When the book of Genesis was written, some 2300 years ago, how did the
author(s), whom ever he/she/they was/were, know that aquatic plant
life had to precede aquatic animal life, then plant life had to move
out of the water onto land.
Terrestrial animals had to have something to eat. There is no doubt
that the Genesis author(s) understood this and placed Terrestrial
animal life at the end of the sequence of the Terrestrial life
development process.
How did they know that humans had to come at the very end of this life
forming process? Why did they not, instead, put humans near the first
on the development sequence and have them involved in the formation of
many of the other life forms. "Humans needed (fill in the blank) so
they bred and cultured the animals and plants they needed, or
something like that."
Why did the author(s) if Genesis not reason that Terrestrial plant
life came first, followed by Terrestrial animal life, then when their
refuse began to wash into the oceans and lakes, aquatic life was the
result? How did they, instead, surmise that life forms could/did
wash/crawl up out of the water onto land? Why didn't those primitive
minds "assume" that Terrestrial life forms washed down the streams
into the lakes and oceans rather than having climbed up out of the
oceans/lakes against the flow of the streams. Did they think those
early aquatic life forms had legs or that they could crawl like worms
such as to enable them to go against the flow, so to speak?
How did those Genesis authors blunder around in the darkness, so to
speak, and get this so very nearly right in all im****tant respects?
Gordon
|
