Re: Concordist sequence

From: Peter Ruest (
Date: Mon Jun 23 2003 - 00:44:51 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Ruest: "Re: Genesis and inspiration"

    "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <> wrote:
    > 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.

    C'mon Dave, don't play the strawman game! David Campbell has made it
    perfectly clear that he isn't defending "concordism" but pointing out
    some of the strawmen erected against the "concordist sequence". On 18
    Jun 2003 15:39:58 -0400, he also wrote: "Oldest seed plants I think are
    now back to latest Devonian. First algae goes back to mid-Precambrian;
    photosynthetic bacteria much earlier... More discrepancies arise with
    the attempt to put every thing mentioned on each day before anything
    mentioned the next day." Even with this little information, your
    accusation about fruits and seeds is misplaced (and for the moment I'm
    not going to talk about possible sarcasm...).
    > > 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

    Now it's nothing but sarcasm (although presumably not directed against
    David Campbell, who clearly doesn't support the absurd CMB/firmament
    idea). Even though I know that you reject any kind of "concordism", I
    feel it is inappropriate to denigrate reasoned arguments, just because
    they conflict with your opinion. As you recently told me that you read
    the 1999 PSCF paper by A.Held and myself, you should know perfectly well
    that there are other, reasoned interpretations of the so-called
    "firmament" and "water-above" which avoid all this nonsense. If you
    don't agree with them, you are free to do so. But don't play such unfair
    games! I'm sure there are people who read these comments of yours, but
    who haven't read our arguments.

    By the way, I thoroughly appreciated and enjoyed your comment on the
    "ASA Statement of faith" thread of 21 Jun 2003 11:57:11 -0700, which you
    CC'd me!


    Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
    <> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
    "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 23 2003 - 00:43:42 EDT