> >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?
Why would it matter that a subset of plants emerged after?
************************************************************************
Jim Guinee, Ph.D.
Director of Training & Adjunct Professor
President, Arkansas College Counselor Association
University of Central Arkansas Counseling Center
313 Bernard Hall Conway, AR 72035 USA
(501) 450-3138 (office) (501) 450-3248 (fax)
"No one wants advice -- only corroboration"
-John Steinbeck
************************************************************************
