Jeremiah 43:7-13 KJV
(7) So they came into the land of Egypt: for they obeyed not the voice of the LORD: thus came they even to Tahpanhes.
(8) Then came the word of the LORD unto Jeremiah in Tahpanhes, saying,
(9) Take great stones in thine hand, and hide them in the clay in the brickkiln, which is at the entry of Pharaoh's house in Tahpanhes, in the sight of the men of Judah;
(10) And say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will send and take Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will set his throne upon these stones that I have hid; and he shall spread his royal pavilion over them.
(11) And when he cometh, he shall smite the land of Egypt, and deliver such as are for death to death; and such as are for captivity to captivity; and such as are for the sword to the sword.
(12) And I will kindle a fire in the houses of the gods of Egypt; and he shall burn them, and carry them away captives: and he shall array himself with the land of Egypt, as a shepherd putteth on his garment; and he shall go forth from thence in peace.
(13) He shall break also the images of Bethshemesh, that is in the land of Egypt; and the houses of the gods of the Egyptians shall he burn with fire.
From the International Bible Encyclopedia using e-sword.net
ta´pan-hēz, ta-pan´hēz (usually in the Old Testament תּחפּנחס, taḥpanḥēṣ; Septuagint Ταφνάς, Taphnás; Coptic, Taphnes): The various spellings of the Hebrew text are fairly well indicated in the King James Version by Tahapanes (Jer_2:16); Tahpanhes (Jer_43:7-9; Jer_44:1; Jer_46:14); Tehaphnehes (Eze_30:18), while an Egyptian queen (XXIst Dynasty) is named Tahpenes (1Ki_11:19, 1Ki_11:20). Tahpanhes was a city on the eastern frontier of Lower Egypt, represented today by Tell Defenneh, a desert mound lying some 20 miles Southwest from Pelusium (Biblical “Sin”) and a little North of the modern Al-Kantarah (“the bridge”), marking the old caravan route from Egypt to Palestine, Mesopotamia and Assyria. Its Egyptian name is unknown, but it was called Δαφναί, Daphnaı́, by the Greeks, and by the modern Arabs Def'neh. The site is now desolate, but it was a fertile district when watered by the Pelusiac branch of the Nile (compare Isa_19:6, Isa_19:7). Tahpanhes was so powerful that Jeremiah can say that it, with Memphis, has “broken the crown” of Israel's head (Jer_2:16), and Ezekiel can speak of its “daughters” (colonies or suburban towns), and names it with Heliopolis and Bubastis when the “yokes Septuagint “sceptres”) of Egypt” shall be broken by Yahweh (Eze_30:18). In a later passage Jeremiah describes the flight of the Jews from their ruined capital to Tahpanhes after the death of Gedaliah (Jer_43:1-7) and prophesies that Nebuchadnezzar shall invade Egypt and punish it, establishing his throne upon the brick pavement (the King James Version “kiln”) which is at the entry of Pharaoh's royal palace at Tahpanhes (Jer_43:8-11). He calls Tahpanhes as a witness to the desolation of the cities of Judah (Jer_44:1), but prophesies an equal destruction of Tahpanhes and other Egyptian cities (probably occupied by fugitive Jews) when Nebuchadnezzar shall smite them (Jer_46:14).
This invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar was for a long time strenuously denied (e.g. as late as 1889 by Kuenen, Historisch-critisch Onderzoek, 265-318); but since the discovery and publication (1878) of fragments of Nebuchadnezzar's annals in which he affirms his invasion of Egypt in his 37th year (568-567 BC), most scholars have agreed that the predictions of Jeremiah (Jer_43:9-13; Jer_44:30) uttered shortly after 586 BC and of Ezekiel (Eze_29:19) uttered in 570 BC were fulfilled, “at least in their general sense” (Driver, Authority and Archaeology, 116). Three cuneiform inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar were found by Arabs probably on or near this site. The excavation of Tahpanhes in 1886 by W. M. Flinders Petrie made it “highly probable that the large oblong platform of brickwork close to the palace fort built at this spot by Psammetichus I, circa 664 BC, and now called Kasr Bint el-Yehudi, 'the castle of the Jew's daughter,' is identical with the quadrangle 'which is at the entry of Pharaoh's house in Tahpanhes' in which Jeremiah was commanded to bury the stones as a token that Nebuchadnezzar would spread his pavilion over them when he led his army into Egypt” (ibid., 117). Josephus explicitly mentions that Nebuchadnezzar, when he captured Tahpanhes, carried off a Jewish contingent from that city (Ant., IX, vii). Dr. Petrie found that while a small fort had existed here since the Rameside era (compare Herodotus ii. 17), yet the town was practically founded by Psammetichus I, continued prosperous for a century or more, but dwindled to a small village in Ptolemaic times. Many sealings of wine jars stamped with the cartouches of Psammetichus I and Amosis were found in situ. Tahpanhes being the nearest Egyptian town to Palestine, Jeremiah and the other Jewish refugees would naturally flee there (Jer_43:7). It is not at all unlikely that Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Egypt was partly due to Egypt's favorable reception of these refugees.
