On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:13:10 -0500, Antares 531
<gordonlrDELETE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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?
Odd how nobody noticed that this stuff was in the Bible until *after*
science discovered it, don't you think?
The truth is they *didn't* know.
>
>Gordon
|
