From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Fri Jun 20 2003 - 14:22:53 EDT
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:07:54 -0400 "bivalve"
<bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com> writes:
> >Looks to me as though you are doing a revision to get concord. How
> can you equate "grass, herb and fruit-tree" as Young has it, with
> the express notion of seed in the fruit, with cyanobacteria and
> algae? Also, you are totally neglecting the firmament with the
> waters above.<
>
> I agree that this approach has plenty of problems. However,
> macroalgae seems to me most likely to fall under the general heading
> of plants. Thus, light appears before the earth, which existed
> before macroscopic "plants" (macroalgae, over 1 billion years ago;
> macroscopic aggregations of cyanobacteria much earlier), which
> appear before macroscopic aquatic animals (ca. 570 million,
> Ediacaran faunas), which appear before land animals (large things at
> least got onto the beach in the Cambrian, 544-500 million).. If
> someone were to claim merely that the earliest example of the
> general kind listed on each day of Genesis 1 were created in the
> same order as the days of Genesis 1, then I think that day 4 is the
> only problem for this specific claim (ignoring questions such as
> whether it is missing the point of the passage). There is a general
> correlation between the sequences from Genesis 1 and from
> geology/astronomy, but not a very exact one. The problems of this
> approach are inde!
> ed one reason why I prefer a more symbolic or framework approach.
>
Thanks for the information. I never realized that algae produced fruit
with seeds. I thought that the things like fruit on kelp were gas-filled
floats. I never realized that smaller algae, and perhaps cyanobacteria,
grew from seed.
> I'm not really sure what the firmament is, as far as assigning a
> date to it. Taking Genesis 1 as a scientific description in each
> detail seems to make the firmament into something that rockets
> should crash into just after they pass the sun, moon, and stars. If
> I wanted to defend a concordist view, I would probably take the
> firmament as simply phenomenological language rather than an actual
> object. I suppose one might stretch the interpretation and claim
> that it referred to something like the microwave background, which
> appears beyond the stars. This approach provides scientific language
> at the expense of an implausible interpretation of the intent of
> Genesis 1.
>
You have solved a cosmological problem. Out beyond the limits of the
visible universe (~15x10^9 lt. yr. radius) there is a solid barrier which
keeps the outer waters from flooding the universe. Apparently a small bit
of that water was let in to totally inundate the earth some 4-5000 years
ago (Genesis 7:11). Now if you can tell us where that excess water went
after the Flood, we'll have most of the loose ends firmly tied up.
Dave
> Dr. David Campbell
> Old Seashells
> University of Alabama
> Biodiversity & Systematics
> Dept. Biological Sciences
> Box 870345
> Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
> bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
>
> That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
> Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
> Droitgate Spa
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 14:27:17 EDT