The pottery found at Tahpanhes “shows on the whole more evidence of Greeks than Egyptians in the place... Especially between 607-587 BC a constant intercourse with the Greek settlers must have been going on and a wider intercourse than even a Greek colony in Palestine would have produced... The whole circumstances were such as to give the best possible opportunity for the permeation of Greek words and Greek ideas among the upper classes of the Jewish exiles” (Petrie, Nebesheh and Defenneh, 1888, 50). This was, however, only one of many places where the Greeks and Hebrews met freely in this century (see e.g. Duruy, History of Greece, II, 126-80; Cobern, Daniel, 301-307). A large foreign traffic is shown at Tahpanhes in which no doubt the Jews took part. Discoveries from the 6th century BC included some very finely painted pottery, “full of archaic spirit and beauty,” many amulets and much rich jewelry and bronze and iron weapons, a piece of scale armor, thousands of arrow heads, and three seals of a Syrian type. One of the few inscriptions prays the blessing of Neit upon “all beautiful souls.” There was also dug up a vast number of minute weights evidently used for weighing precious metals, showing that the manufacture of jewelry was carried on here on a large scale. One of the most pathetic and suggestive “finds” from this century, which witnessed the Babylonian captivity, consisted of certain curious figures of captives, carved in limestone, with their legs bent backward from their knees and their ankles and elbows bound together (Petrie, op. cit., chapters ix-xii).
Announcement Announcement Module
Factnet Web Speed and...
Factnet must be doing a lot of good promoting its open dialog. We sense this because the new Factnet site is being extensively attacked once again on a almost daily basis. We believe the hackers are trying to overcome the extensive new secuity layers, proceedures and trapping that we have been adding over the last several months. These attacks can get so heavy they slow the whole site down and at times shut down our servers.
Please help us say no to the free speach hating hackers who want to shut down your voice and our voices! Help us keep up with new security costs and work by making a generous holiday tax-deductible donation today by going to http://factnet.org/please-donate
The Factnet Staff
Please help us say no to the free speach hating hackers who want to shut down your voice and our voices! Help us keep up with new security costs and work by making a generous holiday tax-deductible donation today by going to http://factnet.org/please-donate
The Factnet Staff
Evolution vs. Creationism Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
Turtle -- None of what you just posted says anything about the stones buried by Jeremiah having anything written or carved on them, which is in contradiction to your statement that something was “written on clay bricks.” You’re trying to cover up your statement that Moses used the Rosetta Stone as a source. Why don’t you just admit that you’re wrong?
According to Old Testament mythology, Jeremiah buried several large stones in the pavement in front of the government building in Tahpanhes. None of them had anything carved or written on them. Your entire argument here about, as you put it, “each tribe wrote in the origins of life” on some stones is something you made up out of thin air. Stop trying to cover up your misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and confusion and face the fact that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Dodge I have no problem admitting rosetta stone is out of Egypt however I have to look this stuff up, for I did not memorize it, and you not guilt free because you have the ability to look it up and do not, you just like to false accuse. You got to realize there was other forms of writting before people made a living in Egypt. Samaritans, Babel and so forth. Only reason you don't count them is it was so long ago. Yet Noah family came off of mount ararate and in the seventies that mountain was cover with snow according to the movies and now it is sunny and warm, they got a noah ark park in turkey.Last edited by turtle; 06-20-2012, 12:55 AM.
Turtle -- I never post anything without thoroughly researching it. Unlike you, I know what I’m talking about. For instance, you bring up “Noah’s Ark Park” in Turkey. You’re talking about the Durupinar site in the Mount Tendürek region of eastern Turkey a couple of miles from the Iranian border.
This is the third time you’ve brought this up; once about a year and a half ago, then again three months ago, and now today. I’ll repost my response for the third time.
Hi Turtle. You really need to be more discerning about references you find, and learn how to research for yourself to find the truth. You mentioned a “Dr. Wyatt” in relationship to this so-called “discovery of Noah’s Ark.” It didn’t take me long to find out that his name was Ronald Eldon Wyatt (1933-1999), who was a nurse anesthetist (not a doctor). In 1960, Wyatt saw a picture in Life Magazine of the Durupinar site, and was so taken by it that he went to Turkey to become an amateur archaeologist.
The Durupinar site is in Turkey, a natural aggregate structure that led some Bible believers to promote it as the original Noah’s Ark. It was discovered in 1948 after a series of earthquakes exposed the formation by Captain Durupinar, for whom it was subsequently named.
The site was ignored until 1977, when Ron Wyatt “re-discovered” it and started promoting it.
