The Bible forgot to mention exogenesis

[Lilandra]

If life is discovered to exist on Europa, would it change anyone's mind about the book Genesis as an accurate depiction of the creation of life?​

Not this Europa...​

​

or this one...​

​

But this one...​

The sixth moon of Jupiter.​

Europa is thought to be the most likely candidate in our solar system with favorable conditions for harboring life.
A saltwater ocean is theorized to exist underneath the solid ice top layer.​

Europa's most striking surface feature is a series of dark streaks criss-crossing the entire globe. Close examination shows that the edges of Europa's crust on either side of the cracks have moved relative to each other. The larger bands are roughly 20 km (12 miles) across commonly with dark diffuse outer edges, regular striations, and a central band of lighter material. These may have been produced by a series of volcanic water eruptions or geysers as the Europan crust spread open to expose warmer layers beneath. The effect is similar to that seen in the Earth's oceanic ridges. These various fractures are thought to have been caused in large part by the tidal stresses exerted by Jupiter; Since Europa is tidally locked to Jupiter, and therefore always maintains the same orientation towards the planet, the stress patterns should form a distinctive and predictable pattern.​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)​

Life in the Europan ocean would most like be microbial. Similar conditions may exist in Lake Vostok underneath Antartica.

We are talking about possible exogenesis outside of our planet , but inside our own solar system. Life and possibly complex life is possible inside our Milky Way galaxy. a system with billions of stars. The Milky Way galaxy is in a cluster called the Local group. Its sister galaxy Andromeda is larger. The Local Group is a grouping of a few of the billions of galaxies in the known universe.​

Anecdotally, my Creationist stepmother insists that there is no extraterrestrial life because the Bible doesn't mention it.​

What do you think? Should Genesis be viewed differently in view of the overwhelming possibility that the origin of life is not restricted to a Hebrew story?​

 

[lemmings]

Creationists are convenced that there is a global scientific conspericy that with millions of members that has lasted for over 150 years fueled by the "Atheist Adgenda". A robot smaller than a car, built by the "Atheists" at NASA and over 100,000,000 miles away will not convence them that life outside of the Earth exists.

Also there are those YECs who believe that the Universe is only about 32,189,600,000 miles in diameter and anything byond that is an optical illusion from God so life outside our solar system will be useless.

 

[BoranJarami]

It is not so much that it forgot. First of all, an inanimate object can't forget something. Second, the purpose of the Bible is not to describe in detail the rest of the universe. It is a book about the interaction of God and Earth. You wouldn't expect exogenesis to be mentioned in the Bible much in the same way you wouldn't expect to read about the Mayflower Compact in a book on Ming Dynasty China.

If life is discovered to exist on Europa, would it change anyone's mind about the book Genesis as an accurate depiction of the creation of life?

It would not change my view of Genesis. If there is in fact life (microbial or other) discovered on Europa then there are two scenarios that come to mind.

First is that God (for whatever reason) created life on that moon. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Earth is the only place that God created life. The account in Genesis is focused on the creation of life on earth and the creation of the universe in relation to earth.

Another scenario is that the microbial life was transplanted from Earth (much in the same way that a theory going around a few years ago in the science community claimed that microbial life may have hitched a ride on a meteorite from Mars to Earth).

Creationists are convenced that there is a global scientific conspericy that with millions of members that has lasted for over 150 years fueled by the "Atheist Adgenda".

We do not believe in a conspericy. What we believe is that there is a fundemental error in the philosophy of the modern scientific community. This error is that any data or theory that would lead to a non-emperical conclusion must be inherently in error. This has no logical (or imperical) basis, flies in the face of science, and is widespread in the modern scientific community.

 

[Lilandra]

It is not so much that it forgot. First of all, an inanimate object can't forget something.

Hi Boran.

I believe you know what I meant. The author/s of the Bible did not mention exogenesis.

