arly Cambrian
and cite the article titled "A POSSIBLE Early Cambrian Chordate." How do
you have a certainty that exceeds the authors?
Arduini & Teruzzi's _The Prehistoric Atlas_ was my prime source for this
material, copyright 1982. Fourteen year old material may be okay for
biblical references, but scientific stuff can get dated in a hurry. In
fact, since I started my research the Cambrian period has been moved up 40
million years. I stuck with the older date, because, who knows, they might
change it again.
>>Here critics can point to seeming discrepancies. From the evidence
>>available, life in the ocean dates to even before the Cambrian period of
>>570 million years ago, and preceded life on land. The Bible demonstrates
>>consistency, though; ancient precursors to modern men are excluded from
>>the biblical record, and so are ancient aquatic precursors to modern
>>plant and animal life.
>Where do you get that idea? This seems rather ad hoc. Evolutionarily,
>fish are our ancestors and they are in the Biblical record!
The point is that the Bible begins with a man named Adam not a lady called
Lucy. Blue-green algae didn't rate biblical recognition either.
>>The latimeria and ceratodus could be called modern fish, but they
>>appear 195 million years ago in the Jurassic period. Over 100 million
>>years stand between seed bearing land plants and what could be called
>Do you really think the Bible is making this type of biological
I don't think Moses wrote the Pentateuch with this kind of microscopic
scrutiny foremost in mind. The kind of exactness you are looking for
isn't available in the Hebrew language. You have to wait until NT
Greek before you are going to have a precision language form that will
allow this kind of examination.
In Psalm 22:14, David laments that "... all my bones are out of
joint ..." Do I think for a minute that 206 bones could be out
of joint? Does that mean Bible error? Please, cut the Bible a little
>Even if it is, this can hardly be considered a concordance
>between Genesis 1 and the fossil record. If you say that God was talking
>about seed bearing plants rather than spore bearing plants ...
Glenn, there's not a high confidence among Bible scholars concerning
Genesis 1-11 as to the precise meaning of every phrase. You corrected
me earlier on the basis of information that bore a 1995 copyright date.
In succeeding years do you think any new data will surface to change some
of the things we are so sure about today?
>then you still
>have the problem that the sun and moon must have been created less than
>195 million years ago, after the plants. You have made your problem
Please reread earlier post. Sun, moon and many stars all created before
the earth had birth pangs, maybe not visible, though.
>Teleosts, bony fish, which most modern fish are, appear long before seed
>bearing plants. Sharks appear 500 million years ago long before
>seed bearing plants (Ivan J. Sansom, M.M. Smith and M. P. Smith, "Scales of
>Thelodont and shark-like fishes from the Ordovician of Colorado," Nature,
>379, Feb. 15, 1996.)
Yes, I agree, although ancient vegetation preceded ancient fish and more
modern vegetation preceded modern fish. Putting plant life ahead of animal
life can be justified for at least a couple of reasons. Furthermore, the
"days of creation" may overlap. I'm not saying they do, but others have
suggested that, and I have heard a case for that method of explanation.
In other words, God started plant life first on earth and plant life is
first mentioned in Genesis. But the chain of plant life talked about in
the text doesn't have to be complete on the third day, it may overlap the
fifth and sixth days.
>>But what about "grass" on the third day of creation? Grasses did not
>> emerge until after the dinosaurs became extinct. How can 62 million
>>year old grass predate the dinosaurs, for example, who came into
>>existence over 200 million years ago?
>>Massive dinosaurs leave huge bones, which make wonderful fossils. The
>>Cambrian explosion left a permanent record of hard-shelled marine
>>creatures that is impo