RedCat,
The problem of origin is much deeper than merely the question of where matter came from. The real problem is that of existence: what <u>is</u> matter, what <u>is</u> space, what is reality, and what is the universe? Origin is only half of the problem; the ultimate nature of everything is the other half. God doesn't solve either half of the problem, because God carries its own questions of nature and origin.
Now, I wasn't going to slam you on the head with it, but you seem to be asking for it. The sequence and chronology of Genesis are not in even remote agreement with observed reality. I'm going to make a special case of this, so that I can quote this message again elsewhere, if the need arises. The quotations below are from the KJV bible, Book of Genesis, Chapter 1.
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Heaven undoubtedly refers to the sky, and earth to the ground. Clearly, our planet was not how the universe began. The duality between heaven and earth is also curious, in that later on there is talk of "firmament" which could, conceivably, also denote the sky. But let's just suppose that heaven encompasses the sky and also includes everything "beyond" the sky (as in the place where the souls of the dead go.) Interesting, though, that the "firmament" is later referred to as "Heaven" with capital 'H'. Perhaps "heaven" with small 'h' is only a placeholder for the latter Heaven to come...
You could claim that "heaven" refers to space and "earth" refers to matter/energy, but such an interpretation is ridiculous. If such were indeed to be the meanings of these words, then instead of "earth" the word should have been "matter", and instead of "heaven" the word should have been "void".
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the
face of the waters.
The obvious picture here is of a level, barren surface of the ground. The "face of the deep" refers to the "the face of the waters"; waters presumably cover the featureless ground (oceanic floor) in a "deep" layer.
Following the bang, the universe was populated overwhelmingly with hydrogen and helium. Oxygen was not present in any perceptible amounts, and there was certainly no water to speak of -- not to mention enough water to present a "face" or to form "the deep". Oxygen (and other heavy elements) were manufactured in stars, and were not present in large enough amounts to form large concentrations of complex chemicals (such as water) until the universe was at quite a fraction of its current age. And even then, there were no rocky planets to form a notion of the "earth" for quite some time; early celestial bodies were mere balls of gas.
Of course, you could claim that the "earth" refers to the universe, while the "heaven" refers to the supernatural realm beyond the physical universe. The "deep", then, becomes the dark empty space of the physical universe. However, under this context it is unclear what is meant by "waters". Furthermore, the universe's "deep" did not emerge as an empty and dark void; it emerged as a tiny point crammed with energy at unimaginable densities. The dark void only came about much later, when the universe expanded sufficiently for the light permeating it to fade beyond the visible spectrum. However, even now the "dark" space is aglow with the microwave background, as well as many other forms of radiation including visible light from celestial sources. Certainly, the "dark void" did not exist prior to light, as appears to be the meaning of this and the next verse.
On the other hand, you could suppose that the entire Genesis story is not concerned with the universe at large, but only with the planet Earth in particular. This, however, restricts the story of Genesis to only the last 4.5 billion years and therefore under such an interpretation Genesis has no parallel or indeed no meaningful relationship to the Big Bang theory. That Earth in itself did not exist and then came together is clearly not evidence of creation, under such an interpretation; planets and stars are forming and being destroyed purely under physical laws even as we speak.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
At the start, there was no matter or energy as we know it. However, when the temperatures fell enough for the electromagnetic field to come into existence, there was light right then and there. There was certainly light way before there was any "earth" or "waters"; matter condensed out of energy, not the other way around. At a certain point in that condensation process, the universe became transparent to light, and we still see that primordial light in the form of the microwave background radiation that permeates the universe.
