No, I put them in order with trees, insects, fish, etc. but didn’t say anything about Day 4.
Common Decent Order by Day:
(Timeline for different species based on: Evogeneao: The Tree of Life)
Beginning of Heavens (immaterial) and Earth (material) (13.3 bya)
Day 1 (4.5-2.3 bya)
Light detection with photosynthesis beginning in cyanobacteria.
- Bacteria (3 bya)
- Archaea (2.5 bya)
Day 2 (2.3-1.8 bya)
Separation of layers (atmosphere, earth’s crust forming/tectonic activity).
- Protists (2 bya)
Day 3 (1.8-1.3 bya)
Stabilization of continents and mountain building.
- Plants (Algae, Mosses, Trees, etc)(1.6 bya)
Day 4 (1.3-0.87 bya)
Lights (a spectrum of light). Early signs of eyespots and neurons begin to evolve in some species.
- Amoebas (1.2 bya)
- Fungi (1 bya)
- Choanoflagellates (900 mya)
Day 5 (872-411 mya)
Sea life and Cambrian Explosion with insects, fish, etc.
- Sponges (800 mya)
- Corals (650 mya)
- Protostomes (Flying Insects, Crustaceans, etc) (630 mya)
- Echinoderms (600 mya)
- Fish (470 mya)
- Lungfish (415 mya)
Day 6 (411-Present (Time of Christ))
Terestrial life with Tetrapods (four limbed)
- Amphibians (355 mya)
- Reptiles (Dinosaurs, Birds) (325 mya)
- Mammals (175 mya)
- Humans (Image of God) (350 kya)
Day 7 (Present-365 million years into future)
Return of Christ and Millennium
New Heavens and Earth
I got the time periods from the Bible (Feeding of the 5,000 and 2 Peter 3:8) , not based off of scientific periods. They only thing I adjusted is the number of days in a year for the start of the Biblical period. The fact that they align very close with scientific timeline is not silly – Day 1 began 4.53 bya and science says 4.57 bya – That’s only a 0.88% margin of error!
If you still think I contradicted something, please provide a quote instead of saying, “Originally you said day 4 was insects”. I never said that… The only thing I can find that you may have misunderstood was this:
No days were listed there but maybe you were counting days in that list starting with 3.
I don’t write with ChatGPT, but tried out using it for a rewrite of what I originally wrote that Richard responded to with, “I have never seen such convolutions in all my life.” I knew what he meant… he was dismissing my whole argument, but I took the best intended meaning of “convolutions” to mean it was hard to understand. I thought ChatGPT did a fairly good job of rewriting it with headings to compartmentalize it for an easier read, but it still made a few mistakes.
I put a lot of thought into everything I write and am most definitely sincere. If you continue to respond that’s great, but in any case I wish you God’s blessings.