provision for his creation.

What Was the Light Created on Day One?

We may learn several things about the light God created on Day One (Genesis 1:3–5). First, it was a created light, that is, the light did not exist one moment, but it existed the next moment. That light was not eternal, like God, even though “God is light” (1 John 1:5), “the light dwells with him” (Daniel 2:22), and he “dwells in unapproachable light” (1 Timothy 6:16). This light of Day One seems to be separate from God himself.

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.1 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. God separated the “waters . . . from the waters” (Genesis 1:7), and he gathered the surface water into seas (verses 9–10). 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.2 On several occasions we see this pattern of temporary physical realities being removed. The pillar of fire and cloud that led Israel to the Promised Land was a temporary provision from God (Exodus 13:21–22, 40:34–38). So also was God’s gift of manna from heaven to feed the Israelites during their wilderness wanderings (Exodus 16:4, 31, 35). And there was the star that led the magi to the child Jesus (Matthew 2:1–10). Furthermore, the sun and the moon themselves will not be needed in the new heavens and the new earth, “for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb” (Revelation 21:23; cf. Isaiah 60:19 and Revelation 22:5).

How Long Were the Six Days of Creation?

In Genesis 1–2, the word day is used in several senses:

● “The first day” (and so on) in connection with “evening” and “morning” refers to the complete rotation of the earth, that is, a calendar day (Genesis 1:5).

● “Day” in contrast to “night” means the lighted portion of a day (1:5, 14, 16, 18).

● The phrase “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” (2:4), where the whole of Creation Week is indicated in this summary statement.

The text indicates that the days of Creation Week were ordinary days. These are not ages of indeterminate time, but regular 24-hour days. This reckoning applies from the first day of creation, when God created the first light. So the plants he created on Day Three did not have to wait for an indeterminate period of time for the sun to appear, especially since they already had the first light shining upon them.

Why Did God Wait Until Day Four to Make the Sun?

In the Genesis account, God recorded that he created the heavens and the earth, but he didn’t tell us why he followed this order.4 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. To be sure, in God’s design the sun is critical for the continuation of life on earth, but life on earth did not come from the sun. John Calvin, commenting on the text of Genesis 1, says, “The Lord, by the very order of creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and moon.”5 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” (Deuteronomy 17:3; cf. 4:19; Psalm 121:5–6). Sadly, at the time God cast his people out of the land by means of the Babylonians, even in God’s own temple in Jerusalem the people were worshipping the sun (Ezekiel 8:16; cf. Jeremiah 8:2). In a similar case, the people also worshiped the bronze serpent that Moses crafted as a tool of God’s healing of the people (2 Kings 18:4; cf. Numbers 21:9). Unredeemed humanity have throughout history “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen” (Romans 1:25).

What Do Plants Need to Survive?

We return now to the question of plants being created before the sun. Plants certainly need light to survive, but there are several other necessary elements that God provided in his creation.

Light

God created plants to generate their energy from visible light by the process of photosynthesis. Chlorophyll in plant cells mainly absorb blue and red wavelengths, and largely reflect green wavelengths. Using light chlorophyll transforms carbon dioxide and water into sugars (made of hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen atoms). We have seen that God had already created a light source separate from the sun, so the plants created on Day Four would have had the light they needed.

Moderate Temperature

Most plants require a moderate surface and air temperature. Given a relatively constant distance from the sun, this temperature is primarily affected by the earth’s rotation and tilt. Because of the earth’s timely rotation, the heat generated during the day regulates and is regulated by the coolness of the night, thus providing a moderate temperature. Also, the tilt of the earth’s axis of rotation produces the tempering effects of seasons, allowing growing seasons and dormant seasons.

Atmosphere

God created the atmosphere on Day Two, thus protecting and providing for the plant life he subsequently created. The atmosphere protects plants from ultraviolet light and other cosmic rays which damage living cells. The air also provides some of the elements needed for plant life, including nitrogen and carbon dioxide.

Water

Plants need water to survive (Genesis 2:5–6). Plants use water as a component of photosynthesis and as a medium to transport nutrients throughout the different parts of the plant. They also use water to cool the plant from the sun’s heat, and water fills the structure of plants to give them shape and support. In that first week of the world, the water vapor in the air as well as surface water contributed to form a suitable habitat for these organisms.

Land

God separated water and land on Day Two, creating a suitable habitat for both aquatic and land plants. The ground provides a stable location for a plant’s root system, and plants return the favor by helping soil against erosive factors like water and wind. The land also holds many nutrients that a plant needs, such as water and nitrogen, which are collected by the plant’s roots.

Pollinators

Plants can reproduce in a variety of ways, but most plants utilize the process of pollination to create seeds. Common pollinators like insects and birds were created on Day Five, in close connection with the plants that needed them. The evolutionary scenario maintains that nonflowering plants (gymnosperms like conifers) evolved first, about the same time that insects gained the ability to fly. Then millions of years later pollen-producing flowering plants (angiosperms) developed. This is another example of how the order of events according to Genesis runs contrary to the order presented by evolutionary ideas.

Conclusion

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. He sufficiently provided for plant life and subsequent life, and he continues to sustain all life by his power.

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Romans 11:36)
It is the same Creator God who also has made a way for rebellious, sinful people to have eternal life with him. Though each person has earned the penalty of death for his sins, God sent his son Jesus Christ to die in the place of sinners. Those who believe that Christ is the only hope of life receive forgiveness and eternal life. As the Scripture says,

For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:6)

sonofthunder:
Abeg, where them say that cell come from again self?

Lol. My brother I no know o. I even heard that lightning struck a soup of chemicals, called the primordial soup, and a living cell appeared.

Lwkm. Some people believed it o.