NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/origins/15977

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 7.4 KB

Xref: sparky talk.origins:15977 talk.religion.misc:24823
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!olivea!pagesat!spssig.spss.com!uchinews!kimbark!sjchmura
From: [e-mail] (steven joseph chmura)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: YOUNG EARTHERS _AND_ BIBLE CRITICS WATCH OUT! (huh?)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:24:43 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 155

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Meyer) writes:
>
>Specific Point of View
>----------------------
>Unfortunately, most Bible commentaries still err with Jean Astruc and
>the higher critics in placing the point of view for Genesis 1 out in
>the heavens, looking down on the earth.  Yet, the second verse of
>Genesis 1 places the point of view under the could cover, on the
>surface of the waters.  It says, "The Spirit of God was hovering over
>
>[rachaph actually connotes "brooding" or "vivifying."  Hence, this
>statement may imply biblical support for formation of the first
>life-forms in the oceans.]
>
>the surface of the waters."  This one seemingly minute correction
>eliminates any supposed contradiction between the biblical order of
>events and the scientific order.  The miracles described in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Err.  I think the "warm little pond" has been laid to rest finally.
Those "garden of eden" type scientific origin of life hypothesis have all
been shot and, in most peoples opinion, are all but dead.  The earth when
life arose, was far more virulent and interesting than these "warm" ponds
where life could just spring up.

The earth was hot.  Water was alomost non-existext for the first beggingings
of life.  Iron and metal catalysis through thin membrane like structures
were probably the first beggings of "life".

For more info, I encourage you to read "On the Origins" a recently published
work by Dr. Carle Woose of the University of Illinois C/U.  He has, among
other things, given us the modern taxonomy of Archeobacteria and how
these fit into the very early evolutionary tree.

Thus, to say that the bible supports "warm little ponds" is yet another
probable contradiction.

Disclaimer:  I am by no means affiliated with Dr. Woose's lab.  I have just
been fortunate enough to read many of his papers before they were published.


>account take place in or under the earths's atmosphere, not in the
>broader scope of outer space.
>
>Initial Conditions
>------------------
>Genesis 1:2 also states for us three initial conditions of planet
>earth:
>   -It was dark upon the surface of the oceans
>   -The earth was formless, or disorganized.
>   -The earth was void or emtpy.
>Since Genesis 1 focuses on the introduction of life upon the earth,
>formless and void (or disorganized and empty) are best interpreted in
>the context of life.  That is, the bible says that in its initial
>state, the earth was unfit to support life and was literally "empty"
>of life.  We are told, too, that the earth's atmosphere (and/or
>interplanetary debris) blocked out the light that exists throughout
>the universe.  Light could not pass through to the surface.
>
>The physics of star and planet formation verifies that the
>proto-earth indeed must have had an atmosphere (or debris cloud)
>opaque to light.  Such studies also confirm that conditions of the
>proto-earth made it entirely unfit for the support of life.
>
>Order of Creation Events
>------------------------
>With the point of view and initial conditions established, we can
>properly interpret the biblical chronolog of events.  What once
>seemed baffling or incorrect now becomes comprehensible and
>demonstrably accurate.  It may be helpful to note, too, that six
>different Hebrew verbs are used for God's creative work.  The
>following table lists the eleven major milestones in order, giving
>suitable English equivalents for those verns.  Bara appears in the
>manuscripts only twice more after Genesis 1:1, once for the creation
>of nephesh, or soulish animals - those creatures endowed with mind,
>will, and emotions (namely, birds and mammals) - and again for the
>creation of adam, or "spirit" beings - those creatures endowed with
>the capacity to respond to God Himself.
>
>1.  creation of the physical universe (space, time, matter, energy,
>    galaxies, stars, planets, etc)
>
>2.  transformation of the earth's atmosphere from opaque to
>    translucent
>
>3.  formation of a stable water cycle
>
>4.  establishment of continent(s) and ocean(s)
>
>5.  production of plants on the continent(s)
>
>6.  transformation of the atmoshpere from translucent to transparent
>    (Sun, Moon, and stars became visible for the first time)
>
>7.  production of small sea animals
>
>8.  creation of sea mammals (nephesh)
>
>9.  creation of birds [possibly same time as 8] (more nephesh)
>
>10. making of land mammals (wild mammals, mammals that can be
>    domesticated, and rodents - still more nephesh)
>
>11. creation of mankind (adam)
>
>No Coincidence
>--------------
>The record above perfectly accords with the findings of modern
>science.  Ironically, some have found fault with it for its
>simplicity and brevity.  We must remeber, first, that the recorder of
>the events, Moses, lived some 3500 years ago, and he was writing not
>only for the people of his time and culture but for all people of all
>times and cultures.  Use of the simplest possible terms was
>essential.  Second, the apparent purpose of the account is to
>document various demonstrations of God's miraculous power in forming
>the earth and life upon it.  With obvious necessity, the account is
>selective.  Only the highlights, those events most important for
>achieving God's final goals, are included.  As a result, dinosaurs,
>for example, receive no particular mention.
>
>The odds that Moses could have guessed the correct order even if he
>were given the events are 1 chance in 40 million.  In addition, Moses
>scored three for three in describing the initial conditions.  Of
>course, most amazing of all is the accuracy of his depiction of each
>creative event.  Clearly, Moses must have been inspired by God to
>write as he did.
>==============================================================
>
>
>If this doesn't flop I'll post some stuff on long creation days
>(think yowm!) and a good list of data supportive of design and the
>anthropic principle...
>
>Deep thought:  the seventh day is not closed out in the Genesis
>account...  Hmmm...  Funny how the extinction of species and the
>"completion" of biblical creation coincide, and the arrival
>of anything _new_ has fallen off sharply.  Maybe in God's rest chaos
>is once again getting its say...
>
>Merry CHRISTmas!!
>
>John M.
>
>
>================================ END ================================
>--
>Mark Meyer                                               | [e-mail] |
>Texas Instruments, Inc.,  Plano TX                       +--------------------+
>Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
>"There's lots of bread in the freezer!"  "No, I threw it out.  Hard as a rock."


--
________________________________________________________________________________Steven Chmura                University of Chicago Medical School(M1)
  "Given enough time, the impossible becomes probable, and the probable
    inevitable.."  -George Wald, "On the Origins of Life"