Smoggy skies "created life on Earth"
Smoggy skies 'created life on Earth'
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Last Updated: 1:33pm GMT 10/11/2006
Hazy, smoggy skies on baby Earth could have provided the chemical building blocks of the very first life on our planet, according to a study of one of Saturn's moons.
Primordial Earth likely had a layer of atmospheric haze, similar to the one currently on the moon Titan, that may have served as the principal reservoir of life’s building blocks, according to the study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
One of Titan’s most striking features is its thick hazy layer of organic aerosols, which arises from chemical reactions between the methane and nitrogen molecules high in the atmosphere, driven by ultraviolet light.
Prof Margaret Tolbert at the University of Colorado and colleagues mimicked Titan’s chemistry by using UV lamps in various simulated atmospheres.
The researchers found that a methane-nitrogen mix would produce multiple types of long-chain hydrocarbons, including some aromatic compounds such as benzene.
The predicted products match well with some of the known components observed by the Huygens probe to Saturn. The researchers then added carbon dioxide gas to the mix to see if conditions that were probably present on early Earth would produce a similar haze.
"It turns out that organic haze can form over a wide range of methane and carbon dioxide concentrations," said Prof Tolbert. "This means that hazy conditions could have been present for many millions or even a billion years on Earth while life was evolving."
The researcher calculate that Earth could have produced more than100 million tons of aerosols each year, and thus these organic chemicals in the haze could have served as the primary ingredients for primitive life.
According to co-author Melissa Trainer "As these particles settled out of the skies, they would have provided a global source of food for living organisms. We found that you can make a lot of organic material virtually out of thin air."
In addition to serving as a source of organic material, a haze layer over Earth could have shielded living organisms from harmful UV rays and helped to regulate Earth’s early climate, according to the study.
The haze may have contributed to the geological record on Earth by depositing organic carbon into some of the planet’s most ancient rocks, said Alexander Pavlov, a co-author of the report at the University of Arizona.
"Our paper is the first but necessary step which suggests that the total mass of organics derived photochemically could have been comparable to the total mass of organics in ancient sediments," he said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
O for pete's sake, this is supposed to be science??? Ok, I know that it's not possible to know EXACTLY what went on at any time when history did not accurately record what took place, and if you eroneously believe that the bible doesn't accurately record the creation of the earth, then science is what you are left with. HOWEVER, science is a process, which brings up my problem once more with evolution. Did you notice all the -could have's, probably's, may have's, might have's, likely's, would have's- present in this article??? Please keep in mind that this terminology leaves one at the HYPOTHESIS stage! Folks out of the five steps in the scientific method, this is only STEP 2! Step one is to make observations. The so-called researchers are hypothesizing that these things could have been what started life. But is it recorded as hypothesis? No, absolutely not.
After seeing that life exists, instead of forming and testing a hypothesis, these researchers instead formed a conclusion (that life on earth evolved) and then began running tests to try and create a protein or some form of organic life period. When even partially successful, they then state their hypotheses as CONCLUSIONS.
This is what creates havoc for all the evolution scientists out there. They have no hard evidence for evolution. They have only speculation. But you see, the idea has already been formed.... that there simply cannot be a God who created life as the bible says He did. Deists and ignorant or mislead Christians buy into the same ideas in an attempt to make the bible fit what the "scientists" have concluded so that they don't have to have an argument based on God. Unfortunately, the 'conclusions' are simply hypotheses that are misstated. Their willingness to stand in an educational forum and stand on God and say that science will prove God's account true, is nonexistant. Their humanity keeps them from looking foolish in man's eyes, but instead causes them to appear foolish in God's eyes.
Anyway, re-read this 'scientific' account, notice the terminology which is supposed to indicate a conclusion but only says "we don't know but we refuse to say it wasn't evolution because then there's a God and we don't like that". Then look at other 'scientific' accounts and notice the same terminology. It's a misuse of the scientific method...a gross misuse.
Next, if you want to see the scientific method truly worked out by some of the most degreed and pedigreed minds in any scientific field of study, and see why they didn't come up with evolution, and why they became Christians at the same time, check out this website: www.answersingenesis.org Not only are these guys(hundreds of them) brilliant, but they prove (not guess) that science doesn't refute the bible, it supports it.
posted by Athosxc @ 11/10/2006 01:17:00 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
An interesting article, but, yes, you are correct, they have a long way to go before they can set forth a testable theory. However, if one was attempting to reconcile science with the creation story in Genesis 1, one could do it using the following evidence.
