Genesis 1:20-23 ( Day Five of Genesis, Part 2 of 2 )

"The various attempts to join together the biblical account of creation and evolution are not supportable by the various gap theories because the order of creation is in direct opposition to the views of modern science (e.g., the creation of trees before light.)"
Source: King James Hebrew-Greek KeyWord Study Bible, AMG Publishers, 1991
They said it couldn't be done, but here it is, thanks to modern science and praise to God. Yes, finally, trees exactly as described in Genesis, before, and without sunlight. And no, it's not another lame hoax. (Short)
http://genesis-science.blogspot.com/2009/10/they-said-it-couldnt-be-done-but-...
and (Long)
http://genesis-science.blogspot.com/2009/10/darwinists-admit-serious-problem-...

Science teaches that animals emerged from the water. That's what the book of Genesis says. The Hebrew clearly states "moving" = "creeping". At one time Creationists denounced the theory, that fish grew legs and walked out on land, but not only are there extant creatures of this nature (fish with legs), but... Evolution is implied, for God "creates" those creatures which the waters brought forth . . . "after their kind".

Reference for Geological Changes in the Earth through the ages : Discovery Channel's "Atlas of the Prehistoric World," 1999

With the plants in Day #3, it does _not_ mention God creating. It's as if God commanded and things were put into motion, without God's direct involvement... "the earth brought forth... and God saw that it was good."
In Epoch/Day #5 initially it doesn't say God creates, merely commands for the waters to bring forth the moving(creeping) creatures and fowl (again, like Epoch/Day #3)... and wow, they did come in that order too. The carboniferous saw the first dragonflies that flew!! Creeping creatures did appear before "fowl". They were monstrous in size... but God "created them after their kind," so the modern variety are smaller... (In Hebrew, "fowl" was a general term, often applied to winged, flying insects. English applies a different connotation to the word "fowl".)
See "Does the Bible err on how many legs insects have?"
http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html


However, in the second verse, is the first mention of God "creating" whales, but he creates the creatures "after their kind," ... "which the waters had brought forth.
Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Genesis 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Reads like God was fine-tuning... as if God set back and let nature take its course... and then "fine tuned" the species, or perhaps, since it mentions whales (which date to 45 MYA -- the Ice Age) which would've came after the theoretical KT Boundary/Giant Meteor Impact... so God may have done some direct creating -- improving genetic blueprints, etc... but you know, it doesn't matter 'cos all the creatures are lining up accurately with the fossil record. The weight of evidence supports Genesis 1 as an inspired text. Just as the fossil record has a specific predictable order, Genesis 1 does too, follows the fossil record. Identical to Paleontology... what's the chances its "mere Babylonian mythology"? Zero.

GOD IS HIDDEN...
All those articles atheists have written attacking "bad designs," in nature really need to read the text with clarity, because it seems to imply God commanded "Let the earth bring forth," (and not directly involved with each and every little thing that developed, and let nature run its own course) and "Let the waters bring forth..." and only creates those, in the next verse, "after their kind" (a direct act of evolution -- some modifications to improve blueprints)
...so much for the spider fangs
...cockroaches
...and other wild beastly things
... God commands, and the forces on earth, bring forth.
Seems those articles on "bad designs" are worthless, if reading Genesis 1, strictly literal.

Full Commentary
http://genesis-science.blogspot.com/2009/10/genesis-120-23-day-five-of-genesi...
For the Critics of "Intelligent Design"
http://genesis-science.blogspot.com/2009/10/imperfect-creation-critics-of.html

--
Maybe God and Science work too slowly for Darwinists and Fundamentalist religion...
http://genesis-science.blogspot.com/

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• science
• genesis
• evolution
• darwin
• darwinism
• natural selection
• creation
• creationism
• epoch
• five
• day

[MrPakiwilson]

all this evolution thing is bull shit ..........it never happened. the fossil record never confirmed the evolutionist theory...........

[SaltWaterDiatoms]

@prebirth91 > "theory of evolution should have been thought of way before darwin". Actually, to be more precise, you should not credit Charles Darwin at all for developing the "theory of evolution," more appropriately, Darwin merely advanced his own "theory of Natural Selection" which attempts to explain the phenomena of evolution. Evolution itself is a fact, but by which process evolution occurs in the fossil record, is still a matter of contentious debate and strife among some circles.

[SaltWaterDiatoms]

to continue, that nobody is deceived by Atheist mis-information, @prebirth91 > "theory of evolution should have been thought of way before darwin," It was. "Aristotle classified all living organisms hierarchically in his great scala naturae or Great Chain of Being, with plants at the bottom, moving through lesser animals, and on to humans at the pinnacle of creation, each becoming progressively more perfect in form." My quotes are merely Evolutionary web site snippets.

[SaltWaterDiatoms]

@prebirth91 > "theory of evolution should have been thought of way before darwin". I'm so sorry, but you're wrong. Atheism tends to miseducate the public about what Evolution is. I would not encourage anyone to trust the cult of Atheism for legit science. Contrary to many assumptions, evolutionary theory did not begin in 1859 with Charles Darwin or The Origin of Species. The first systematic presentation of evolution was put forth by the French scientist Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (1774-1829),

[prebirth91]

@1Volans evolution is common sense. the theory of evolution is so simple and so obvious that it should have been thought of way before darwin.

to clear things up.

evolution

there is natural variation in any population take humans. black white ect

natural pressures influence the success on the population based on physical traits. lets pretend the sun got harsher and started killing off all the white people

those that are left are black.

they pass on the black gene. so the new population is black

[TheHonestTheist]

It's pretty obvious that God "Let" things occur naturally, not only from the Genesis narrative that repeats the word "Let" like a mantra, but also from science. There is no contradiction, the two narratives, from God's word and God's works, fit just fine. It's a pity the church doesn't just accept science, it's about time they did, then we can get on with some real progression in thought, rather then wasting our time on this young earth anti-science rubbish.

[1Volans]

I agree that a reading of Genesis implies what is known today , loosely, as evolution.

However - I disagree that "this is evolution."

Evolution is a crass ideation and lie perpetrated by the perverse.

There is no evidence at all that Life is of naturalistic causation and that in itself violates sceintistic materialism - because it operates not by evidence but sheer presumption.

Evolution is the denial of INTENT without a shred of evidence in support of that denial.