| ??? 09/07/07 20:13 Read: times |
#144135 - Reply to Joe Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Joseph Hebert said:
What fossil record are you looking at? The one that has been built up and studied for the past, say 150 years. Why? Are you looking at a different one? Do you deny the existence of the Cambrian Explosion? The Cambrian Explosion is a well established fact, so no, I do not deny it. However, as much progress has been made in research over the past decade, it is becoming clearer and clearer that this "explosion" certainly did not have the magnitude it was once thought to have had. It certainly wasn't a single event, but lasted some 5 million years or so. It also mainly seems to coincide with a proliferation of animals with hard body parts, which, of course, fossilise much more readily that soft bodies. More and more evidence is being found that many lineages that previously seemed to appear 'out of nowhere', actually have clear affiliations with previously existing groups from the so-called Ediacaran fauna. Are you asserting that plants can not exist without photosynthesis? The ability to fotosynthesise is one of the defining characteristics of what we call 'plant'. Are you asserting that plants didn't come along until after animals? You must have misread me, because I was specifically talking about grasses and fruit trees (as mentioned in Gen. 1.11). These are flowering plants and yes, that specific group did not arise until long after animals had developed. Just who is supposed to be the irrational zealot here? Just where did I call someone, anyone, an irrational zealot? All I did was to explain why I think the assertion "If you read Genesis for what it says, it's an uncanny description of the fossil record ..." requires a pretty good explanation, to say the least. I thought I had been careful enough not to make it sound like a personal attack. If you did, in any way, get that impression, I'm deeply sorry. 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). This may well be a language thing, or just me being stoopid, but I'm afraid I do not follow you here Joe. 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. It may surprise you, but I'd very much like to buy the second copy :-). Have a good weekend, Rob. |
