Undersea plants

[metherion]

I am curious exactly where undersea plants, such as kelp and seaweed came from. God obviously did not make them if you look at either (or both) creation story(ies).

Genesis 1:11-13

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Only land plants are made here.

Genesis 1:20-23

And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

God only made creatures in the sea. And according to every Creationist I have ever heard, plants are NOT creatures because there was no creature death before the Fall but animals were vegetarians. Therefore plants died, therefore plants are not animals because of no animal death, else there would have been death before the Fall.

So God did not make plants in the sea in the first creation account.


Genesis 2:8-9

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.

God make trees and other plants in a garden. Eden was not underwater, therefore there would not have been underwater plants in the garden.

Alternatively, it is said that the 2nd account is really a clarification of the first, and ommissions of actions in the 2nd that appear in the first are not in error, nor are events in the 2nd not in the 1st.

Genesis 2:4-7
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [d] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [e] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [f] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [g] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

This only talks about the lack of plants on land. Couple this with God only specifically making trees in Gen 2 and God only making land plants in Gen 1, this shows NO reference in either to undersea plant life.


So, where do undersea plants come from?


Metherion

 

[laptoppop]

argumentum a silentio

 

[Deamiter]

argumentum a silentio

Indeed. Same objection as when people ask, "if evolution is true, where is it in the Bible?"

 

[theIdi0t]

argumentum a silentio

"The argument from silence is very convincing when mentioning a fact can be seen as so natural that its omission is a good reason to assume ignorance. For example, while the editors of Yerushalmi and Bavli mention the other community, most scholars believe these documents were written independently. Louis Jacobs writes, "If the editors of either had had access to an actual text of the other, it is inconceivable that they would not have mentioned this. Here the argument from silence is very convincing."

"an arguments from silence can be a valid and convincing form of abductive reasoning."

argumentum a silentio

Here the argument from silence is very convincing, because its omission is a good reason to assume the writer's ignorance of undersea plants.

 

[metherion]

The argument from silence is very convincing when mentioning a fact can be seen as so natural that its omission is a good reason to assume ignorance.

This is the case. There is no reason not to mention undersea plants. People would have known they existed either because a) land animals eat either other animals or plants, fish should follow the same pattern or b) running into them during fishing. Getting their nets tangled in reeds or what have you.

Furthermore, Genesis is very specific. It mentions everything by class. Time, the surfaces of the Earth (land and sea), plants by area (land only), animals by area (sea life, land life, and aerial life), then humans. It makes no sense to not include underwater plant life, as a matter of fact it would have made sense! If God was truly telling the writer word-for-word what He had done, it would not make sense for Him to omit any entire category, such as plants (underwater), especially when He gave animals (underwater) specific mention.

And, as Dreamiter said, if things were left out of the Genesis account (among the most specific lists in the Bible along with the OT Law), it opens a whole can or worms, like where evolution was in the Bible, whether or not other gods existed and God defeated them instead of just being the only one ever, if magic ever actually existed for God to forbid it, and so on.

Metherion

 

[laptoppop]

Ahhhh, but there is a huge difference between something not being mentioned, and something contradicting something that IS mentioned.

Rubber tires are not mentioned in the Bible. On the other hand, they don't contradict anything in the Bible.

Evolution is not mentioned in the Bible. On the other hand, it contradicts the creation account and the global flood account that IS mentioned in the Bible.

 

[metherion]

But what about Genesis 2:1?

"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array." (NIV)

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." (KJV)

This statement means that the previous list of Genesis 1 must be complete. Maybe needing some order clarification, but complete. An omission contradicts this statement. The heavens and earth would not be finished with a major component of the ecosystem omitted. Without undersea plants, the entire bottom of the food chain for the entire sea is gone, as well as some terrestrial beings, like man and some birds. That certainly is NOT "complete".

So the omission IS a contradiction.

Metherion

 

[KerrMetric]

Rubber tires are not mentioned in the Bible. On the other hand, they don't contradict anything in the Bible.

But perhaps they should have been since motorcycles were mentioned.

I specifically remember Moses's Triumph was heard throughout the valley.


And Jesus and the Apostles were Honda car drivers.

John 12:49 & Acts 5:12

 

[metherion]

Had a second really quick thought.

If the part about plants undersea should have been there but was omitted, then what else might have been omitted?

"And yea, the first day was actually xxx years long according the the Gregorian calendar, to be invented in the year xxxx after the miscalculated birth of the Messiah, and whenever the word created is used it really means directed the evolution of?"

Unless of course, complete actually means "missing a fundamental element."

Just a thought.