On the other hand, even as the Earth was condensing out of the solar accretion disk, it was likely bathed with light. The Sun's radiation cooked off most of the gas and light elements in the vicinity of the star, pushing them into the outer solar system. The remaining dust and ices clumped into meteoroids and asteroids, then into planetoids. By the time there was enough matter in the Earth's bulk to make it an identifiable planet, the nearby stellar space was already quite "clean" and transparent. And so, even as the early Earth was forming there already was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
There is no meaning in the latter half of that phrase. "Light" is either emission or reflection of photons, darkness is a dearth of photon emission or reflection. To "divide" light from darkness makes no sense at all. Of course, this probably derives from a simplistic anscient concept of light and darkness as two separate entities with independent existence and substance. Yet another primitive theory that by now has been so invalidated that it almost sounds nonsensical. Of course, there should be little surprise that the Torah is inundated with such anscient theories -- that is, if one accepts that it is nothing other than a cultural artifact.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
This implies that the light and the darkness alternate, forming days. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the "light" referred to in Genesis is that of the day, while the darkness is that of the night. Now, it makes sense to divide light from darkness, since day and night are "separate" from each other.
Of course, the universe did not begin with the creation of a sun orbited by a rotating planet made primarily of mineral and containing water. So, is the "first day" the first day of the Universe, or is it the first day of the solar system? Clearly, it already doesn't make sense for it to be a day of the universe, since the universe predates the solar system by anywhere from 5.5 to 10.5 billion years -- and outside of the context of the solar system, there is no source of alternating light and darkness to form "days". But it can't be a day of the solar system either, since seven earth days are clearly not the time span between the formation of the solar system and the present. If anything, the Earth's spin has been slowing down all this time, due to gravitational tugs from the moon and the sun. Moreover, I find it hard to define the exact moment when the Earth as we know it today was formed; our planet formed from multiple collisions between planetoids large and small, and even after the bulk of the Earth was formed, such collisions continued to add mass. The Moon appears to be a product of debris formed in a collision between the early Earth and a Mars-sized planetoid, for example.
If the "days" are not days but merely periods of creation, then they cannot be equal periods as will become apparent soon. If the days are arbitrary intervals of time, then their very presense as a means of installing chronology makes no sense -- especially when viewed in the context of the alleged correspondence between Genesis and natural history; the boundaries of the "days" under such a context do not fall on any significant milestones in the evolution of life on Earth or the planet itself. Moreover, the "evening and the morning" do not make any sense under such an interpretation. It is an incredible stretch to claim that the "evening" and "morning" are merely the beginning and end of the "day", without any reference to the rise and fall of the sun in the sky -- while they appear right in the same verse that defines "light" as "Day" and "darkness" as "Night". Obviously, since "light" is the "Day", and that same "day" is made up of the "evening and morning", then the evening and morning must acquire the meaning that is in accordance with the connotation of daylight.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the
firmament: and it was so.
According to modern theory, the early Earth was little more than a ball of magma; it had very little water content. The water was brought in later on by icy objects such as comets and planetoids formed at a greater distance from the sun. So, the "firmament" was there before the "waters", not the other way around. It's true that subsequently the "waters" mixed into the crust, and later had to be re-expelled by volcanoes to finally form the earth's atmosphere and then to condence into sizable bodies of water on the ground (once the ground was cool enough).
On the other hand, if the "firmament" refers to the sky, then the "waters" are divided into the atmospheric vs. ground-level moisture. Of course, the atmosphere was there long before any significant moisture had a chance to accumulate on the ground.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Here it is, the "firmament" that is "Heaven" -- arriving quite a time after the "heaven and earth" were created...
So, it seems that between formation of the solar system and the appearance of water-encircled continents on earth, two full days had passed. (whatever "day" means...)
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Emergence of continents? But the Earth's surface was riddled with irregularities and volcanoes long before enough water was disgorged by these volcanoes to saturate the atmosphere, and long before the Earth's surface was no longer too hot for water to condense into large bodies. It seems, by all logic, that the "firmament" existed long before the appearance of the "waters".
