Treasures New and Old
Treasures New and OldGenesis: The Third Day of Creation
This month we will dig into the third day of creation, which we today call Tuesday.
Genesis 1:9-13:
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.
What do we have so far?
- God bara the vast material that would be all of the Heavens and the Earth
- The material was without any distinct, definable elements as yet – it was simply called “the deep” and the center called the earth.
- God moved (vibrated-inserted) energy into the whole of His creation. Adding energy to a closed system that would have remained static if He had not done so.
- God commanded the existence of light and made two distinctions: light and darkness are very different, and that light would be called day and darkness would be called night.
- God has by the third day made three divisions in His creation. All three were insertions of external energy by God Himself and can be considered bara in nature: (1) light from darkness; (2) firmament above from the firmament below; (3) now He divides the firmament below into waters separated from the dry land.
What kind of creative act would it take to just make the firmament below separated?
- Tremendous chemical and physical reactions had to take place. Various elements had to be formed by precipitation and combination and had to arrange themselves isostatically (heavier things falling the core, lighter rocks and things floating to the top-crust). Think of the small amount of energy in a Category 5 hurricane or a 9.3 earthquake or a Mount St. Helens volcano – now multiply this by quad – drillions more!
- Great movements of earth materials had to move into place while the waters separated from them into lakes, streams, etc., and the pockets of the deep somewhere between five and ten miles below the now new dry land.
- “Gathered together unto one place” is a phrase that can mean several things: (1) gathered all near the top (within the crust area); (2) gathered together as separated without sediments and other particles within it; (3) gathered together in a vast connection of rivers, streams, springs, underground reservoirs, seas, lakes, etc. completely interconnected.
- Note, at this time evidence exists that all of the seas were fresh water – no salt water existed yet.
- We now have what the Bible calls the “foundation of the earth”:
-
- Psalm 102:25: “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.”
-
- Job 38:4: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.”
- Job 38:4: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.”
-
- Zechariah 12:1: “The burden of the world of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.”
- Zechariah 12:1: “The burden of the world of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.”
-
- Isaiah 48:13: “Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.”
- Isaiah 48:13: “Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.”
Earth/Land: (Strong’s H776): “‘erets eh’-rets: From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): – X common, country, earth, field ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.”
(One) Place: (Strong’s H4725): “maqom maqom meqomah meqomah (1, 2) maw-kome’, (3, 4) mek-o-mah’: From H6965; properly a standing, that is, a spot; but used widely of a locality (generally or specifically); also (figuratively) of a condition (of body or mind): – country, X home, X open, place, room, space, X whither [-soever].”
Seas: (Strong’s H3220): “yam yawm: From an unused root meaning to roar; a sea (as breaking in noisy surf) or large body of water; specifically (with the article) the Mediterranean; sometimes a large river, or an artificial basin; locally, the west, or (rarely) the south: – sea (X – faring man, [-shore]), south, west (-ern, side, -ward).”
Good: (Strong’s H2896): “tob tobe: From H2895; good (as an adjective) in the widest sense; used likewise as a noun, both in the masculine and the feminine, the singular and the plural (good, a good or good thing, a good man or woman; the good, goods or good things, good men or women), also as an adverb (well): – beautiful, best, better, bountiful, cheerful, at ease, X fair (word), (be in) favour, fine, glad, good (deed, -lier, liest, -ly, -ness, -s), graciously, joyful, kindly, kindness, liketh (best), loving, merry, X most, pleasant, + pleaseth, pleasure, precious, prosperity, ready, sweet, wealth, welfare, (be) well ([-favoured]).”
God saw that it was good twice on the third day (our Tuesday) which is why so many Jewish weddings take place on Tuesdays. Clearly it was a double-blessed day by God and, therefore, the best day to get married! (So the logic goes.)
Kind: (Strong’s H4327): “miyn meen: From an unused root meaning to portion out; a sort, that is, species: – kind.” Something that is separated out as different from others.

-
- Figure 1. Ernst Haeckel’s The Evolution of Man.
