Believer says: Genesis 1 is just evolution in a nut shell.
But skeptic says: Genesis 1 says that marine life was first and humans the last to appear on the planet, and that's right as far as that goes. But it also says that birds were the first along with marine life to appear on the planet, and that's incorrect.
Genesis 1 puts creation in order as follows:
Day 1
But skeptic says: Genesis 1 says that marine life was first and humans the last to appear on the planet, and that's right as far as that goes. But it also says that birds were the first along with marine life to appear on the planet, and that's incorrect.
Genesis 1 puts creation in order as follows:
Day 1
Water was the first thing to exist. But science says land existed before any lakes or seas ever did.
Light and darkness were called Day and Night. But the sun hadn’t been made yet. So it's an anomaly for evenings and mornings to come without a sun.
Day 2
In Genesis there was a water reservoir located high overhead and situated above a solid sky dome. But science and evolution certainly don’t support anything like that.
Day 3
God made land by separating the seas. But science has it the other way around; there was land long before there were any seas.
Further, God made earth plants yield fruits and vegetables. God hadn't created sea life yet. But science has it the other way around; there was sea life before there was any land vegetation.
Day 4
Now, God made the sun and the stars. God had already made the earth. But science explains that the sun and stars were among the first things to be made, and that the earth was made later.
Day 5
Now, God created marine life and birds. God hadn't made land animals yet. But science explains that there were land creatures before there were birds.
Day 6
God created land animals and humans. But there's no mention of the earliest forms of humans.
God created both land animals and humans to be vegetarians.
So creation in Genesis shows less in common with science than Biblicists let on. Sometimes Biblicists make adjustments to the text to make it comport with science. They often read between the lines or say “what the Hebrew really means is ...” It’s of course their means to “rescue” the text from an otherwise unscientific picture.
In other words today's Biblicists rewrite Genesis. They learn what modern science says, then recast Genesis to try to make it blend with modern findings.
Defenders might predict that one day modern science will change its hypotheses and theories to fall in step with Genesis. But something tells me that day won’t ever come.
But there isn't a problem with it Genesis 1 so long as we take it to be just poetic literature.
Related post:
41 Did early Christians rethink Genesis creation
Light and darkness were called Day and Night. But the sun hadn’t been made yet. So it's an anomaly for evenings and mornings to come without a sun.
Day 2
In Genesis there was a water reservoir located high overhead and situated above a solid sky dome. But science and evolution certainly don’t support anything like that.
Day 3
God made land by separating the seas. But science has it the other way around; there was land long before there were any seas.
Further, God made earth plants yield fruits and vegetables. God hadn't created sea life yet. But science has it the other way around; there was sea life before there was any land vegetation.
Day 4
Now, God made the sun and the stars. God had already made the earth. But science explains that the sun and stars were among the first things to be made, and that the earth was made later.
Day 5
Now, God created marine life and birds. God hadn't made land animals yet. But science explains that there were land creatures before there were birds.
Day 6
God created land animals and humans. But there's no mention of the earliest forms of humans.
God created both land animals and humans to be vegetarians.
So creation in Genesis shows less in common with science than Biblicists let on. Sometimes Biblicists make adjustments to the text to make it comport with science. They often read between the lines or say “what the Hebrew really means is ...” It’s of course their means to “rescue” the text from an otherwise unscientific picture.
In other words today's Biblicists rewrite Genesis. They learn what modern science says, then recast Genesis to try to make it blend with modern findings.
Defenders might predict that one day modern science will change its hypotheses and theories to fall in step with Genesis. But something tells me that day won’t ever come.
But there isn't a problem with it Genesis 1 so long as we take it to be just poetic literature.
Related post:
41 Did early Christians rethink Genesis creation
No comments:
Post a Comment