Taking pot shots at fundamentalists is fun, but is really too easy. The skeptics would be better off aiming at a really difficult target like Augustine - who (they might be a little worried to discover) can still shoot back some 1600 years later. Like most other real theologians of that time and since, Augustine was very clear that the opening chapters of Genesis were making theological statements and were not really intended to describe literal, chronological events.

Those responses are made in direct response to the theological arguments made by SAB, along the lines of "This is a contradiction". "No it isn't, because X".

If you're a hard empiricist, you will find nothing in the bible of interest to your life, save for historic/anthropological curiosity. There's no point in getting into such a discussion on Hacker News, interesting as that might be.

But the specific thing you mentioned - as an omnipotent being, the very idea of our existence "has no point", let alone the order elementary building blocks of the universe came into existence (at least as described by bronze-age scribes).

Be very careful with the "this has no reason to be this way" argument, it could very well be that you don't know the reason, or that there really isn't one.

Every time I read someone complaining about Genesis I feel sad because it would seem that they never even made past the first couple of pages.

A better "first time" reading plan would be to start in the book of John and through that and Acts, and Romans (they are all back to back). John shows Christ as God.

Acts shows the founding of the church and the early works, including an interesting argument in Acts 15 about some thinking that in order to become "Christian", one must first convert to Judaism.

And Romans gives a better understand of the position of the Jew, the moralist, and the Gentile before God. (and the book of Hebrews expounds on this more too)

But back to your question. There are many views to the first couple of books in Genesis. Here is my take:

In verse 3: "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

Ok, "light" is created. Everything good there.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Yep, no light means, well no light.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

So "Day" and "Night" spelled with a proper capitalization. And we have the phrase "evening and the morning" mentioned with no context as to how long the "evening and the morning" are or how long a "Day" is.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Next up we clearly see the timing and "setting" of the mathematics behind our solar system, using the elements mentioned above "Day", and "Night", and even expounding into months and years.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

This is not a separate event from the last verse, this is the solution to how our days and years are timed. Instead of "And God made two great lights", think of "And so God made two great lights".

This is how I've always taken this chapter. Perhaps it is terrible, or perhaps not. But clearly, the days and evenings mentioned in the earlier verses are not in the same context or definition as we (people that live on Earth) would normally think of them as. This is also where "gap theory" comes in, but I personally reject that as well.

"So am I, as a logical person, supposed to believe that god is shooting various amounts of photons from his/her fingers creating these beautiful periods of morning, day, evening, and night for three days or so for no apparent reason?"

Just because you don't know what the reason is, doesn't mean that there isn't one.

"God hasn't created humans yet. God hasn't created plants yet. It serves no function."

Again, just because you see no function, doesn't mean there isn't one. But there are logical explanations that scholars have suggested which do make sense.

One thing you might take into consideration is that the Bible says that in Heaven there is no sun and moon, but that it is illuminated by God Himself. There is no reason that in the midst of His creating the Earth, the same could not be true. Some scholars have proposed that the reason God set the pattern of the days and nights before creating the sun and moon was because He knew some men would tend to worship the sun and moon themselves, and He wanted to make it clear that it is He who sustains the Earth, not the sun and moon. I don't know if that was the reason, though it seems quite logical to me. I am content to believe God had a good reason, and He doesn't have to tell me what it was.

I think one of the biggest mistakes people make when reading the Bible, is that if something isn't explainable by natural phenomenon, they discount it entirely. But that doesn't make any sense. If you do not believe in the supernatural, then God doesn't make any sense. The whole point is that the creation is something He created, and that all of the "natural" norms we see from day to day are something that He put in place, and that He sometimes suspends for His own purposes (for instance, when Moses parted the Red Sea, or when God made the sun and moon stand still for Joshua). Even in that last example, I can hear people protesting about all the side-effects that would happen if "the sun and moon stood still". But again, the point is that everything is under God's control, and all of the interactions of matter in our universe operate as He has decided they will -- and He's under no obligation to make them always work one way. He can make it work however He wants, and that includes suspending the normal interaction of matter (normal side-effects and all) for however long and for whatever purpose He decides.

BTW, I'm not saying you are necessarily discounting anything because it requires the existence of the supernatural. I merely bring it up because I think it is relevant to the discussion.

(edited for formatting -- I keep forgetting to not indent the first lines of paragraphs :-D )