was the creation story necessarily about earth

[granpa]

Well, FWIW, heres my opinion about that:
interstellar dust grains/living molecules - Science Forums

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, FWIW, here's my opinion about that:
interstellar dust grains/living molecules - Science Forums

Sure, the theory has been floating around about 40 years or so.
Alas, no supporting data.



http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/1819/reading-space-dust

 

[SkyWriting]

<snip>
...development of modern cosmology. Also in the ancient frame of reference, there could be only one earth as there can be only one centre of the universe and everything around it is heaven.

Scientifically, there seems to be only one center. Us.


The Center of the Universe is in Historic Wallace Idaho

 

[granpa]

No. I've never seen anything like what I'm suggesting anywhere.

from the article you link to:

Viable bacterial cells are present in interstellar clouds

I didnt say anything about bacterial cells.
I specifically said

single self-replicating ribozyme-like molecule'.

your article also says:

Anaerobic bacteria replicate and increase their numbers vastly in the warm liquid interiors of comets.

I specifically said

there would be no need for water.
Water is the 'medium' in which life processes occur on earth.
In space, space itself would be the 'medium'.

Also I love it when people that disagree with a unproven theory declare
that there isnt a 'shred of evidence'.
There is lots of evidence for organic molecules and PAH's in space.
There just isnt any proof that the molecules are the result of life.
Do you really think that you arent going to get called out when
you make such an atrociously wrong statement?
You do understand the difference between evidence and proof dont you?

 

[granpa]

deleted

 

[Jig]

The statistical odds of their being other life in the universe is quite high. There are billions of galaxies just like ours, with the potential for billions of other Earth-like planets capable of sustaining life.

The odds of life on other "life sustainable" planets is quite high ONLY if abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) is possible. To date, this has been unproven to be true.

 

[juvenissun]

Rule of thumb: If a headline has any combination of Pope + an action, then the Pope probably had nothing to do with it. <-- Good rule of thumb borrowed from a person on OBOB. It was actually a Vatican astronomer who talked about this, not "the Vatican" as a whole, much less the Pope.

That's a massive stretch. Is the ark floating through space instead of the ocean now? What is the rain, then? There's no textual (much less historical) evidence to suggest that the ark story is talking about anything more than a human building a boat to save all the animals.

I thought you are for the metaphoric interpretation of the Scripture. This would be one of the consequences.

 

[gluadys]

That's a massive stretch.

I thought you are for the metaphoric interpretation of the Scripture. This would be one of the consequences.

No, juvie. Metaphors don't stretch like that. That would be like saying "snow white" can mean "coal black". Metaphoric interpretation doesn't mean you can say the text means any old thing that pops into your head.

 

[juvenissun]

Then I suddenly had a wild idea.
I will probably get burned at the stake for this but here goes.

Creation:

There is bound to be life elsewhere in the universe so one would naturally expect the creation story to tell us something about it.
interstellar dust grains/living molecules - Science Forums

What if the creation story wasnt about the planet earth at all
but rather about the homeworld of some extraterrestrials that came to earth.
That would explain why it seems to contradict
what we know about the evolution of life on earth.​

When and why did they come to earth?

Perhaps they came here in the days of Noah.
The ark would then be a spaceship.
If their homeworld were destroyed then
that would explain why the Bible says "all flesh died"
as well as explaining why they left their homeworld.​

Creation of another planet, another solar system, and aliens will face exactly the same problems as the creation of earth and human. So, why bother to shift the goal?

Life ("low" form) could not survive in space without a protection against cosmic rays. So I don't think it is a good idea to assume any life form on or in space dust.

Your creation interpretation sounds exciting because it is fresh. But I don't think it will be any easier than the traditional one. So, given some time, it will fade away because who will wait for the sample of space dust, while we have tons of earth dust at hand?

However, I do agree that God creates plants everywhere in the universe. That is why we got organic molecules in meteorites.

 

[juvenissun]

No, juvie. Metaphors don't stretch like that. That would be like saying "snow white" can mean "coal black". Metaphoric interpretation doesn't mean you can say the text means any old thing that pops into your head.

So, how do yo sort out the "proper" metaphors?

 

[granpa]

the interiors of molecular clouds (where stars and planetary systems form) are shielded from cosmic rays

 

[granpa]

Creation of another planet, another solar system, and aliens will face exactly the same problems as the creation of earth and human. So, why bother to shift the goal?

Huh?
What problems are you talking about?

 

[juvenissun]

Huh?
What problems are you talking about?

Origin problems. Such as: the origin of aliens?

 

[granpa]

why would that be a problem?

 

[juvenissun]

why would that be a problem?

Because the origin of human is a problem. So will be the origin of aliens.

 

[granpa]

only in your mind

 

[granpa]

someone somewhere asked why a spaceship would be made of wood.
Perhaps because it was 'grown' not built.
some kind of super high tech superstrong material that
can be programmed to grow to any shape wanted.
probably built by nanobots

 

[juvenissun]

only in your mind

No, it is in your OP.

 

[gluadys]

So, how do yo sort out the "proper" metaphors?

There has to be an appropriate fit between the actual thing and what it is compared with. That is why we say "strong as a lion" not "strong as a mouse" (unless we mean it as a joke).

So even if one thinks the creation accounts are metaphorical, they are still accounts of the creation of the reality we call earth and its inhabitants. Even the heavenly bodies are described as we view them from earth. The sun, for example, is not a "great light" viewed from outside the solar system.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I thought you are for the metaphoric interpretation of the Scripture. This would be one of the consequences.

No, this is a consequence of someone reading psuedoscience/pseudohistory into the Bible. It's the same as creationism, except with different subject matter.