> >> 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.
I don't necessarily think so (not an expert on this) -- to me if there were no
plants at all, I think we'd have more of an apparent contradiction.
> 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.
The more I think of the "ideal age" theory, the more intriguing I find it. That's
the one where everything that is created looks older than it really is. Of
course, it is a biblical and geological stretch, and I don't want to cling to
some theory simply because it cannot be disproven.
************************************************************************
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
************************************************************************