Second, the purpose of the Bible is not to describe in detail the rest of the universe. It is a book about the interaction of God and Earth. You wouldn't expect exogenesis to be mentioned in the Bible much in the same way you wouldn't expect to read about the Mayflower Compact in a book on Ming Dynasty China.

Okay. The Ming Dynasty/Mayflower compact analogy does not apply. Why are there extra planets in our Solar System that are not mentioned? What is their purpose in a Christian worldview? They would have been created during the same point in time as Earth.

Science explains that the Earth and other planets were formed during the formation of our Sun.

It would not change my view of Genesis. If there is in fact life (microbial or other) discovered on Europa then there are two scenarios that come to mind

First is that God (for whatever reason) created life on that moon. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Earth is the only place that God created life. The account in Genesis is focused on the creation of life on earth and the creation of the universe in relation to earth.

I am not sure what you are getting at. What is mentioned about the universe in relation to Earth in the Bible?

Another scenario is that the microbial life was transplanted from Earth (much in the same way that a theory going around a few years ago in the science community claimed that microbial life may have hitched a ride on a meteorite from Mars to Earth).

You mean Earth to Mars?

We do not believe in a conspericy. What we believe is that there is a fundemental error in the philosophy of the modern scientific community. This error is that any data or theory that would lead to a non-emperical conclusion must be inherently in error. This has no logical (or imperical) basis, flies in the face of science, and is widespread in the modern scientific community.

Please elaborate. The pictures of Europa are the most accurate depiction of an extraterrestrial moon ever seen or read about in the history of mankind.

Isn't Genesis a more non-empirically based document, that doesn't really explain the creation of the Solar System. (Earth included)

 

[BoranJarami]

I believe you know what I meant. The author/s of the Bible did not mention exogenesis.

I was just joking around with this comment.

Okay. The Ming Dynasty/Mayflower compact analogy does not apply. Why are there extra planets in our Solar System that are not mentioned? What is their purpose in a Christian worldview? They would have been created during the same point in time as Earth.

Science explains that the Earth and other planets were formed during the formation of our Sun.

My point is that the Bible was not written to explain every aspect of the universe, as such not everything about the universe is written in it.

Also, I have problems with the theory of the planets being formed from the spinning mass that eventualy became our sun. According to the law of conservation of angular momentum, such a formation would result in planets that rotated in the same direction that the pre-star mass rotated. All the planets should be spinning in the same direction but they are not.

I am not sure what you are getting at. What is mentioned about the universe in relation to Earth in the Bible?

Mainly the development of universe as compared to the development of earth (such as when God "set" the "lights" in the heavens).

You mean Earth to Mars?

No, from Mars to Earth (as far as I can remember). When what was thought to be a meteorite from Mars was discovered to contain what was thought to be evidence of microbial life, there was alot of chatter over life hoping from one planet to another. I don't know whatever became of that rock or what was determined about it though. hmm.

Please elaborate. The pictures of Europa are the most accurate depiction of an extraterrestrial moon ever seen or read about in the history of mankind.

Isn't Genesis a more non-empirically based document, that doesn't really explain the creation of the Solar System. (Earth included)

This wasn't a response to the issue of Europa, but to a coment made by lemmings about creationists being conspiracy theorists.

Yes, the Bible is (for a good part) non-empirical and the study of Europa is emperical, but that is not my point. While it is proper to believe that science cannot investigate non-emperical claims nor can it provide non-emperical solutions, many in the science community take this further in practice. They automaticaly reject non-emperical explainations because they cannot investigate them in science and they tend to dismiss scientific claims that would (by extension) demand non-emperical explainations.

An example of this was research done on helium difussion in zercon crystals. The conclusion of the study was that radioscopic age measurments on at least some materials would be off by a very great amount of time (on the younger side). The conclusion of this would of couse be that that earth is in fact much younger then it is claimed to be. So much so that evolution could not account for the diversity of life. The research was automticaly dismissed by the scientific community.

