Dr. Stephen Meyer

So if the sun is not around to be marking time, if it's either not visible because it hasn't yet appeared, or it's not there because it hasn't been created, either way, we do not have time markers available to us until day four.

So whatever was going on in day one, day two, day three, and arguably in the rest of the days of creation, because they're also...

linguistically linked to yoms, you know, biblical Hebrew days, we can't at least know that they were 24-hour periods.

Yeah, arguably, yeah.

And so I think we have to look to the science, to the evidence of the natural world, to date the universe and the planet in which we live.

It happens, I think, that the sequence of events

that are recorded in the Genesis days align remarkably with what we know about natural history.

And there's the whole thing we could do on that.

But to me, it's quite remarkable.

Well, the sequence of life forms in day five and day six, you have the waters—day two or day three, you have the waters below, and they're all gathered into one place.

Well—

The corollary of all the waters being gathered into one place is the land is in one place.

Well, early on in our geological history, we had this idea about Gondwana land, one giant continent or Pangea, right?

So as you – well, the text also starts with the most shocking statement of all, in the beginning.

This is what cosmology has revealed, that there was a beginning.

So as you walk through the days and you go through sequentially, the sequence of events is –

is remarkably accurate to what we know scientifically.

I don't think that the days of... I don't think the Genesis account is meant to be a science account, but it's not comprehensive.

It doesn't tell us everything we want to know about the history of the planet or the history of life.

But what it does tell us...