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God brooded [rachaph – “like a hen sitting on eggs” upon the face of the waters [mayim]. And God said, Let there be a firmament [raqiya` - “expanse, atmosphere”] in the midst of the waters [mayim], and let it divide the waters [mayim] from the waters [mayim]. And God made the firmament [raqiya`], and divided the waters [mayim] which [were] under the firmament [raqiya`] from the waters [mayim] which [were] above the firmament [raqiya`], and it was so. And God called the firmament [raqiya`], Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters [mayim] called he Seas [yam]: and God saw that [it was] good. And God said, Let the waters [mayim] bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament [raqiya`] of heaven.”
One could interpret the “haze” to be the firmament or expanse above the waters where the Holy Spirit is creating life on the first day that we see appear on the fifth day… before both animals and then finally man are created on the sixth day.
But such an approach is both futile and ineffective. Yes, I do agree with you; we as believers should not be trying to reconcile science and Genesis 1. It would be like trying to reconcile Jesus’ Parable of the Sower with modern agriculture or attempting to reconcile the temple described in Ezekiel 40-48 with modern architecture. Its best to simply preach the unchanging meaning of the story and leave the always changing scientific hypotheses to the scientists.
But check out the word play here. This is a brilliant bit of writing. The writer must’ve been the best of his generation. The puns are flying faster than in a Marx Brothers movie.
God ['elohiym] let the waters [mayim] bring forth [sharats] the crawling creatures [sherets] and the open [paniym] sky [shamayim] brings forth fowl [`owph] that fly [`uwph] above the earth ['erets].
And God said, Let the waters [mayim] bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament [raqiya`] of heaven.” Taken from the KJV of Gen 1.
A more accurate rendering comes from either the NKJV, ESV, NASB, etc, which says that :"And God said, 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of livng creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens'"
The first thing to point out is that this is the same reading as when God said "Let there be light", but of course we wouldn't try to say that 'darkness over the face of the deep or waters'(over which hovered the spirit of God) suddenly and without cause spawned light out of nothingness....or would you?
The second thing to point out is that verse 21 in ANY of the above translations says "So God created the great sea creatrues and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind."
The same point is made in verses 24 and 25 about the animals on dry land.
So, circenses, yes, the writer is good, he's very good. He should be, he was well educated in the palace of pharoah, but more than that, he was inspired by God. Sarcastic and full of wit? No, not hardly. There was no need for puns. More like awe and wonder.
When keeping in context, use all of the context. Otherwise, all the use of greek and hebrew still doesn't help you much.
I will give you this though, you're right to say that we don't need to be reconciling science to Scripture. There isn't a separation between the two when it comes to the beginnings of the Earth. If you follow Genesis chapter 1, (which is, by the way, the only timeline given step-by-step for creation), then it's very easy to see how creation took place. God spoke. Now, if you believe God is as powerful as He claims to be, then there isn't a conflict in believing that His words alone could do that.
Again, evolution science still needs to get beyond the stage of hypothesizing. To date, this hasn't happened. And unfortunately, if you're holding your breath in hope, it never will. Because it didn't take place in such manner.
The more accurate rendering comes from the Hebrew.
The odd thing about this issue is that while having no problem at all with biological evolution and the “inerrant” Scriptures everyone always assumes that I believe in “existence without cause”. Why is that? I always say God is the cause but nobody wants to except the idea that such a scenario is possible. Really, the issue is not whether God created but how … did God do so instantly or over a period of time?
Palace of Pharaoh? Are you suggesting that the writer of Genesis 1 was writing from Alexandria? That is a whole lot later than I would date it. I would probably date it prior to the Babylonian Exile.