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

If life is discovered to exist on Europa, would it change anyone's mind about the book Genesis as an accurate depiction of the creation of life?

No

Because it would be scientific evidence

And its not as if scientific evidence is lacking already, if people haven't started to understand science yet, well they probably won't

 

[AV1611VET]

If life is discovered to exist on Europa, would it change anyone's mind about the book Genesis as an accurate depiction of the creation of life?

Not at all --- this universe is teeming with life from one end to the other --- our instruments just aren't "tuned" to the right specs to detect them.

But angels aside, I don't think we'll find biological life elsewhere because of the Anthropic Principle.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Yes, the Bible is (for a good part) non-empirical and the study of Europa is emperical, but that is not my point. While it is proper to believe that science cannot investigate non-emperical claims nor can it provide non-emperical solutions, many in the science community take this further in practice. They automaticaly reject non-emperical explainations because they cannot investigate them in science and they tend to dismiss scientific claims that would (by extension) demand non-emperical explainations.

What is the scientific alternative to empiricism? I suspect you have ideas about "intuition" and "revelation" in mind, but how are those things reliable? Lots of people intuit things that are wrong; lots of people believe their gods have revealed mutually exclusive things.

An example of this was research done on helium difussion in zercon crystals. The conclusion of the study was that radioscopic age measurments on at least some materials would be off by a very great amount of time (on the younger side). The conclusion of this would of couse be that that earth is in fact much younger then it is claimed to be. So much so that evolution could not account for the diversity of life. The research was automticaly dismissed by the scientific community.

And by "automatically" I assume you mean, "with thoroughness, methodology, and documentation"?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

 

[Lilandra]

Not at all --- this universe is teeming with life from one end to the other --- our instruments just aren't "tuned" to the right specs to detect them.

So the billions stars in our galaxy and billions of galaxies in the known universe are inhabited by angels? Our one planet alone is inhabited by biological life?

But angels aside, I don't think we'll find biological life elsewhere because of the Anthropic Principle.

So all those billions of galaxies are the by-product of the creation of the Earth?

The tail wags the dog in your universe.

 

[shernren]

In the same way that the Bible forgot this, too:

... I can see that the Bible is entirely written using contemporary (to its being written) science, geocentricity and ignorance of exogenesis and all. I have no problems with that.

 

[Lilandra]

My point is that the Bible was not written to explain every aspect of the universe, as such not everything about the universe is written in it.

You say this but later you state the Bible says that God set the lights in our heavens. Which is it?

Also, I have problems with the theory of the planets being formed from the spinning mass that eventualy became our sun. According to the law of conservation of angular momentum, such a formation would result in planets that rotated in the same direction that the pre-star mass rotated. All the planets should be spinning in the same direction but they are not.

Newtonian physics states that an object will continue to move in the same the direction unless acted on by an unbalanced force. The movement of the planets are subject to different forces that act upon them.

Mainly the development of universe as compared to the development of earth (such as when God "set" the "lights" in the heavens).

Here is the statement I was referring to. It makes more sense in light of what has been observed that the lights were not set in our heavens.

Scientifically those lights were shining for billions of years, some before the existence of our Solar System.

No, from Mars to Earth (as far as I can remember). When what was thought to be a meteorite from Mars was discovered to contain what was thought to be evidence of microbial life, there was alot of chatter over life hoping from one planet to another. I don't know whatever became of that rock or what was determined about it though. hmm.

I think you are referring to the Martian meteor discovered here but actually first originated on Earth.

Yes, the Bible is (for a good part) non-empirical and the study of Europa is emperical, but that is not my point.

This is the original purpose for me posting this thread. The study of Europa is just one of many lines of evidence that the creation of the universe is not centered on us as depicted in Genesis.