- Figure 1. Ernst Haeckel’s The Evolution of Man.
21 bad arguments for biological evolution (Arguments statements adapted from the “Answers in Genesis” website)
1. Evolution means change (or change in gene frequency) so evolution is a fact. The attempt to prove macro-evolution (say, fish to man) by pointing out micro-evolution (i.e. mutations within the genes of every species) is a false construct and an attempt to prove that mutations are equivalent. Roughly 3,000 million DNA “letters” are needed to mutate from microbes to man.
2. Natural selection = evolution: thus, evolution is true. They argue that when natural selection affects the predominate species in an area (long-beaked finches) that it is proof of overall evolution. False. No new information is created in the genes, but instead, those that can’t survive cause the loss of variety within a gene pool.
3. Mutations that cause (e.g.) antibiotic resistance or insecticide resistance prove evolution. Resistance to antibiotics and insecticide is not evolution, but the microbes and insects that survive the onslaught of these “poisons” obviously outlive those that did not and, therefore, produce more like themselves in reproduction while the others are, well, dead. Again, this actually eliminates information of variety in the gene pool of those creatures as only a specific gene makeup survives. For evolution to occur, molecular biological level has to be from a new enzyme or metabolic pathway, not just adjustment (or elimination) of an existing one.
4. Adaptation = evolution. All creatures adapt to their environment but this doesn’t create new genetic information. It simply removes the creatures and their genes that can’t adapt. Even man-made gain-of-function mutations do not support evolution. Gain-of-function mutations are forced and don’t happen naturally.
5. Speciation = evolution. They claim that creationists believe in “fixity of species”. That is, all of the species today were created originally by God, and never any new species. False. Creationists understand that as gene information is lost or specific information (from adaptation) become prominent, that new species do happen. The world’s largest jack rabbit can no longer mate with pygmy bunnies. Thus, the original gene information of the rabbit kind has become specialized – but no new information was created.
6. The scientific consensus is that evolution is true. Yet another lie that is used to prove that evolution must be true. There is no such thing as consensus in true science. It’s a false reasoning of saying several of us have decided to believe it, therefore, that alone makes it real. Science is always seeking new information and exploring new theories that best fit the facts. Thesis and antithesis are the norms as well as observation and testing. In 2008, sixteen of the world’s top evolutionists met to discuss the crisis in evolutionary biology regarding how mutations and natural selection fail to explain the diversity of life.
7. Homology proves evolution. Similar features between organisms (feathers, spinal columns, eye construction) are said to be evidence of common ancestry (evolution) at either the protein/DNA level, or visible features. God’s common design explains all similarities. Both homologies (similarity in form or function between parts: such as the wing of a bat and the human arm) and homoplasies (similarity of form or function not within the so-called ancestry lines) these are not evolutionary proofs.
8. Embryo similarities prove that evolution is true. A subset of the homology argument (Argument 7) that has been pushed since the 1800s has been completely debunked. The argument was that a human embryo goes through several stages mirroring its “animal” ancestry during development (i.e. fish stage with “gill slits”, etc.). This was called “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” and was based on fraudulent diagrams.
9. Fossils prove evolution. They simply do not. The pervasive pattern all over the world is sudden appearance in position and then extinction, not evolving of one kind into another. Many evolutionary paleontologists have accepted there is a lack of transitional fossils in the record. Even when a paleontologist tried to develop a theory that evolution happened so fast it left no trace, honest evolutionists rejected it.
10. Loss of a trait prove evolution. Example: Fish in dark caves eventually lose their eyesight. Evolutionists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens create and then knock down a straw man argument that creationists believe God created the fish blind. Problem is that evolutionists skirt around the forming of eyesight, and ignore how the blind fish lost sight (complete loss of connections in the brain due to loss of stimulation of the eye by light). Mutations can easily destroy an existing feature, but they cannot create brand-new features where they never exited.
