The Genesis account is scientifically viable.

Sorry I meant to write tell you the bible I was using but I was cutting it close to missing my class and forgot. I'm using a website called bible hub just looking through the various versions to get a better understanding of what was meant to be said but my quotes came from the new revised standard Edition. I feel a lot of the issue in debating this really does go back to what I said about vagueness because when you attribute more specific words to vague words you can pull out truths that weren't even intentional. It is similar to writers who use alliterations to allow you replace these variable words with words or images that or more desirable for you. I"m not saying this necessarily makes it wrong I"m just saying it makes it very difficult to prove either way if you reason off of it 1)The light/ sun problem I suppose makes sense but it says at first there was no light at all but the earth existed and then light came. Where was the light before that? The sun necessarily existed before the earth because if the sun did not exist nothing would have kept our small water rock in orbit and also the creation of a star is not a safe and calm thing if we were even close to the sun when it happened the planet would have been pulled in. 1:6) I understand that there are two meanings for the word dome or firmament but the issue I have with it is this; a lot of religions and lore believed that the sun was a lot closer than it is because it is big bright and you can feel the heat coming off of it. So it is more easily believed that people of the time held the belief that it was close and thus used the same words for it then knew there was a difference but just did not specify. that being said that does not make for a strong argument for either of us. However if we talk about atmosphere the clouds are within the atmosphere. My final note on this is this; though it may have been "dumbed down" for ancient people we are debating the accounts scientific legitimacy. If you tell a group of 1st graders a mathematical theory that does not hold up when they grow up to be adults, what you have told them is not accurate. 1:11) you touched on it to be sure you said that the words trees seeds fruits and semen were all synonymous which is an odd range of words to be lumped together but i will believe you. If this is true however the writer would have essentially said semen, semen and semen or if they did in fact all correspond then he is just saying seeds, tree seeds and fruit which is also tree seeds. There is not a single plant that could have survived in the oxygen rich climate that the first bacteria. in fact they could hardly survive it. it is like an animal being locked inside an airtight room it would die because of a lack of oxygen. In evolution any complex organism needs other organisms to assist it in its growth this is a fundamental part of evolution if you kill off all the pollinators any flowers that used mechanical pollination other than the wind would die. and just taking into assumption that the writer did not say semen three times in a row and also you saying any plant with a woody fiber (which is not something simple organisms have) there had to be at least one complex organism in the mix that he would have to have put down on the earth knowing it would die without the proper pollinators and as you say the days are not 24 hours they would not have survived You are saying that it does not say that they were all created at that moment but I am not seeing how that is not being said. Furthermore since evolution is a very commonly held scientific truth (and i only say that as a buffer simply not to state anything indefinitely); god would not have to create any life after he created the single celled organisms further more if god was so inclined [he] could have just make the air rich with oxygen instead of having small creatures do the work for [him]. This next part does to address the rest of your comments. There is absolutely no proof that anything "sprung" into assistance everything has been fine tuning itself from the time life first formed. Now about the Cambrian explosion...( I will preface this with the fact that I am a geo-physics major) It was by no means a period in time where we see human fossil laying with bird fossils laying with cat fossils laying with stegosaurus fossils. it is however a time of rapid evolution where a lot of new species evolved. they did not just appear out of thin air it was most likely the introduction of predatory organisms that killed other organisms because death is evolution's greatest advocate. As an example i will say this; In Texas (I'm not sure what country or state you are from but I'm sure you have heard of Texas) they hunt rattle snakes in a weird barbaric type of sport if you want to call it that. But they always hunt based on sound, Because they are easy to find that way. The sound is normally a deterrent but we have begun to pray on it and just over this last 10 years some rattle snakes in Texas have evolved to not have rattles or to rattle less because the ones that rattle at everything are all dead. that is a very short time to see the effects of increased predator activity on the behavior and attributes of a species. As a result more and more people are being bitten because they are not being warned. Which, if we were really even part of evolution any more (which we are but not in a really directed way) would make use evolve to smell them or something which just won"t happen. I got a little off topic but it is important that you do not use the Cambrian explosion as proof. sorry again running to class no time to proof read I apologize if this comes out a bit more sloppy than I had intended