While it is proper to believe that science cannot investigate non-emperical claims nor can it provide non-emperical solutions, many in the science community take this further in practice. They automaticaly reject non-emperical explainations because they cannot investigate them in science and they tend to dismiss scientific claims that would (by extension) demand non-emperical explainations.

I can not think of one thing that "demands a non-empirical answer".

An example of this was research done on helium difussion in zercon crystals. The conclusion of the study was that radioscopic age measurments on at least some materials would be off by a very great amount of time (on the younger side). The conclusion of this would of couse be that that earth is in fact much younger then it is claimed to be. So much so that evolution could not account for the diversity of life. The research was automticaly dismissed by the scientific community.

I think if you rely on creationist sources that you will continue to be mislead about the quality of evidence for a young Earth. (still doesn't explain the presence of the other planets in our Solar System and extrasolar planets.)

Dr. Humphrey's research is fatally flawed.

When performing research, scientists must carefully follow all quality control/quality assurance (QC/QA) procedures. Essential QC/QA procedures include properly collecting, identifying, labeling, storing and monitoring all samples. If the collection site of a specimen is unknown or if it has been improperly stored for several decades, any resulting data are often useless.
Unfortunately for them, Dr. Humphreys and his colleagues have failed to comply with the most fundamental QC/QA requirements. Throughout their 2003a article, Humphreys et al. claim to have studied biotites and zircons from samples of the "Jemez granodiorite" collected at a depth of 750 meters from the Fenton Hill borehole site. More recently, Humphreys et al. (2003b; 2004, p. 5) continue to refer to their "granodiorite" samples from depths of 750 and 1,490 meters. Granodiorites are igneous rocks that crystallize from melts (magmas) deep in the subsurface. As their name implies, they have intermediate chemical composition between a granite and a diorite, which means that granodiorites tend to have more silicon than diorites and more magnesium and iron than granites (Hyndman, 1985, p. 46).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

IOW he didn't follow a basic tenet of the Scientific Method. He didn't verify whether or not his research was flawed. Furthermore, he didn't have the honesty to admit he misindentified the rocks when peer review revealed this.

 

[Lilandra]

... I can see that the Bible is entirely written using contemporary (to its being written) science, geocentricity and ignorance of exogenesis and all. I have no problems with that.

But it fails to explain the origin of the Earth. Genesis reads as an explanation.

If it is wrong about things like geocentrism why trust anything it has to say?

 

[AV1611VET]

So the billions stars in our galaxy and billions of galaxies in the known universe are inhabited by angels?

In my opinion, yes. Our particular sun was home to Lucifer --- but again, in my opinion.

Our one planet alone is inhabited by biological life?

Unless life can adapt to the severe conditions of the planets, there is no life on them, no.

So all those billions of galaxies are the by-product of the creation of the Earth?

No --- they are the direct product of the Creator.

The tail wags the dog in your universe.

Depends on who its master is.

 

[shernren]

But it fails to explain the origin of the Earth. Genesis reads as an explanation.

If it is wrong about things like geocentrism why trust anything it has to say?

I am surprised at how consistently I have to treat non/ex-Christian views of Genesis in the same way I have to treat YEC views of Genesis. "Genesis reads as an explanation" sounds exactly like something a YEC would say; the YEC goes on to reject science for Scripture, while the non/ex-Christian goes on to reject Scripture for science.

But take a look at Genesis 1:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. - doesn't say how.
Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep - doesn't say why. (Unless, of course, you are conversant with the order-chaos myths of the region.)
and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. - doesn't say what exactly He was doing.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. - doesn't say how. God speaks and it exists; no proximate mechanism is mentioned, but that may not mean no proximate mechanism was used.
Genesis 1:4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. - doesn't say how.
Genesis 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." (If we were really being told a sequence of events, why would it matter that God named these things? Naming is entirely a theological point here, and thus it is conceivable that the whole point of this passage is a theological, not a historical, point.)
And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day. - the first in six poetic refrains.
(NIV)

We do not have mechanisms here. Genesis 1 reads like a point-blank list of everything the Jews knew about, organized into six blocs, and then all attributed to God's creative action instead of having the right to be worshiped as gods themselves. The closest thing you have to a mechanism is that God spoke.

