Archive for creationists

Questioning Bible-Style Creation

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, Bible, faith, freethought, Hebrew scripture, humanity, logic, prehistory, random, religion, science, thoughts with tags , , , , , , on May 10, 2011 by chouck017894

God’s revealed word assures us that God merely had to say, “Let there be…” such and such, then such and such appeared.  Thus, without any recipe or formula or blueprint, all the varied components of whatever he envisioned just magically came together in 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 say the Creationists.  However, they never bother themselves to  clarify which version of Creation they promote, conveniently ignoring that chapters one and two of Genesis give differing accounts!  And, of course, we are instructed to never ask how God came into existence.  Is this supernatural version of how matter and life came into existence really worthy to be taught in any school?

However, in order for all of God’s forms which he had manifested to be regenerated and maintained, a systematic routine had to be put in place.  And that regenerating system for each and every thing that he had created required a recipe or formula or blueprint for its continuation.  Scientific sleuthing managed to discover a 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 the “revealed” word of God by thousands of years, and therefore were not privileged to divine enlightenment, apparently had to grope about in ignorance of how everything became created.  It was up to the priests in Jerusalem in the much later 8th century BCE 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, but God was interested in enlightening only a tiny percent of the people about the facts of his acts of Creation.  And that tiny percent happened to be 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 varied life forms has long served enterprising Bible interpreters as a sacred mystery to be used for their own ends.  Maybe we should question the Bible-style version of Creation.

Planet Earth is heavy with chemical components, and it is this chemical heaviness which stands as a major argument against biological life having originated here.  Science says 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 Earth—a short time in Creation terms.  To science it seems to be a case of too much too soon.

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 then exited 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 a composition, wouldn’t it seem logical that these more abundant elements would figure in any life forms that developed in the primal stew—if not prominently, then at least moderately?  But nickel and chromium play practically no role in the biochemical structure of the life forms that developed and thrive on this planet.

On the other hand, the element molybdenum, a metallic element of the chromium group is quite rare on this planet, but nonetheless it plays a pivotal role in enzymatic reactions that are vitally necessary to all biological life!  Furthermore, if biological life arose on this planet in a simmering primeval stew, as once thought, 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.  All life forms on Earth share a single genetic composition.  To religionists, of course, this genetic singularity can be brushed aside as the work of God.

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 Earth, however.  According  to the deciphered texts, life on this planet developed billions of years ago from an outer space source; from a huge 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 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 as 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 this possibly be the same god  that the post-Sumerian Genesis story relates commanded 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, have offered 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 week?