"... huge dome-like blocks of granite welled upward from the depths of the
mantle. These intrusions were more than twenty-five miles in height ...,"
from ASAer John Wiester's book, _The Genesis Connection_, page 61.
>Thus, since the Biblical order states that land life came first, are you
>admitting that the fossil record does not match the biblical order as I
Plant life must have begun before animal life inasmuch as the earliest
animals had to eat plants. Starting with plant life does not seem out
of order. The beginnings of life began in the sea we think, and plant
life emerged on land prior to amphibians venturing out of the water.
So plants are also first on land. Again, no discrepancy. Notice also
that God let the earth bring forth first plant life (Gen. 1:10), then
animal life (Gen. 1:20). The sea creatures God created in Gen. 1:21
need not be ex nihilo in my humble estimation.
So the phraseology might not be what you and I would have done had we
been tasked with writing Genesis. But I honestly don't think it's
completely out of kilter either. I certainly wouldn't call the author
errant on this particular issue due simply to manner of presentation.
>material is now found down in the latest part of the Precambrian and some
>of the Ediacaran like animals are found in the earliest part of the
>Cambrian. The "explosion" has become gradual.
I think you're right about that, but "Cambrian explosion" is still a
prevalent term of description.
>>Strange looking colonial creatures called graptolites were prevalent,
>>and are part of the Stomacordata group which stands midway between
>>invertebrates and vertebrates. The first hint at vertebrates appeared in
>>the Ordovician period 500 million years ago such as a kind of fish
>>without jawbones called Agnatha, forerunners to present-day lampreys.
>Sorry Dick, this is also wrong. The earliest chordate is from the early
>Cambrian. (J. Y. Chen, et al, "A Possible Early Cambrian Chordate,"
>Nature, 377, Oct. 26, 1995)
Notice that you said the earliest chordate is from the early 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 fossi