News Related to Day Three (Gen. 1:9-13)

According to the Bible, photosynthetic organisms formed early in Earth's history, before marine animals and before land animals. On Day 3 the Bible speaks of the ground causing 'vegetation' to form. But did this 'vegetation' include single-celled organisms, cyanobacteria, plankton, or was it just plantlike organisms growing in the ground? There are various ways to interpret the Day 3 passage in Genesis 1. My own preferred interpretation is that it is speaking of photosynthetic organisms actually growing on or in the ground. So, that would include some forms of plankton, algae, and fungi.

It looks like it is certain from the fossil record that photosynthetic life formed long before sea animals. But, the idea that this kind of life was colonizing the land way before sea creatures is still uncertain, though it appears that the evidence is mounting.

- Large bacterial colonized land 2.75 Ba
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120924101741.htm

Photosynthesizing bacteria appears to have been growing on land at least 2 billion years before sea animals formed. This confirms the Bible's account that 'vegetation' (in the widest sense) formed before the creatures in the waters.

- Greening of Earth pushed way back in time
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-earth.html

Evidence for plant-like organisms growing up from the ground before 500 Ma has been lacking. However, now there is some evidence that a simple photosynthesizing fungus anchored in the ground was growing as far back as 2.2 Ba. By most anyone's interpretation, this form of life would qualify as 'vegetation' as described in Gen. 1:9-13. (Remember, the word for "grass" in Gen. 1:11 is more literally just a "sprout" of any kind. It seems to only signify something growing in the ground.)

This organism would likely have produced spores, as typical fungi do. This, in my opinion, would qualify as the "seed" producing "shoots" mentioned for Day 3 in the Bible. The Bible does not pretend to use the technical biology terms that we use today. Though spores would not today be considered technically seeds, the term "spore" actually comes from a Greek word meaning "seed," and there is no reason to believe that the ancient Hebrew word for "seed" would not have included spores.

- Ediacaran fossils may have been land lichen and other ‘vegetation’ [542-635 Ma]
http://phys.org/news/2012-12-limbs-tree-life-ancient-australian.html

As I have suspected for some time, the Ediacaran fossils may potentially be fossils of land organisms rather than sea organisms. These strange organisms were some 20-80 million years before the Cambrian Explosion. Now some scientist(s) are questioning these Ediacaran fossils based on new analysis of the soils represented in the fossils. There is now good reason to think that at least some of these living things were terrestrial, plant-like organisms.

- Origin of flowering plants pushed back ~100 million years earlier [~250 Ma]
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-fossils-million-years-early-triassic.html

The Bible also mentions fruit-bearing plants forming on Day 3, though the Hebrew wording seems to allow for this to have been a process that was only started without a completion on that Creation Day. So, apparently there is now evidence that flowering/fruit-producing plants were already forming as early as 250 Ma. What appears to be pollen has been found dating to about 250 Ma (the Triassic). This is before birds, mammals, or even the vast majority of modern sea creatures.

This helps add strength to the validity of the Bible's chronology for the formation of living things.

News Related to Day Zero (Gen. 1:1-2)

I've got a significant collection of science news stories that I've wanted to share for some time. These stories all reinforce creationism and/or the theory of designed evolution. I'll start with Day 0 and go through all six Days of Creation as specified in Genesis 1.

1. New Physics Suggest the Universe is Not Natural (June 2013)
 
First, there was a news article not too long ago that mentioned that the universe does not seem 'natural' given the properties of the Higgs that has been discovered recently. That is, as I understand it, the structure of the universe does not seem to be the natural, random result of the laws of physics, since it is too finely tuned for life. This means the universe appears super-natural. However, as always, those writing the news story completely overlook the possibility that this means the universe was created. A Creator would be "impossible," after all. Instead, they suggest the findings point toward a multiverse. The only problem is that a multiverse is just a model that may never be provable.

2. Moon Water Came From Very Wet Young Earth (May 2013)

So, as I have written in my book, I believe that Genesis 1:1-2 and the book of Job indicate that Earth's oceans formed quickly at the beginning of its history. Now the moon is giving evidence to support that belief. Though scientists often will say that Earth got most of its water from comets and asteroids, the Bible indicates that the ocean waters mostly came from within the Earth. As mentioned previously, there is a model postulated by some secular (non-Bible believing) scientist that has the majority of water coming from the magma oceans very early in Earth's history.

Here is a lengthy quote from the recent analysis of lunar rocks:

The notion that all Earth's water was delivered by comets or asteroids has just taken a hit. Chemical analysis of lunar rocks suggests that Earth was born wet, and it held on to its water long enough to donate some to the moon. . . .

Saal and colleagues measured the ratio in volcanic glasses that were trapped inside the Apollo 17 rocks and so protected from surface weathering. They found that the deuterium ratios were almost identical to those found in Earthly rocks, suggesting the two worlds got their water from the same source. . . .

So if the moon's water came from Earth, where did Earth's water come from? The impact that formed the moon happened within about 100 million years after solid bodies began to form. . . .

"The implication, although I cannot absolutely prove it, is that probably the Earth formed with water," he says. . . .

Saal thinks that Earth may have formed near where the asteroid belt is now, which is far enough from the sun for water to condense. The planet would then have migrated inward. 

SOURCE:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23515-moon-water-came-from-young-wet-earth.html