Here is a couplet in Genesis: it pretty much says there are two ways to look at how life was created.
Life “was brought forth from the waters”/“was brought forth from the Earth”:
The Earth brings forth the living creatures by kind!
Gen 1:24 - And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Immediately after, God restates the process, putting him in charge of the process.
Gen 1:25 - And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Do you think the use of the words "the earth bring[s] forth the living creature after his kind** is totally accidental or meaningless?
In fact, even before this, God says the Oceans do the very same thing for all the sea creatures. Instead of 2 sentences, both thoughts are put into a single sentence!
Gen 1:21 - And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
As you can see, there is the same two-way view of describing the process. God did it … but he doesn’t specify how. And God specifies that the Earth and the Oceans will bring forth all life, by their kinds!
Which phrase do you think should be translated nuclear fusion? Oh wait, the Bible doesn’t explain HOW the sun works so I guess it wouldn’t be there. Kind of like common ancestry.
What are you two wrassling over? There are additional interpretations - - for example, I think a very reasonable one is that Adam and Eve are representative figures where God recognizes the first hominid of the evolutionary Primate line, to have become sentient and aware enough that he is affected by, and responsible for, moral choices.
In other words, the first hominid with “moral agency” on the planet Earth. There is always the first one … and in an early hominid community, such a moral man must have become a very striking presence amongst the other hominids . . . with the “glow” of God’s ‘moral’ and ‘righteous’ likeness plainly emanating from his face.
Interestingly, even the first moral man would also have had a moment in his childhood when he was no longer an innocent boy, but a man-child, who God perceived was now eligible to stand accountable for his increasingly adult actions.
What exactly is “morning” and “evening” when there isn’t even a sun in the sky yet? If he really wanted to be “telling the truth to humans” … why didn’t he start with the Sun? That’s the Cosmic Clock right there… for 3 days, there wasn’t even a clock to punch…
For 3 days, he could have called anything he wanted to be a day.
The Romans divided each day and each night into 12 intervals… which depending on the season could have been 45 minutes per hour, or 90 minutes per hour.
So which hours was God to use? What season was it supposed to be … without a sun in place to give all time keeping meaning?
Not correct. Light experiences zero travel time because it is traveling at the speed of light. Time dilation according to Einstein Theory of Special Relativity has been proven true in countless experiments. How does your creation model account for the observed red shift of the wavelength of light experiences due to the expansion of space over time?