One saving grace here might be that the "dry land" is implied to be a single land mass, since all the "waters" are "gathered together onto one place"; this might remind one of Pangea, <a href="http://www.platetectonics.com/book/pangea.htm">the apparent mother-continent from which the current continents split away later</a>. But Pangea itself was not a unitary landmass, even though it is spoken of as such. And, it only formed some 320 million years ago, while the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old; this clearly doesn't tie into the Genesis chronology.
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in
itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after
his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
So, if the solar system and the earth with continents and water were formed in two days, then how can fruit trees emerge in a mere "day"? Judging by paleobiological record, it took over 3 billion years for sophisticated land-based plants like grass and trees to develop (or even for the first, 'primitive' land-dwelling plants to emerge); the solar system and the Earth did not take twice that long (6 billion years!) to form.
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for
seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Clearly, here we're talking about stars. Of course, stars were there long before the solar system even began to form, much less produce Earth with its water and plantlife, so the chronology is just flat wrong.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Now that's a little out of sequence, and altogether out of the chain of causality. The "two great lights" are, presumably, the sun and the moon. How this is out of sequence with what happened so far, should be pretty obvious. (There's no way plants can arise before the sun forms, not to mention the fact that the sun was formed at the same time as the earth, etc.) Yet, how can the two be created <u>after</u> the "separation" of light and dark that made day and night? After all, it is the sun that is responsible for that alteration of evening and morning. Though I guess the anscient priests who came up with this fable didn't even so much as comprehend the connection between the sun and the sunlight.
Of course, one way to save face here is to assert that God served the function of the sun until the sun was created. Of course, there's little grace in such a "solution", at least if you are trying to reconcile the story of Genesis with the natural history of the universe.
Another possible 'solution' is to assert that the atmosphere of Earth was not clear enough to permit visible outlines of the sun and moon until after the first land-dwelling plans evolved. Of course, that is downright ridiculous; the atmosphere 500 million years ago was not any less transparent than it is today. For an excellent yet concise timeline of Earth's natural history as pertains to evolution of life, see
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
So now, it seems the sun and the moon only appear on the fourth day. Which means that the "days" are not related to the solar system either. Now, there is absolutely no explanation whatsoever for all "the evening and the morning"s before the fourth day. Of course, to the anscients this probably was not a paradox, since they thought of the sun as merely participating ("ruling over") the daylight, so they had no problem imagining a day without the sun (eclipses must have scared the living yahweh out of them.)
1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the
open firmament of heaven.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind,
and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Again, out of sequence. Fish and other marine animals, as well as reptiles and insects, arose way before the "trees bearing fruit". The modern grasses are also a late-comer, they did not exist even at the time of the dinosaurs. Not to mention that "winged fowl" and "great whales" were not "created"; they evolved out of other life-forms which Genesis, of course, doesn't mention. And of course, how can it? After all, the anscient priests were not aware of evolution and all of its empirical underpinnings, were they?
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his
kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after
his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Once more, out of sequence. At least the "creeping thing" came way before the "winged fowl".
In addition, somewhere in this account we are missing the gigantic extinctions and proliferations of various lifeforms that have happened before Homo Sapiens. We are also missing the microbial flora and fauna. Of course, the anscients did not know about extinct life, nor did they know about microbial life. Certainly explains why such concepts are not present in their creation myths.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the
which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I
have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
And now we come to Homo Sapiens and all the animals, created on the fifth and sixth days. Provided the entire kingdom of animalia is probably not more than about 1 billion years old (and provided also that God subsequently "rested" on the seventh day), then one "day" cannot be longer than some 300 million years. Which means the other 4 preceeding days add up to no more than 1.2 billion years, compared to the 4.5 billion year age of the solar system. Go figure, huh?
And naturally, we have the wonderful statements authorizing mankind to multiply out of control and consume the Earth's resources at will. Think of all the evil that has been authorized and justified by these wonderful religious platitudes. Why, even now they guide our enlightened Republicans in their endeavors.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 22, 2001).]