11. “Vestigial” organs prove evolution. This is related to the homology Argument 7 above. A vestigial organ is defined as a now functionless leftover of evolutionary changes. The human appendix is claimed to be a vestigial organ. However, it has been proven to be important for storing beneficial bacteria before material exits into the greater colon. The appendix is evidence for creation and a detailed planner (God) and is another example of homoplasy. Even so, loss of function is not evidence for microbes-to-man evolution as stated in Argument 10. (Maybe one day man will catch up with God and discover the ongoing function of the tail bone.)
12. “Bad design” is evidence for evolution. This argument postulates: “This trait is imperfect. So, it could not have been created by a perfect God; therefore, it must have evolved”. This is simply another fallacy of false alternatives. If bad design could be substantiated, it would only be evidence of bad design not that evolution had designed the trait and that it was still evolving. Example: They argued that the vertebrate eye is designed poorly because the nerve fibers are in front of the light receptors, claiming that they interfere with incoming light (they don’t because of God’s elegant fiber optic system). Dawkins tried and failed to demonstrate the vertebrate eye is deficient in quality of vision (the sharp-eyed eagles have vertebrate eyes!)
13. The global distribution of organisms (biogeography) supports evolution. Evolutionists says that global distribution of plants and animals prove evolution happened while it is not consistent with expected distribution patterns following a world-wide flood. This error ignores the distribution that occurred after Noah’s flood, the tower of Babel, and earth’s history as stated in the Bible. In effect, both creation and evolution may claim this argument which makes it a void argument for evolution.
14. The origin of life is not part of evolution. Molecular biologists know that there is no real technical way to account for the origin of life. Therefore, some want to claim that it is not part of evolution. For them, it represents a gaping hole in the evolution theories. Yet, almost every major university includes the origin of life in introductory biology courses calling it chemical evolution to avoid addressing this gap.
15. Life could have formed somewhere else in such a huge universe. Because of the extreme complexities of protein structures and the immense environmental conditions required, not even one average-sized functional protein would form even if every atom in the universe was used in an experiment with all the right amino acids for every possible molecular vibration of its supposed age of 14 billion evolutionary years.
16. Given enough time anything is possible. Got a problem that can’t be solved – just add time! The problem is that time does not alter established physical laws and principles. In fact, the universe (since the curse) is decaying, not getting better or creating new things. Like the flow of water going only downhill, there are many events that just will never happen in a time and finite matter universe. Time still does not answer the issue of the origin of life that happened in an instant!
17. Creationists claim that the created order we see today is perfect because God is perfect. Another straw man argument that ignores the curse God pronounced in the Garden of Eden as well as the devastation of Noah’s Flood. Today’s world is not perfect, and creationists have strong arguments for why God’s perfect creation is no longer perfect and, instead, is a fallen world waiting for the new heaven and earth.
18. Science would collapse without evolution. Actually, evolution hasn’t yielded many, if any, practical or commercial benefits to science. They claim evolution is needed to understand things like antibiotic resistance and the curing of diseases. They claim that physics, chemistry, astronomy, meteorology, etc. would collapses without evolution. These disciplines easily stand without evolution support.
19. Intelligent design/creation is not scientific because it is not testable. “Were you there?” is a great argument to dispute this fallacy since neither creation or macro-evolution are observable today, and we only have the fossils and the Bible for a record. If we use the testable argument, and since neither view is testable, either both must be considered science or neither considered science. You can’t reject one as science without doing so to the other.
20. Intelligent design and creation are not scientific because they are religious. All views of origins have religious implications and religious (or philosophical, if you like) presuppositions of one form or another at their heart. “Nature is all there is no matter what the evidence” (naturalism) is just as much a religious stance as believing that there is a supernatural realm as creationists do.
21. Evolution is compatible with religion. If a belief system is compatible with evolution, then how is it different from the faith of atheism? This, some have acknowledged. Ask yourself, why do the “new atheists” have such a zeal to stamp out belief in God and spend so much time promoting and defending evolution with its billions of years of imaginary time? Such organizations that are set up to prevent criticism of evolution are also very anti-Christian. Would not this argument for evolution then fall under Argument 20 and now not be scientific?
