posted
This thread may only be of interest to those who are religious of the "Christian" persuasion, but not exclusive to anyone of course. It touches on cloning, and space travel and human nature and it does contradict or clash with alot of current christian doctrine, but hopefully not blasphemously.
In another thread someone claimed:
quote:The other one, of course, is that an invisible man in the sky created us in His own image. Which is more scientific?
Now I looked at that with the same approach the poster did, and I got to thinking about the part "man crated us in his own image". The "invisible" and "sky" is really not what caught my attention as it had nothing to do with man creating us.
So I looked up in the standard Christian Bible, King James version the first few verses of the Hebrew book of Genesis. They say:
quote:1 First God made heaven & earth 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
The first verse says that God made heaven & earth. Ok earth could mean the physical dirt and heaven could mean the atmosphere/sky or the galaxy, I really don't know although heaven is used in reference to the sky purportedly by the same author.
Many people interpret this to mean that there was nothing and then there was something, earth. Created Matter if you will.
But the next verse says: "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep;"
It is somewhat cryptic and the original author (Moses or someone(s) claiming to be him) isn't around to ask to clarify. But can "form and void" mean that there was matter in the form of basic element molecules that this "God" used to create "earth"? Man currently can make earth and water, of course on a much smaller scale, currently? Does science state that it's impossible or improbable that man would ever be able to do it on that scale. Is there a limiting "wall" that it's impossible to get around?
The rest of the verse says "and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters." Again, very cryptic and we have the introduction of a new "element" called "Spirit of God" which has all sorts of possibilities but I'm focusing on the "moving" part.
In another thread there were a couple of people who said:
quote: the current driving force behind all life is water.
In that same thread a person stated about dead molecular structures evolving into life:
quote: it was floating in a soup of unusual chemical compounds and being exposed to electricity when, in a very rare conjunction of events, it polymerized.
Could the "Spirit of God" be electricity or something that had the same properties as "electricity"? Could it be a person (Christians would identify it as "Jesus Christ"). Another thing to note is that it's upon the "surface" of the water. What would be on the Surface of the water? Would macromolecules made of biologic compounds float or sink? I really don't know. That phrase is loaded with "what if's".
The next verse "3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light." This is a very simplistic verse. It is the very first verse in which this "God" actually speaks whether literally or metaphorically. But I think it's not the Sun. Dogma says that it was a simple word that turned the light on. I think, IMHO, that it includes forming the mass of some light and then setting in motion the chemical reactions that "turned it on". I have no idea if there are reactions that produce light similar to the sun without actually having a sun. I don't know if science allows for man to be able to create light that way. But it's light of it's own, but not the sun. Or at least not the sun we see as it's created later.
The next verse: "And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness." Here we see that this "God" being can observe the results and the introduction of Morality/Ethics with the results being "Good". I think it's important to note that it is "Good" and not "perfect". I don't know why it's not perfect. I don't know if the Sun is perfect literally or not.
The second part is "And God separated the light from the darkness". This to me means the introduction of Magnetic Fields. Perhaps even the beginning of the rotation of the earth. It also bespeaks to me that Magnetic fields can affect light. I don't know if light reacts to magnetic fields. I don't know if it's possible to NOT have light and darkness always separated. To actually have light and dark occupy the same "space" with the absence of Magnetic fields/forces.
And I'm getting vewy, vewy tired and I haven't even gotten to "MAN" yet and Cloning and "forming" vs. "created" questions.
If this is stupid, I'm sorry. I'm sure there are tomes of books that addess this similarly. Quack science or religion or philosophy or whatever. I just look at the direction science is going and the POWER it is giving to man and suddenly the "man created man and earth" doesn't seem as farfetched as a hundred years ago. Doesn't mean it's any less. Just a hmmmm late night philosophizing.
Anyways, have a good night all!
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you believe in resurrection/reincarnation/any-form-of-life-after-death, you must believe that science isn't capable of explaining it because nobody knows how to study it. Therefore science can't explain everything.
The "Public/Hollywood Version of a Scientist" would answer that you should not believe anything that can't be seen/studied. The best argument for their cause is the hordes of people who believe(d) things that are pretty silly: Earth is flat & at the center of universe. Anyone still believe those?
Either you believe in things that aren't seen or you don't.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, you're hardly the first to try to identify scientific methods in the Book of Genesis; among some Mormons I know, it's practically a party game.
Out of interest, why do you believe that this approach -- that some super-powerful alien being came along and created our planet and the life on it using some method -- is more likely than the possibility that life simply arose on this planet, especially when you consider that your scenario still requires life to arise somewhere in order to produce the alien being in the first place?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cstrom, half of what you suggest is actually considered Mormon doctrine.
(adding in response to what TD has said) It is considered practially a "party game" because of Mormon beliefs about the nature of science and the universe.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