There's a reason I constantly reuse that S. Harris cartoon (where Moses descending from Mt. Sinai says "Ten Commandments and the Periodic Table - all we need to know!"). It's because we often expect that of the Bible. We expect that what God writes has to make scientific sense to us, when in fact God was communicating to a bunch of pre/proto-scientific nomads who could barely smelt metal, let alone understand whatever GUT God has up His sleeves. It would certainly be nice if God had taught us quantum mechanics or general relativity in the Bible. But would it have been necessary? God gave us brains, and He made the universe amenable to investigation using said brains, and I think He's paid us a compliment by letting us discover all the science we know by our own brainpower, by objective investigation of a universe in which by His mercy rain and sun fall on the righteous and the wicked. He's been content to let us learn whatever we can learn on our own.

But the Bible is given and Jesus came precisely to teach us what we can never learn on our own, and to reach out to us when we would never have been able to reach out to Him.

And that's why I have no qualms with believing the Bible even when it is obviously written to a pre/proto-scientific culture. (There are some who will say that there were modern scientific truths hidden within it like Easter eggs in a computer program. I'm not one of them.) In a way, it reassures me too: if lack of knowledge never condemned the Israelites (so that God was content with their lack of knowledge) then it will never condemn me either.

 

[AV1611VET]

And that's why I have no qualms with believing the Bible even when it is obviously written to a pre/proto-scientific culture. (There are some who will say that there were modern scientific truths hidden within it like Easter eggs in a computer program. I'm not one of them.)

You "scientists" arrogance disgusts me.

 

[TeddyKGB]

You "scientists" arrogance disgusts me.

In the interests of replying in the most humorous yet subtly insulting way possible, I'm going to think on this a while.

 

[shernren]

You "scientists" arrogance disgusts me.

Takes one to know one, doesn't it?

I'm assuming that you concede that the rest of my post, which you did not respond to at the same time, is right. Thank you.

 

[Baggins]

You "scientists" arrogance disgusts me.

A well written and robust rebuttal.

With debating skills of this quality it is difficult to see why you are the only person in the world who accepts your views.

 

[Lilandra]

I am surprised at how consistently I have to treat non/ex-Christian views of Genesis in the same way I have to treat YEC views of Genesis. "Genesis reads as an explanation" sounds exactly like something a YEC would say; the YEC goes on to reject science for Scripture, while the non/ex-Christian goes on to reject Scripture for science.

I respect your opinion, I once argued the TE position earnestly. But I realized there is no way to verify the Christian worldview. The God of the Bible exists only in the Bible. There is no supporting evidence that the god described in the Bible exists. This may be for any or none of these 2 reasons...

1. There is no substance to the assertions to verify. The universe is what it appears to be a materialist universe.

2. We are not able physically to "know" such a thing. In which case the question is moot.

But take a look at Genesis 1:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. - doesn't say how.
Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep - doesn't say why. (Unless, of course, you are conversant with the order-chaos myths of the region.)
and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. - doesn't say what exactly He was doing.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. - doesn't say how. God speaks and it exists; no proximate mechanism is mentioned, but that may not mean no proximate mechanism was used.
Genesis 1:4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. - doesn't say how.
Genesis 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." (If we were really being told a sequence of events, why would it matter that God named these things? Naming is entirely a theological point here, and thus it is conceivable that the whole point of this passage is a theological, not a historical, point.)
And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day. - the first in six poetic refrains.
(NIV)

We do not have mechanisms here. Genesis 1 reads like a point-blank list of everything the Jews knew about, organized into six blocs, and then all attributed to God's creative action instead of having the right to be worshiped as gods themselves. The closest thing you have to a mechanism is that God spoke.

