| ??? 09/07/07 17:28 Read: times |
#144127 - Support & Light Responding to: ???'s previous message |
From your previous post
I'm not a physicist, so I can't and shan't comment on the Big Bang part.
I do, however, have ample knowledge of paleontology and (evolutionary) biology and can state with complete confidence that the Genesis story does not agree with the fossil record. In fact, it doesn't even agree with elementary biology. According to Genesis, plants ("...grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree ...") were created before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes! Note that the fossil record shows that grass and fruit trees are relative latecomers; they didn't arise until long after animals were roaming the earth. Yet, according to Genesis, it was the other way round. What fossil record are you looking at? Do you deny the existence of the Cambrian Explosion? Are you asserting that plants can not exist without photosynthesis? Are you asserting that plants didn't come along until after animals? Just who is supposed to be the irrational zealot here? I certainly hope your "knowledge of paleontology and (evolutionary) biology" is better than your understanding of language and hermeneutics. You probably believe that if something is figurative (as in a figure of speech) that it is more, not less, subjective (i.e. subject to interpretation). Still, you and Jeff have brought me around to one conclusion. I've often thought of writing a book on Genesis through a physicists perspective. Maybe I'll stop thinking about it and do so. Joe |