Metherion

 

[laptoppop]

But what about Genesis 2:1?

"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array." (NIV)

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." (KJV)

This statement means that the previous list of Genesis 1 must be complete. Maybe needing some order clarification, but complete. An omission contradicts this statement. The heavens and earth would not be finished with a major component of the ecosystem omitted. Without undersea plants, the entire bottom of the food chain for the entire sea is gone, as well as some terrestrial beings, like man and some birds. That certainly is NOT "complete".

So the omission IS a contradiction.

Metherion

No, it means the creation work was complete NOT that the list was exhaustive.

Again, there is a huge difference between something being omitted and something which goes against the text.

 

[metherion]

Were the days were really 6 24 hour days?

Are undersea plants are evil, for God did not say they were good?

Was the story is supposed to be symbolical?

Apparently, germs and bacteria were left out, since they aren't mentioned evil. Are they good, as God's declaration of their goodness is omitted?

Or did they come from somewhere else? After all, it would fit if another god (little g) that God dealt with later, like Baal-zebub, god of Ekron, created them. Then it would fit that God saw everything He made was good, but bacteria and stuff were still not good since God didn't make them. And God would still be the one True God because He dealt with the other gods later.

What else is missing? If the story doesn't say all that happened, like the undersea plants I mentioned, if bits of it are missing or omitted, what all is real that isn't mentioned?

An omission may not be a contradiction, but the fact that things were left out is about as big a blow. It opens the door to asking what else was left out.

This might be construed as a slippery slope logical fallacy, or another related one. However, if Scripture is the only way we can see back to the beginnings, and things are omitted, then no possibility can be ruled out. If something is wrong with the manuscript, then nothing can be ruled out, since we have no way to find out what the mistake was. It is not a fallacy, it is unavoidable. With no way to rule any possibility out, the possibilities that what was removed is something that would show the interpretation wrong must be considered, and cannot be dismissed.

Metherion

 

[theIdi0t]

No, it means the creation work was complete NOT that the list was exhaustive.
.

Yea, it's just a big coincidence that the one bit of science the account left out, is the one bit that might give the account some divine scientific validity. Every YEC would be celebrating like it was New Years if the Genesis account mentioned undersea plants--something that would hold more weight than trying to pass of Behemoth as a dinosaur.

 

[philadiddle]

Maybe "firmament" means underwater plants?

 

[metherion]

The firmament was meant to separate the sets of waters. It is the sky or the heavens, whichever translation you use. And yes, there are waters below the firmament, but I've yet to see the water above it. But that is for another thread.

Metherion

 

[Assyrian]

One of the interesting patterns in Gen 1 is the way creation is described in groups of threes. There are three types of plants mentioned, three type of creature from the sea, three types of animal. I really don't think that God decided to only create three categories of each plant sea creature and animal, Or that the writer of Genesis only knew of three different sorts of plant etc (never eaten a mushroom?). Instead in the poetic format of Gen 1 these three types of plant stand for all the plants God created, the three type of creature from the sea stand for all that swim and fly, (as well as birds that run instead).

Of course as metherion points out, if Genesis wasn't meant as an exhaustive list, it raises question about the six days, really 2x3 days, and whether these are really the only six day in creation or just representative of all the days of creation.

 

[USincognito]

One of the interesting patterns in Gen 1 is the way creation is described in groups of threes. There are three types of plants mentioned, three type of creature from the sea, three types of animal. I really don't think that God decided to only create three categories of each plant sea creature and animal, Or that the writer of Genesis only knew of three different sorts of plant etc (never eaten a mushroom?). Instead in the poetic format of Gen 1 these three types of plant stand for all the plants God created, the three type of creature from the sea stand for all that swim and fly, (as well as birds that run instead).

Of course as metherion points out, if Genesis wasn't meant as an exhaustive list, it raises question about the six days, really 2x3 days, and whether these are really the only six day in creation or just representative of all the days of creation.

Wiat. You're not noting that there's a certain poetic structure and metre to Genesis are you?

 

[philadiddle]

Wiat. You're not noting that there's a certain poetic structure and metre to Genesis are you?

Ya, what's going on? Literal and historical accounts can never be poetic. If it's poetic, then we couldn't read it literally, that's impossible.

 

[Assyrian]

Wiat. You're not noting that there's a certain poetic structure and metre to Genesis are you?

Either that or mushrooms are just a hallucination...

 

[Assyrian]

Ya, what's going on? Literal and historical accounts can never be poetic. If it's poetic, then we couldn't read it literally, that's impossible.

Does it hurt you brain to keep doing that?