RE: Paleontology, Gen 1:1 and Concordism

From: bivalve (
Date: Mon Feb 18 2002 - 16:40:43 EST

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: Genesis One and Concordism (was a lot of other things previously)"

    >For David and Joel, I still don't see anything supporting trees before fish in anything you all have posted about this issue, but trees in the upper Devonian, I would be prepared to accept. Are they conifers? Are the seeds those of conifers?<

    They would not be true pines, spruces, firs, etc. Thus, they would not be conifers in the strict sense. The term gymnosperm would be appropriate for them, as a paraphyletic group including all seed-bearing, non-flowering plants. If conifer were extended to include things like Gingko, cycads, Gnetales, and seed ferns (which is a substantial extension), then perhaps the Devonian forms could be called conifers.

        Dr. David Campbell
        Old Seashells
        46860 Hilton Dr #1113
        Lexington Park MD 20653 USA

    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 Droigate Spa

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 18 2002 - 16:24:23 EST