There's a reason I constantly reuse that S. Harris cartoon (where Moses descending from Mt. Sinai says "Ten Commandments and the Periodic Table - all we need to know!"). It's because we often expect that of the Bible. We expect that what God writes has to make scientific sense to us, when in fact God was communicating to a bunch of pre/proto-scientific nomads who could barely smelt metal, let alone understand whatever GUT God has up His sleeves. It would certainly be nice if God had taught us quantum mechanics or general relativity in the Bible. But would it have been necessary? God gave us brains, and He made the universe amenable to investigation using said brains, and I think He's paid us a compliment by letting us discover all the science we know by our own brainpower, by objective investigation of a universe in which by His mercy rain and sun fall on the righteous and the wicked. He's been content to let us learn whatever we can learn on our own.

I would not trust my own children to learn on their own without my guidance. How much more so is mankind going to blunder into its own demise by playing with fire?

And that's why I have no qualms with believing the Bible even when it is obviously written to a pre/proto-scientific culture. (There are some who will say that there were modern scientific truths hidden within it like Easter eggs in a computer program. I'm not one of them.) In a way, it reassures me too: if lack of knowledge never condemned the Israelites (so that God was content with their lack of knowledge) then it will never condemn me either.

it's not like I wouldn't rather believe the Creator of the universe cares about me or humans. I don't see any evidence of this. He/She/It was careful to cover any trace of its existence or doesn't exist.

 

[BoranJarami]

You say this but later you state the Bible says that God set the lights in our heavens. Which is it?

This is not a contradiction, the lights that we see in the day and night are very much related to earth and God's involvement in it.

I think you are referring to the Martian meteor discovered here but actually first originated on Earth.

Perhaps, but I didn't follow that story very closely, and besides that I was only useing it to help explain a possability for life on Europa.

Newtonian physics states that an object will continue to move in the same the direction unless acted on by an unbalanced force. The movement of the planets are subject to different forces that act upon them.

Yes, but in order for the rotation to be the oposite of which it was originaly, the force would have to be in the oposite direction and greater then the momentum of the rotation. I can think of no such forces that would not destroy the planet. If there are, then I am wrong.

Here is the statement I was referring to. It makes more sense in light of what has been observed that the lights were not set in our heavens.

Scientifically those lights were shining for billions of years, some before the existence of our Solar System.

"set" does not mean created. It menas to put into place or change place and considering that the creation account deals with creation from Earth's perspective, it most likely means that either God changed the location, rotation, and/or tilt of the earth so that the celestial bodies apear as they now do, or that God made changes in the location or orbit of celestial bodies (such as the moon and stars). Nowhere does it say that the other celestial bodies were not already in existence.

This is the original purpose for me posting this thread. The study of Europa is just one of many lines of evidence that the creation of the universe is not centered on us as depicted in Genesis.

This is where you are wrong. Genesis does not depict Earth being the center of creation. The account is focused on the creation of Earth's life and ecosystem development. Only when a person reads more into the account then what is being daid, does it apear to say that Earth is the focus of the creation of the universe. The fact is that the only mention of the creation of the universe is in Genesis 1:1 where it says that God created the heavens (everything beyond the earth) and the earth.

That's the point. Such evidence is automaticaly dismissed by the scientific community (not on the merits of science, but on the philosophy of modern scientists) and never reaches the public at large.

I think if you rely on creationist sources that you will continue to be mislead about the quality of evidence for a young Earth. (still doesn't explain the presence of the other planets in our Solar System and extrasolar planets.)

I do not rely on creationist resourses. I read Dr. Humphrey's study and tried to find arguments against it, but at the time the only refutation I could find were blanket statements about how his science can't be trusted because he is a creationist and that young earth dates are impossible because it goes against all we know about science.

Dr. Humphrey's research is fatally flawed.

I will have to look over the full article.