Ragged writes:
I am wondering whether this argument holds water?
No not really. First of all, which creaation account is being used and why? Gen 1 and Gen 2 differ. Second, even if we were to go with your list, ther's still some wrong things in there, for example:
-The separation of the dry land from the seas
There were no seas when the Earth first formed. They only came later, so there was nothing to seperate.
-The placing of the heavenly bodies in relationship to the earth
The heavenly bodies (including our Sun) were there before the Earth. This is also wrong in conjunction wit the point before this one, about the plants, they of course came after the Earth, so this point should be before all the others on this list.
-The creation of animal life in a particular order - fish, birds, land animals
There were land animals before there were birds.
nyway, moving on.
I myself think that when Moses (or whoever) wrote about creation of the world he intuitevely listed events from the most basic to the most complex. The only reason that he got those events somewhat close was because our world also tends to evolve from basic to complex.
That's probably what happened, yes. It would also explain some of the errors (the heavenly bodies look very small, and thus not so complex compared to the "vastness" of Earth. Also, birds look smaller then most large land animals known to people then and there, so they must've come first too.
I don't know much about science (other than a few things I read about BB and Evolution) so I don't know how much scientific support this argument really has.
It's probably none at all to very little. This won't stop the creationists from claiming otherwise, though.
I hunt for the truth
™ Version 4.2
