Creation ala Genesis

God’s revealed word assures us that God merely had to say, “Let there be…” this or that, and then this or that just popped into existence.  Thus, without any recipe or formula or thought-out blueprint all the varied components of whatever “he” envisioned just magically came together in its manifested form.  No trials, no errors, just zap.  Apparently God managed to fill up not only the naked Earth but all infinity as well in just six twenty-four hour “days.” No wonder God had to rest on the seventh day: or so the Creationists avow.  However, the authors never bothered themselves to clarify which of the two Creation version they promote, conveniently ignoring that chapters one and two of Genesis give some slightly differing specifics!  And, of course, we are instructed to never ask how God himself came into existence.  Is this imaginative account of how matter and life came into existence really worthy to be taught in school science classes as creationists clamor?

However, in order for all of God’s varied and diverse forms which he had made manifest by talking to himself to be regenerated and maintained, God did have to put in place some system of renewal.  And that renewal system for each and every thing that he had created did require a recipe or formula or blueprint for its continuation. Scientific sleuthing has managed to discover one vital part of that blueprint, and we know that as DNA.  Life, whether micro or macro, each follow specific developmental processes, and even galaxies and the universe itself follow the same constant motions of re-creation.

Cultures that preceded by thousands of years the word of God as “revealed” in eighth century BCE Jerusalem apparently were not privileged to biblical enlightenment, and had to grope about in ignorance of how everything came into existence.  It was up to the self-appointed priests in Jerusalem in the much later timeframe to explain the facts of Creation.  At that time the entire population of the world has been guesstimated to have been around seventy to one hundred million persons, but God was interested in enlightening only a tiny percent of the population about the facts of his acts of Creation.  And that tiny percent happened to be in the habit of agitating everyone around Jerusalem.  Even so, for some holy reason, the particulars of what went into his creative process, like chemical compounds and such, were left unexplained.  Consequently, how he transformed energy into our little planet with its varied and diverse life forms has long served enterprising Bible interpreters as a sacred mystery to be mined and manipulated for their own ends.  Perhaps we should question the Bible style version of Creation against some known facts.

Planet Earth is heavy with chemical components, and it is this chemical heaviness which stands as a major argument against biological life having originated on this planet.  But that, in itself, does not negate the Genesis explanation. Scores of years of scientific research has projected that Earth was formed around four billion five hundred million years ago.  Within a few hundred-million years the simple life forms were already in existence on the infant Earth—a remarkably short time in Creation terms.  To science a few hundred million years after Earth’s formation to have simple life forms appear seems a case of too much too soon.  Ah, but all that was just one “day” in the Genesis account.

If the oldest and simplest life forms were present on Earth well over three billion years ago—and these simple life forms had, as science has found, molecules of biological origin, it is hard evidence that life forms on this planet arose and developed from some source other than from a combination of inert gases and chemicals that were then predominant on the infant planet.  Some of the most abundant chemical elements of Earth’s composition are nickel and chromium.  If biological life originated in such an abundant chemical composition, wouldn’t it seem logical that these more plentiful elements would figure in the composition of any life forms that would originate in the primal stew (biblical “dust”), if not prominently then at least moderately?  But nickel and chromium play practically no role whatever in the biochemical structure of the life forms that thrive on this planet.  Of course they are not needed in the Genesis account.

On the other hand, the element molybdenum, a metallic element of the chromium group is quite rare on this planet, but nonetheless that rare element plays a pivotal role in enzymatic reactions that are vitally necessary to all Earth’s biological life!  Furthermore, if biological life arose on this planet, whether from the “dust” of Eden or in a simmering primeval stew, logic suggest that a variety of genetic codes would have developed.  But that did not happen either.  Instead, all life forms on planet Earth developed from a single genetic code.  All life forms share a single genetic composition.  To religionists, of course, this genetic singularity can be brushed aside as proof of God’s commandment.

Some ancient Sumerian cuneiform texts, far older than the priest-written Genesis fable, provide information in regard to the puzzle of life’s appearance on early Earth, however.  According to the deciphered texts, life on this planet developed billions of years ago from an outer space source; from a huge rogue planet that made at least two passes through this developing solar system.  The Sumerians did not confuse that rogue celestial object with any comet, asteroid or other space object, and the roving  planet that passed through our young solar system was given the name of Marduk.  The Sumerians also referred to this planet, which was obviously not affiliated with our solar system, as “the planet of crossing.”  This information later became reworked and the basis for personification of the Babylonian god Marduk, known in the Bible as Merodach, who was credited with bringing the chemistry of life to planet Earth.  Could that possibly be the god that the post-Sumerian Genesis story refers to as commanding the activation of life?

Oddly, in recent modern science, a theory has been advanced that is remarkably similar to the ancient Sumerian account.  A minority of scientists, risking reputation and government financial support, dared to offer the theory that life on this planet may have been seeded from miniscule organisms given off by some free-wheeling planet that once brushed close to the primordial Earth.  Perhaps that planetary lovemaking is what took place over the biblical “six days” of Creation?  Or was God just playing a solo game of billiards that “day”?

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Creation ala Genesis”

  1. I like looking through an article that can make people think.

    Also, thank you for allowing me to comment!

  2. Blavatsky has something interesting to say about the dual creation myths – the one being cosmogenic and the other one having to do with man himself. Also, the theory of the globes, rounds and races, as first broached by Blavatsky and further expounded on by Alice A. Bailey is a fascinating way to unpack the various creation myths.

  3. spy cam…

    […]Creation ala Genesis « Time Frames and Taboo Data Blog[…]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: