Fw: [asa] M-Genesis

Hi Bernie (and fellow lurkers),   There are a number of reasons why I think 6th day man is evolved mankind and Adam was not the first human, but first man given a soul.   First notice that living things came first and they came from earth, as opposed from the dust. Gen 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.   Our observer makes no mention of life from scratch. [My father always asked my mother if the lemon pie placed before us was made from scratch, and you had to watch her expression to learn whether or not her "yes" was a facetious answer.] This is in contrast to Gen. 2, of course, when Adam was stated (possibly observed) to have been made from scratch (ie dust).   But, one main purpose of Genesis is giving credit where creative credit is due...   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.   Now, here they come...   Gen 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.   Immediately we have mankind and no one individual. It makes more sense that dominion over the earth would be for many, not one.   27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;male and female created he them.   Once again, credit is being given to the One that it is due. But, it is male and female that are mentioned, not Adam. Man is being given emphasis, admittedly, but it is clear that it is not meant for just one male individual.   28 And God blessed them, and God said untothem, 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.   M-Genesis claims that evolved homo sapiens advanced to a level worthy of recognition and blessing by their creator. The have emerged as the top species on the planet and set the stage for the next step: the gift of a living soul that establishes an eternal place.   Then, later, and in the next chapter...   Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.   Allow me to mention again just how helpful evolved mankind would have been to use their DNA as an appropriate template for Earth’s environment and living circumstances. Note that "mitochondrial Eve" – even though they don’t mean the very first woman – could have been from anywhere since Cain would have taken a homo sapien as a wife.   Speaking of Cain... who did he marry? An sister by incest? Please. [This isn’t addressed to you Bernie, but for those who suggest such a twisted practice for God.]   It is not immediately clear in verse 7 if "formed man" is one man or not; yet it is one man, Adam, due to the subsequent verses..   Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.   The fact that the Garden was made special and placed in the mountains is a curious thing since some suggest the planet was so perfect and innocent. Why wouldn’t the whole planet be a garden? Is God so limited to head water regions to have a "garden"? Or does He have a grander plan for how life is to come forth within His universe? Of course, I like the latter. Evolution and physics are marvelous design processes that produce amazing results; some are stable and some are dynamic, but there is an elegant balance throughout.   It is also interesting to me just how hard it appears to have been in re-entering the Garden. Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.   Who’s guarding the other three sides? None are needed, naturally, if the other three sides are unreachable by humans below. Thus, the Garden would have been an isolated garden and for good reason. There seems to be confluence that forms as the verses are seen in a more literal view of both chapters, if we allow the premises of M-Genesis.   "Coope" [I’m on the go again, but will try to connect tonight to tomorrow] ----- Original Message ---- From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com> To: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>; "asa@calvin.edu" <asa@calvin.edu> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 7:18:09 PM Subject: RE: [asa] M-Genesis George Cooper said: “Agreed, but M-Genesis only applies this to the pre-Adamites, which evolved and were seen on the 6th day that Moses was taken back to another huge highlight of Earth’s history. “   No- I think Genesis talks about the “first man,” the first human, and his name is Adam.  If you don’t think that it is Adam mentioned in Gen. 1, then Gen. 2 makes it clear it is Adam, I think.     ________________________________ From:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Cooper Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 1:36 PM To: asa@calvin.edu Subject: RE: [asa] M-Genesis   [Sorry for the delay, I've been out of state.] Bernie said: I think there's the big picture: we can be sure (beyond a reasonable doubt) that biological evolution happened (from apelike creature to human) because of the DNA evidence (pseudogenes and fused human chromosome #2).  Yes, there is substantial evidence that has caused me to accept a physical nature for man having emerged from an amazingly natural process that is both terrible and beautiful.  Darwinwas right.  This view is compatible with M-Genesis since the observer simply gave us an account of only the outcome of these processes at important points along the way.  Once again, allow me to mention a few that demonstrate that such an eye-witness style approach to Gen. 1 makes sense: 1) A view of the Earth when it was "without form and void".  [When our protosun accretion disk developed a gravitational knot that would have allowed the void formed for our protoplanet to be described as stated.  The first observational evidence of an apparent protoplanetary void came earlier this year.  It is no longer wild supposition, though it is a bit early to claim it as hard fact.] This disk would have appeared within the background of dark space where "darkness was on the face of the deep".  2) The protosun disk would have appeared as "waters" due to intense illumination from its more massive, earlier-formed, bright stellar nursery neighbors.  [Fe-60 in meteorites is but one piece of evidence found to favor such nurseries (now observed by the score in number).  As for a the blueness necessary to cause an uneducated observer to describe this vast disk as "waters", evidence now exists that some disks will appear blue.  A prominent astronomer and expert in dust analysis has pointed out to me that some of the edge-on accretion disks are quite red.  This suggests Rayeleigh scattering is applicable, which means the face of the disk will appear more blue than otherwise.  Our blue sky is one powerful example of this scattering effect.]  3) "Let there be light".  An enshrouded protostar does not remain shrouded for very long.  Of course, they can be very bright once the shroud breaks.  Interestingly, this light was called "Day" by God, and our "day" comes only from Sun light.  This began the energy delivery to the Solar system that would eventually bring forth little companions for the our Creator and designer of these processes.  It was a "good" moment, indeed.   This gets us through only the first verse, but I hope the essence of M-Genesis can be seen by any readers here as to its approach.  Bernie said: Accepting evolution for apelike creature to man is a watershed event.  Once a Christian accepts the evidence for human evolution, and believes in God, the logical conclusion is that God used evolution as his means for design (contrary to a YEC or OEC interpretation of the Bible). Agreed, but M-Genesis only applies this to the pre-Adamites, which evolved and were seen on the 6th day that Moses was taken back to another huge highlight of Earth’s history.  Thus, the literal view of M-Genesis is not in conflict with Genesis 1 and 2.  This should be a huge attraction to both YEC and OEC proponents.  If the account of Genesis was that of an eye-witness then there is no reason not to give a literal view the primary emphasis, though we can not rule out all literary devices that might lead to other views.   Genesis 2, taken literally, states that a living soul was given to Adam who was specially made, breathed spiritual life into by God Himself (who is Spirit), removed from the fabrication area and placed into a specially made Garden that was located in a special location (high in the mountains and away from the humanoids below, where future wives and husbands hunted and gathered), who was given the task of doing special things like naming animals, and was allowed to make the first spiritual mistake of eternal consequence (ie sin).   Of course, M-Genesis is a religious “theory” and is not remotely testable within the purview of science.  It is a view that takes what science now demonstrates as likely and compares it to scripture. Surprisingly, M-Genesis sees a strong case for concordance between scripture and science.  This statement alone should ring Church bells for some, and sirens for others. J Although M-Genesis is not a scientific theory, it does make scientific predictions: 1)      Some accretion disks will appear watery blue. 2)      Enshrouded stars may burst forth light (though God’s intervention may make for sense instead based on the statement that the Spirit moved over the face of the waters just prior to the event of light coming forth.) 3)      Protoplanets may appear to form in void-like areas within the protoplanetary disks (proplyds). [These predictions came prior to the last year’s astronomical discoveries, btw.] Big Bang Theory, since it’s been mentioned, is not a requirement to M-Genesis, but it supports what we see in the first phase of Biblical creation: proplyds with protoplanetary void regions. “Coope” -----Original Message----- From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of PvM Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 9:44 PM To: Alexanian, Moorad Cc: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu Subject: Re: [asa] M-Genesis A few problems with the logic here. First of all evolution does not depend on the validity of the Big Bang, although there is significant supporting evidence for this concept. I am not sure what alternatives there exist to 'science' in between. And finally, evolution... Well, it seems straightforward from the vast amounts of evidences that evolution did happen. It's all about the evidence really. On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote: > If one supposes the Big Bang, the fact that we are now discussing issues, and nothing but "science" happened in-between, then "evolution" did happen. Of course, these are big ifs. However, if all the terms used are properly defined, then the real discussion is all about these supposed ifs. >   >   >   > Moorad >   >   > ________________________________ >   > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Dehler, Bernie > Sent: Sun 8/10/2008 1:29 AM > To: asa@calvin.edu > Subject: RE: [asa] M-Genesis >   >   >   > Gregory Arago said: > "Now, even if a small minority of voices would claim that 'God creates using evolution' or 'evolution is God's method,' doesn't do (hasn't seemed to do) anything much to change the perception INSIDE the field of biology that there is no plan, no guidance, no teleology, and no purpose in biological change-over-time." >   >   >   >   >   >   > ________________________________ >   > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Gregory Arago > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 9:54 PM > To: asa@calvin.edu ; George Cooper > Subject: Re: [asa] M-Genesis >   >   >   > Howdy George, >   > Are you a cosmologist? I haven't met many actual (practising) cosmologists, but many people who are interested in cosmology, mostly as amateurs. Actually, I read somewhere recently that cosmology is all but lost in today's Academy, that most people are taught little about it. A bit sad if it would be true. >   > Just to clarify once again my position, I am against biology-centrism and elevating the meaning of biology too high for society's own good. Hopefully you can understand the reason for feeling this way, which are easier to understand if you've followed the story of socio-biology and now evolutionary psychology as 'academic' disciplines. The term 'mutations,' though you freely apply it to cosmology ('supernova blasts'), I should express to you great hesitation in using it about human beings and changes in things not part of 'natural sciences.' >   > A couple of questions: By 'advance' or 'advanced' do you imply 'better'? You use the words 'for the good,' without mentioning how this value-term may be defined. For me, each star being "different than another" is hardly evidence for 'the good.' Are you using 'advanced change' in cosmology to mean that 'the universe' is somehow 'getting better'? You didn't use the words 'simple' or 'complex' or 'heterogeneous' and 'homogeneous' (the latter representing Spencerian evolution, rather than Darwinian), but perhaps that is behind your cosmological evaluation of 'the good'? >   > We quite probably see the subjective/objective dichotomy differently. Bringing Rene Descartes into play seems worthwhile in a discourse commonly dominated by reference to Sir Charles Darwin. Do you view natural philosophy as relevant to this conversation, given that what is today called 'science' was once considered as 'natural philosophy'? Some people consider Aristotle an 'evolutionist,' yet there are many features of Aristotelian thought that are inconsistent with 'evolutionism.' Philosophy is lively important here as a bridge-crossing activity. >   > You write: "I am using evolution as a general term for advanced change, and not restricting it to biology. I am suggesting it is a wonderful and natural process that was planned from the beginning." >   > On what basis do you justify stretching the meaning of 'evolution' in this way? Why do you 'transfer' the concept 'evolution' outside of biology? Why not restrict 'evolution' to biology or to 'natural' things only? This would perhaps help to protect from the penetration of ideology into your 'science.' Again, just as it was with Iain Strachan, I don't mean this to accuse you of 'ideological science' simply because you accept certain aspects of evolutionary theories. It is a simple thing to do to distance oneself from ideology, by openly rejecting those aspects of Darwin's theory or of any other type of evolutionary theory that are not scientific, not theological, but rather ideological. I wonder why theistic evolutionists and evolutionary creationists seem hesitant to do so - but since I live outside of the American milieu, perhaps it is because people don't want to be misquoted or called a 'creationist' just by rejecting anything 'evolutionary,' even
