At 8:42 AM -0600 3/7/01, Jim Guinee wrote:
>> >The author contends that the age-day theory is the option that best fits
>> >biblical wording and geological evidence. Yet, he also points out that
>> >a) there is no way to be dogmatic about this, and b) the age of the
>> >universe is a topic that needs additional scientific and biblical
>> >analysis.
>> >
>> >How about that?
>>
>> I'm afraid you'll have to stay with your "pictorial-day" interpretation.
>> The "age-day" interpretation contradicts the geological and genetic
>> evidence that flowering plants are a recent development, chronologically
>> speaking. They emerged _after_ 'the beasts of the fields'.
>
>I don't understand. Weren't plants created before the beasts of the field?
Nope, flowering plants evolved much more recently.
>Why would it matter that a subset of plants emerged after?
Because it appears to contradict the biblical description of the order of
events.
That's why if you wish to maintain some sort of biblical/geological
consistency, the least specific of your alternatives appears to be the only
tenable one.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