A famous convert from atheism to Christianity, C.S. Lewis, commented, “Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?” (qtd. in DeSilva). Clearly, evolution is about keeping God out, not an open-minded approach to the evidence.
What do we now have on the third day?
- Seas have formed separated from the dry ground. It is believed that at this time, with only a few days having passed, that the waters in the seas are fresh – not salty.
- We do not know the extent of the sea sizes of the actual size and shape of the dry land – speculation has all land masses merged together as one huge continent – but nobody knows for sure.
- Seas implies more than one body of water. However, the term “one place” seems to suggest one large sea. But that Hebrew word can also mean “one surface or level”. We just don’t know!
- We now also have three main branches or orders of plant life: Herbs, trees & fruit trees, and grasses – each after their own kind.
- Seed within themselves implies some very important points:
-
- 1. That all plants were created as fully grown and able to reproduce.
- 1. That all plants were created as fully grown and able to reproduce.
-
- 2. That all plants have, even on the first day of their creation, the appearance of age (most dramatic when thinking of trees.)
-
- 3. Seeds are only going to reproduce a plant like themselves – back to the distinct kinds
- 3. Seeds are only going to reproduce a plant like themselves – back to the distinct kinds
-
- 4. Since only a day has gone by, and since many of these plants depend on birds and insects to pollinate, we can conclude they were fully grown and able to reproduce once the animals are provided.
- 4. Since only a day has gone by, and since many of these plants depend on birds and insects to pollinate, we can conclude they were fully grown and able to reproduce once the animals are provided.
-
- 5. Thus, appearance of age and true age are clearly not the same thing. This is a special situation that existed during creation week.
- 5. Thus, appearance of age and true age are clearly not the same thing. This is a special situation that existed during creation week.

-
- Figure 2. A Imaginative rendering of Pangea.
- Figure 2. A Imaginative rendering of Pangea.
Seed (Strong’s H2233): “zera’: From H2232 [zara – to sow]; seed; figuratively fruit, plant, sowing time, posterity: – X carnally, child, fruitful, seed (-time), sowing-time.”
1 Corinthians 15:38-39: “But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.”
Leviticus 11:13-32:
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the osprey, And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after his kind, And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier-eagle, And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. And for these ye shall be unclean: whosoever toucheth the carcass of them shall be unclean until the even. And whosoever beareth aught of the carcass of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even. The caracasses of every beast which divideth of hoof, and is not cloven-footed, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean. And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcass shall be unclean until the even. And he that bearth the carcass of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: they are unclean unto you. These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, an the tortoise after his kind, And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole. These are unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even. And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, where any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed.
At this point, you may have noticed that there is light, but not yet a sun. But the land and seas have plant life in them. Good of God to provide food for the animal life He was about to create before the animals show up. Note the description of the plants – their seed was within them. Those are mature plants, trees, lichen, seaweed, herbs, bushes, grasses, grains, fruits, etc. God created the earth with the appearance of age because it needed to have mature life in it.
Maranatha!
Bro. Joe
References
Answers in Genesis. https://answersingenesis.org
Figure 1. Engelmann, Wilhelm. “Ernst Haeckel’s The Evolution of Man (Anthropogenie oder Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen).” Leipzig, Germany. 1874.
Figure 2. Uploaded by Katha Theu. KindPNG. Retrieved April 15, 2025. Retrieved from https://www.kindpng.com/imgv/iioixbo_pangea-map-hd-png-download/
Moore. T.M. “A Most Interesting Problem: What Darwin’s Descent of Man Got Right and Wrong about Human Evolution” Christian’s Scholar’s Review. February 28, 2022. Retrieved from https://christianscholars.com/a-most-interesting-problem-what-darwins-descent-of-man-got-right-and-wrong-about-human-evolution/
Strong, J. Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries. Meyers, R. (2005). e-Sword. [computer software] . Franklin, TN: Equipping Ministries Foundation. (Original work published 1539)