I don't know the person who wrote this, but from a historical point of view, it is silly and unforgivably under-informed. It is shameful that you would publish such poor scholarship.

If this person will write me, I'll suggest scholarship that can show him who foolish his arguments are.

(I'm NOT a Christian)

Jon

Yes, Jon, the argument is silly -- because it attempts to portray Genesis literally instead of allegorically. In Genesis, the sequence is a bit out of order, one readily admits. The earth precedes the rest of the universe, whales appear early on, etc. But the idea that there was a void, and darkness (even the implication of chaos), and light appeared, and water, and dry land, and vegetation, and fish and fowl and creeping animals proceeding in order, and that God said "let us make a Man," speaking, apparently to the animals, make a near-perfect analog to evolution theory, written about 3,500 years ago.