 the quite obvious 'evo    l! >   >  utionary ideology.' >   > Perhaps you have seen arguments that 'evolution' is not synonymous with 'change'. For most biologists, as far as my understanding of the community of scientists who are called (who call themselves) 'biologists,' there simply isn't any change 'planned from the beginning.' This is simply a fact of the field's held views. Yet you say 'Yes, there is a plan' as if it could have some authority. >   > Now, even if a small minority of voices would claim that 'God creates using evolution' or 'evolution is God's method,' doesn't do (hasn't seemed to do) anything much to change the perception INSIDE the field of biology that there is no plan, no guidance, no teleology, and no purpose in biological change-over-time. The effort to influence the grammar of biologists to include such concepts may be commendable, yet little fruit seems to have come of it. I'd be glad to hear some counter-evidence to this claim if you can provide it. >   > And it may turn out that our cosmologies are more similar to each other's than the contrasting ways we view change, development, variation, differentiation, flux, adaptation and other such concepts that are not exclusive to being perceived ONLY within an evolutionary paradigm. Evolution is simply not a King or Queen theory in my books. >   > Regards, >   > G. Arago >   >   >   > btw, M-Genesis, do you have a good paper or on-line link about this? >   > --- On Fri, 8/8/08, George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >   >        From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net> >        Subject: [asa] M-Genesis >        To: asa@calvin.edu >        Received: Friday, August 8, 2008, 6:12 PM >   >        Howdy Greg, >   >        There is an evolutionary process found in cosmology.  For instance, the >        nebulae "species" will evolve into the stellar "species" >        given the >        occurrence of adequate "mutations" (eg supernova blasts).  Each star, >        using >        this example, will be different than another.  Also, these differences play >        an important roll in subsequent events.  Originally, there were no metals >        (elements > helium) to speak of that are necessary for any bio evolution. >        This analogy to biology is limited, but the point is how things do change >        and, more importantly, they change for "the good".  The paramaters of >        the >        universe must be just right to allow these changes to bring about more >        advance things.  If you want sentient beings to emerge through natural >        processes, be sure to design your universe like this one. :) >   >        This view includes a Designer.  The fine tuning aspects of the universe >        infers a Designer, but it doesn't demand one.  The objective arguments only >        allow a subjective claim for a Creator. Thus, it isn't science since it is >        not testable nor observeable.  [Multiverse ideas offer one alternative, >        especially for those who would object to such an inference as God the >        Creator.  Indeed, it is why I think some are quick to call them theories >        when they are not.  The more legitimate they look, the more God appears >        removed from the event.  ] >   >        Greg wrote: Above you wrote methodology, now you write method. Most people >        speak of evolutionary 'theory' or of evolution as a 'fact of >        natural >        history.' Yet you seem to be elevating it into something more significant, >        into a method(ology). Is this your intention? >   >        [BTW, I am now using Outlook, but when I do a reply I am not allowed any >        font control.  Any ideas?] >   >        Yes, I am using evolution as a general term for advanced change, and not >        restricting it to biology. I am suggesting it is a wonderful and natural >        process that was planned from the beginning.   These processes are integral, >        to some extent, to other processes.  For instance, aren't gamma rays (or >        their atmospheric products) one contributor to mutations?  Black holes, >        supernova, hypernova, GRB's, etc. may be important to such biological >        events >        and the processes that form these are integral, along with other physical >        parameters, to biological evolution. >   >        M-Genesis does not address such ideas in any detail, but only considers what >        a human observer might have seen and recorded.  Evolution gives us an >        explanation of the natural processes that took place that eventually led to >        the observations that were seen and recorded on the day of each observing >        event, though millions or billions of years would have transpired.  [Again, >        the six days are only six days taken from the days of Moses.] >   >        Coope >   >   >   >   >              __________________________________________________________________ >        Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the >        boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail.  Click on Options in Mail and switch to >        New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca >   >   >        To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with >        "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. >   >   >   > ________________________________ >   > Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/> >   >   >   > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. >   To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Aug 16 11:51:52 2008