ssible to ignore. Any soft-shelled predecessors
>>left scarcely a trace. The same could be said for any land-based
>>vegetation that might have been.
>Good try, but pollen is given off in vast quantities by grasses. And
>pollen is a very easily fossilized material and is very difficult to
>destroy. If grasses existed prior to the dinosaurs, grass pollen WOULD be
>found in rocks of those ages. I know several palynologists and they
>assure me that no pollen evidence of grass exists prior to the early
>tertiary. This suggestion simply will not work
Glenn, that leads into the next paragraph.
>>Sparse fossil evidence gives us no way of knowing exactly what plant
>>life first began to grow on dry land. Try to find last year's grass
>>clippings on your front lawn today. More to the point, the Hebrew word,
>>deshe' translated "grass," can mean simply "vegetation." We can verify
>>that the earth has had land-based vegetation for over 400 million years.
>Yes, but marine life has been on earth for 3.4 billion years.
And the first marine life was plant life, but I don't know how that could
have been said in ancient Hebrew. If in this instance "earth" means the
entire earth - this planet - then that would include the sea, and deshe',
the Hebrew word for vegetation, should be broad enough to mean plant life.
Beyond that I would say, ask Moses.
>>Modern fruit trees certainly were not in existence before fishes. That
>>seems to be true, but these verses say nothing about "modern" fruit
>>trees. In English, fruit trees bear edible fruit; apples, pears,
>>cherries, and so forth. The Hebrew term includes seed-bearing trees, and
>>shade trees that do not bear edible fruit.
>You are being internally inconsistent Above you wanted to use "modern"
>fish to explain the concordance and now you say the Bible says nothing
>about "modern" fruit trees. Well the Bible didn't say anything about
>"modern fish" either. This is ad hoc.
I should have said trees bearing edible fruit. "Modern" is a relative
term, but I was running into a conflict with terms of precision and terms
easily understood. Fruit trees to us are apple, pear, banana, etc. In
Hebrew a Pine tree meets the definition because nuts are the fruit of a
nut bearing tree.
>>Apple trees, for example, do not date to the Upper Silurian, but the
>> "fruit" of any plant is its yield. Conifers were among the first
>>land-based vegetation, and calling them "fruit trees" is consistent with
>Conifers were not among the first land-based vegetation. The psilopsoda
>appears in the fossil record in the Silurian circa 420 million years ago.
>Conifers do not appear until 360 million years ago. If sixty million
>years is "among the first" then we live in the age of the dinosaurs!(see
>McAlester, The history of life, p. 86)
Point well taken (even if picky, picky, picky).
>>Some Bible scholars have put a strain on these passages, maintaining
>>that the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day. This is
>>unwarranted. The emphasis in this verse is on the purpose for the
>>heavenly bodies not their coming into existence.
>Those pesky Bible scholars! They are probably straining other passages,
>maintaining that land plants were created on the third day or that mankind
>was created on the sixth day. They should be ashamed of themselves for
>such straining. It is clear that these verses are emphasising the
>purpose of the landplants and the purpose of mankind not their coming into
>existence. STOP THAT YOU PESKY BIBLE SCHOLARS!!!!
And be sure you include the flat earth, the geocentric universe, the
24-hour days of creation, no death in the animal kingdom before Original
Sin, the vapor canopy, the global flood, the commencing of all languages
at Babel. Actually, pesky Bible scholars have made such a hash of it,
it's a wonder to me how Christianity has survived it. Perhaps errant
interpretation leaves the ignorant unaffected.
>>A possible reason Genesis lists land plants before the luminaries began
>>to govern is either because there were no eyes to see light, or
>>something such as liquid water or dense clo