Questioning Scriptural Creation Account

God’s revealed word assures us that God merely had to say “Let there be…” such and such, and then such and such appeared. 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 in just seven “days.” Or so the Creationists avow. However, they never bother themselves to clarify which of the two Creation versions they promote, conveniently ignoring that chapters one and two of Genesis give somewhat differing specifics! And, of course, we are instructed to never ask how God himself came into existence. Is this imaginative account given in Genesis of how matter and life came into existence really worthy to be taught in school science classes as creationists clamor?

And what about reproduction? In order for all of God’s varied and diverse material forms which He had manifested by speaking to himself to be regenerated and maintained, God did have to put in place some type of regeneration routine. And that renewal system for each and every thing that He had created by word of mouth required 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 reproduction diagram today as DNA. Life, whether micro or macro, each follow specific developmental (evolutionary) processes, and even galaxies and the universe itself follow the same constant motions of re-creation.

Cultures that preceded the “revealed” word of God by thousands of years, and therefore not privileged to biblical enlightenment, apparently had to grope about in ignorance as to how everything became created. It was up to the self-appointed priests in Jerusalem in the much later 8th century BCE to explain the “revealed” 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 people concerning the facts of his acts of Creation. And that tiny percent just happened to be in the habit of agitating everyone around Jerusalem. Even so, for some holy reason, the particulars of what had gone into his creative process, like the chemical compounds and such, God did not bother himself to explain. 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 utilized for their own ends. Perhaps we should question the Genesis 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 exisitence on primal Earth–an incredibly short time in Creation terms. To science a few hundred million years after Earth’s violent formation and simple life forms were already appearing 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 well over three billion years ago–and these simplest life forms had, as science has shown, molecules of biological origin–it is hard evidence that life forms on this planet arose and developed from some source other than 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 develop in the primeval stew (biblical “dust”), if not prominently, then at least moderately? But nickel and chromium play practically no role whatsoever in the biochemical structure of the life forms that thrive on this planet. Of course they are not needed in the Genesis tale.

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 biological life! Furthermore, if biological life arose on this planet, whether from the “dust” of Eden or in a simmering primeval stew, logic suggests that a variety of genetic codes would have developed. But that did not happen either. Instead, all life forms on Earth developed from a single genetic code—and all life forms share this single genetic composition. To those who idolize the Bible tales, of course this genetic singularity can be brushed aside as proof of God’s verbal commandments.

Some ancient Sumerian cuneiform texts, far older than the priest-written Genesis fable, provide more authoritative information in regard to the puzzle of life’s appearance on Earth, however. According to the deciphered Sumerian texts, life on this planet developed billions of years ago from an outer space source: from a huge planet which 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 Marduk. The Sumerians also referred to that rogue planet, which was obviously not affiliated with our solar system, as “the planet of crossing.” This information later became reworked and the basis for personifying the Babylonian god Marduk, who was credited with bringing the chemistry of life to planet Earth. (Marduk was the source for the name Merodach in the Bible.) Could that possibly be the god that the post-Sumerian Genesis story refers to as commanding the activation of all 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 simply playing a solo game of billiards that “day”?

Advertisements

12 Responses to “Questioning Scriptural Creation Account”

  1. labor lawyers in los angeles

    get greatest info get forever recovery around

  2. Joseph Chinnock

    Questioning Scriptural Creation Account | Time Frames and Taboo Data Blog

  3. May I simply just say what a comfort to find someone that really understands what they are talking
    about. More people really need to check this out and understand this side of the story.

  4. trackback

    Can I just say what a aid to seek out someone who actually knows what theyre talking about on the internet. You undoubtedly know the way to carry a difficulty to gentle and make it important. Extra individuals need to learn this and perceive this side…

  5. I’m very happy to find this web site. I want to to thank you for your time for this wonderful read!!
    I definitely enjoyed every little bit of it and i also have you saved to fav
    to see new stuff in your website.

  6. … [Trackback]

    […] Read More Infos here: timeframesandtaboodata.com/2014/04/01/questioning-scriptural-creation-account/ […]

  7. … [Trackback]

    […] Informations on that Topic: timeframesandtaboodata.com/2014/04/01/questioning-scriptural-creation-account/ […]

  8. … [Trackback]

    […] There you will find 27642 more Infos: timeframesandtaboodata.com/2014/04/01/questioning-scriptural-creation-account/ […]

  9. … [Trackback]

    […] Find More Informations here: timeframesandtaboodata.com/2014/04/01/questioning-scriptural-creation-account/ […]

  10. … [Trackback]

    […] Read More here: timeframesandtaboodata.com/2014/04/01/questioning-scriptural-creation-account/ […]

  11. … [Trackback]

    […] Informations on that Topic: timeframesandtaboodata.com/2014/04/01/questioning-scriptural-creation-account/ […]

  12. … [Trackback]

    […] Read More: timeframesandtaboodata.com/2014/04/01/questioning-scriptural-creation-account/ […]

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