Re: Concordist sequence

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (
Date: Fri Jun 20 2003 - 14:22:53 EDT

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: Theological theory evaluation (Was: The forgotten verses)"

    On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:07:54 -0400 "bivalve"
    <> 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.
    > Dr. David Campbell
    > Old Seashells
    > University of Alabama
    > Biodiversity & Systematics
    > Dept. Biological Sciences
    > Box 870345
    > Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 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
    > Droitgate Spa

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 14:27:17 EDT