Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
My only comment would be to say that The Bible isn't the only holy book used to support Creationism.
Is that a serious question?What is "creationism" ?
The bible says that life came out of the sea.
Is that a serious question?
Creationism - Wikipedia
The Bible can be interpreted many ways, I've not heard your interpretation before but who am I...
The sequence of events in the allegorical myth of Genesis is consistent with that idea. But since many other elements of the story make no literal sense, for example night and day existing before the sun was created (!?!) , it is unwise to attach much significance to the order of events it describes.What is "creationism" ?
The bible says that life came out of the sea.
Like I said, many interpretations and versions, if you refer to the Bible section on this website it says different...Genesis 1
God created the heavens
and the earth
and the earth was dark and oceanic (cloud planet like Venus, all oceans)
and the skies cleared
and the continents rose (granite)
and life came from the land (likely fresh water, or clay)
and life emerged from the sea
and finally man.
I've posted this in response to a similar post of yours in another thread, but I feel it needs repeating here, as I feel this over-simplifies the Biblical account to make certain parts of it fit more with modern science, when the facts are that there are many more specific claims of the Genesis account that are contradicted by science:Genesis 1
God created the heavens
and the earth
and the earth was dark and oceanic (cloud planet like Venus, all oceans)
and the skies cleared
and the continents rose (granite)
and life came from the land (likely fresh water, or clay)
and life emerged from the sea
and finally man.
I've posted this in response to a similar post of yours in another thread, but I feel it needs repeating here, as I feel this over-simplifies the Biblical account to make certain parts of it fit more with modern science, when the facts are that there are many more specific claims of the Genesis account that are contradicted by science:
The "seven days" part can be assumed symbolic by context. The contradiction lies more in the implied sequence of events.Certainly there ARE issues with science, ie the seven days.
I hold that these are likely to be theological language and symbolism.
This is a fairly stretched definition of "formless" and "featureless". When I conjure up an image of something formless and featureless (if it's even truly possible to do so), I don't imagine the early earth - with it's vast, molten rock surface. I imagine a literal void."without form and void" for instance is pretty hard to understand. This
account has been passed down orally for a long time, and then put into
various written forms with lots of redaction (ie life is on land first, but
then the writer gives list of land animals - as if it was all at the same
time.)
But the earth, if you could have floated upon it, WAS without form and
void, meaning it was featureless, there being no landform.
The sequence of events in the allegorical myth of Genesis is consistent with that idea. But since many other elements of the story make no literal sense, for example night and day existing before the sun was created (!?!) , it is unwise to attach much significance to the order of events it describes.
In any case, the issue is more with the sequence. Even if we take the seven days as symbolic, the Genesis account unambiguously states that the earth was formed before light or stars or the sun, that the earliest form of life is vegetation that pre-dates life in the sea, and that birds pre-lade land animals.
The sequence of days is fairly unambiguous. It denotes a very specific order that these things were created in. Even if we grant the the length of time referred to by "days" is ambiguous, I think it's fairly unambiguous to say that if something happened on "the first day" and another thing happened on "the second day", it implies a very clear sequence of events that the first thing occurred before the second thing.There is nothing "unambiguous" about anything in Genesis 1.
But if it's all "open to interpretation" and "ambiguous" then this assertion is meaningless, because you can make it fit almost anything. To state that something ambiguous and open to interpretation can fit the facts isn't really stating anything much at all, especially if you wish to assert (or simply believe) that said thing comes from an infinite repository of all knowledge.It's all open to interpretation. I merely seek to show that
1 - the information CAN fit into modern ideas of the early earth
But it also denotes that it was "without form". Which is it? Was it oceanic and dark, or was it "without form"?2 - the stages actually did exist, ie there WAS a time when the earth
was dark, oceanic and sterile.
Only if, as you rightly observe, you interpret the ambiguity of it that way.Yes, there were times when it was molten, or just rubble, or a frozen
ball of ice. But Genesis DOES give some stages that actually were
what you would have seen had you gone back then.
This is where Genesis actually does get specific, though. It states clearly that "grass, herb-yielding seeds and fruit-bearing trees" were created on day three. It makes no mention of other forms of life on land until day six, where it specifically states 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.'As for predating vegetation. You can make the argument that Genesis
states life arose on land first (as appears to be the case as of 2018)
but that it then states what eventually lived on land. It's not necessary
to state land animals, in all their complexity, lived on land while the
ocean was sterile.
This is stretching things quite a lot. The Bible clearly states that land animals came about on the sixth day, and the oceans on the fifth, with plants on the third.ie God commanded the earth to bring forth life (note, "commanded")
and on the earth were dinosaurs, mammals, trees and reptiles.
And God commanded the seas to bring forth life - and there were
ammonites, fish, ichthyosaurs, whales and seals.
But it doesn't list them. It simply groups them all into broad groups, which it asserts arrived in this sequence:Is Genesis saying mammals came before ammonites? Not
necessarily - it could be a list of land animals.
Fine, but there would have been no night and day. What could "day" mean if there were no sun? Furthermore the scientific model is that the planets, earth included, coalesced from the same cloud of dust and gas that formed the sun, with the sun forming first: Formation and evolution of the Solar System - WikipediaSaturn's moon Titan is considered an "earth analogue" by NASA,
that is, it resembles the early earth but with different chemistry.
Titan is cold, dark and wet. It has seas, but for a while it was
suspected of being a complete ocean. Like Venus and the early
earth, Titan is a cloud planet.
And that is what earth was like if you could have paddled upon
its sterile, dark waters.
1 - the information CAN fit into modern ideas of the early earth
Seriously? Haeckel's drawings were hardly 'fraud' they were exaggerated at best. Your own article even says that. And to make your error even larger Haeckel was never a big part of evolution. It was a small part of its history. Haeckel did have a correct point or two, but his "ontology recapitulates phlyogeny" claim was refuted by scientists a long time ago. The theory of evolution does not rely on Haeckel at all. You might as well try to refute Christianity with an early refuted version of Christianity. You are not arguing rationally. By your own standards Christianity is refuted. You should think about how you argue against an idea.There is a lot going on in that poster you attached.
For one I see they have Haeckle's fraud on embrios also included.
How fudged embryo illustrations led to drawn-out lies
Do you think it is a responsible thing to do?
I mean producing a fraud as an alternative to the Bible?