Sarcasm and full of wit? Wit? Yes. Sarcasm? Maybe in terms of his mocking of other Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) creation stories. See the Enuma Elish story. Which makes me think for a moment – if the writer had been Moses it would be quite odd for him to have mocked the Babylonian creation myths and not the Egyptian ones (Hymn to Ra, Hymn to Ptah, etc.) Of course, the Hebrew language shares more with Babylonian and Sumerian than Egyptian. Of course, even if the stories were written down by Moses, they would have been transmitted orally from the Hebrew collective traditions (Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Esau, Joseph etc.). I’m pretty sure these stories were a part of the collective consciousness of the Hebrew people while they were in Egypt. Certainly, the book of Genesis contains many cultural and geographic elements which would have been unknown to Moses who never went into the promise land (until the Transfiguration, that is). I’m sure Moses heard all of these stories and then wrote them down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – that is if he had written them down. Of course, there is far more evidence that Moses did not write these stories down at all. And that is okay because Scripture is Scripture not because a particular man wrote it but because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Regardless, yes, awe and wonder and not war and copulation: a very great improvement upon the other ANE creation stories.
Whether or not there is need for puns or not – the puns are there. They are also in the Genesis 2-3. I remember hearing a seminary president respond to a question about the geo-centric model of the cosmos presented in the OT. He replied that it was a poetic elaboration not unlike we use today for the “sun going down”. Thus he said that there are poetic descriptions of the cosmos in the Bible. I would suggest that Genesis 1 should be understood like a poem due to its poetic language, its poetic structure and the fact that it is a stand alone priestly piece that resembles other such widely known poems in the prophetic books and psalms. I know a number of seminary OT professors who argue for this poetry theory due to the differences in chronology between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. One has to be figurative and not literal. They always argue for Genesis 1 being the figurative and Genesis 2 being the more literal. I myself argue that both are non-literal but what I have mentioned above is just an option for the believer to take.
Context? See above.
If you follow Genesis chapter 1, (which is, by the way, the only timeline given step-by-step for creation), then it's very easy to see how creation took place. God spoke. Now, if you believe God is as powerful as He claims to be, then there isn't a conflict in believing that His words alone could do that.
Ah, but what makes you believe that it is a step-by-step timeline for creation?
We know that the basic events of creation did not happen immediately because according to a literal reading of the story suggests that it took God one day each. Now God could have made things pop into existence immediately - but he did not according to a literal reading of the story. Indeed, it took him 24 hours to do each event. Really, why did God take a day to creation these events?
Certainly God creates by his Word and certainly God can do almost anything. He can certainly create everything in an instance if he so desires. However, as even a literal reading of the story in Genesis 1 states, God did not create cosmos in an instance but took six days. Each creation on each day did not take an instance but a whole day. Certainly, we should not say that the creation is less “good” because it took six 24 hour periods rather than an instance. Things are good because God says they’re good. Which gives me an idea – we say that the Bible is God’s Word yet it took 2000 years to write. Each book took time to write. They are God’s Word and they were created by God’s Word but they did not pop out of nothing into something. They could have! Certainly God has the power to bring the Scriptures out of nothing, fully written, without human involvement - but that is not what happened. We certainly do not believe that the Bible is less than “good” because it was created over 2000 years and by the use of men.
Again, evolution science still needs to get beyond the stage of hypothesizing. To date, this hasn't happened. And unfortunately, if you're holding your breath in hope, it never will. Because it didn't take place in such manner.
They have far more evidence that “creation scientists” or “intelligent designers”. Truly, neither of these two “creation” camps can come to conclusions about the various scenarios on how God created in a non-evolutionary manner. In fact, according to Dr. Dembski, the two camps are at loggerheads over competing theories. Then there are young earth creationists and old earth creationists battling it out. Then there is the issue of whether animals were created with the ability to hunt and kill other animals prior to the Fall or whether they “evolved” these features afterward. Really, there is a young-earth theory that lions “evolved” (not the word they use) teeth and claws in order to kill other animals after the fall in a very quick manner. This same young-earth theory argues that other animals “evolved” (again, not the word they use) camouflage and other defensive abilities in order to protect themselves from the animals who were hunting them. Naturally, this theory is causing problems because it argues for natural selection and such but only at a quicker rate – a few years instead of a few million.
Slowly but surely, I think that “creationists” will become “intelligent designers” and then will become “post-intelligent designers” etc. etc. etc. until they become “theistic evolutionists”. Again, “intelligent designers” are mostly “theistic evolutionists” now, except they think these events took a few days or years instead of a millions and billions.
That’s called progress.
Post a Comment
<< Home