Wyatt’s claims have been dismissed by scientists, historians, biblical scholars, and even the leaders of his own Seventh-Day Adventist Church. Wyatt also claimed to have found the grave markers of Noah and his wife, the location of the Tower of Babel, the Ark of the Covenant and the Ten Commandment stones.
At Answers in Genesis there is an article that exposes Ron Wyatt for the fraud that he was.
And here you are, apparently believing that Noah’s Ark has been found. You’ve got to be one of the most gullible and naïve persons I’ve ever known. Do you believe everything you read as long as it confirms your religious mythology?
Turtle, try to understand what I’m saying. The Durupinar Formation is a common geological structure that has been misidentified by creationists as Noah’s Ark. They continue to perpetuate this myth for reasons of their own. The fact that the Turkish government officially declared a national park around this natural boat-shaped formation doesn’t make it Noah’s Ark. It’s a money-making tourist attraction and creationist propaganda vehicle and nothing more.
dodge though I can't remember all the names of all the scientist let me explain, I seen the original film of the exploration to Mount Ararat and snow blocked the ark in by snow and ice. It was vsible by a plane and explorers went to search this out.
- Dec 2013
I have learned that anything could be sold if you could figure out a way to connect it to the bible, or maybe simply put a cross on it. I saw high priced sea salt, high priced ($20 for 10 oz.) because it came from the Dead Sea (the connection to bible).
Anyway, trying to get back on topic (biological evolution vs. biblical creationism)…
The idea of evolution is that a species undergoes genetic change over time. That is, over many generations a species can evolve into something quite different, and those differences are based on changes in DNA which originate as mutations. The species of animals and plants living today were not around in the past, but are descended from those that lived earlier. Humans, for example, evolved from a creature that was apelike, but not identical to modern apes. Genetic and fossil evidence shows that modern humans descended from a primate lineage that split from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees roughly seven million years ago.
Some people misunderstand this and claim that evolutionists teach that “man came from monkeys,” to put it in the simplistic language I’ve seen coming from creationists. In reality, based on paleontological and genetic evidence, the genus Homo evolved in Africa about 2.3 million years ago; it’s first species being Homo habilis. About 1.5 million years later, Homo erectus evolved in Africa and spread to Eurasia. As best we know, the last common ancestor leading to Homo sapiens existed about 700,000 years ago. One of its evolutionary limbs yielded the Neanderthals, the other, Homo sapiens. Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, both of which evolved in Africa, split about 500,000 years ago. The Neanderthals migrated toward Europe where, by 150,000 years ago, they were populous and widespread. They moved to the Middle East and Asia as well.
Modern humans evolved between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago in Africa; and then dispersed into Asia, Australia, Europe, and the Americas. They co-existed with Neanderthals and bred with them, after which the Neanderthals became extinct; for reasons still not understood.
The Neanderthal genome was sequenced in 2010, and it confirmed the fact that humans and Neanderthals had a common ancestor about 600,000 years ago, but then split and developed separately. It also showed that 2.5% of the human genome (non-African exclusively) came from Neanderthals. The existence of these genes proves that Neanderthals mated with some modern humans and left a contribution to the human genome before they became extinct.
New evidence indicates that most or all Neanderthal bones in Europe are found to be around 39,000 years old. Modern humans existed in considerable numbers in Europe at that time, and Neanderthals became extinct about 30,000 years ago. This shows that humans and Neanderthals overlapped briefly in Europe about 40,000 years ago.
This is where we humans came from, having evolved from common ancestors going back millions of years.
(from Human Genes and Genomes: Science, Health, Society, by Leon E. Rosenberg and Diane Drobinis Rosenberg, copyright 2012 Elsevier Academic Press. Both authors are molecular biologists)Last edited by dodge; 06-21-2012, 06:20 AM.
I really don’t understand why the biblically-indoctrinated feel threatened by evolution, and are of the opinion that it equals atheism. There are many Christians who don’t find evolution incompatible with their religious faith. For example, the governing and legislative body of the Episcopal Church issued a statement in support of evolutionary theory:
RESOLUTION A129: Affirm Creation and Evolution
Resolved, that the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith.
Resolved, that Episcopalians strongly encourage state legislatures and state and local boards of education to establish standards for science education based on the best available scientific knowledge as accepted by a consensus of the scientific community.
Resolved, that Episcopal dioceses and congregations seek the assistance of scientists and science educators in understanding what constitutes reliable scientific knowledge.
Then there is the Presbyterian Church (USA) that issued a statement in support of evolutionary theory reaffirming that “there is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator,” and encouraging “State Boards of Education across the nation to establish standards for science education in public schools based on the most reliable content of scientific knowledge as determined by the scientific community.” They called upon Presbyterian scientists and science educators to assist congregations, presbyteries, communities, and the public to understand what constitutes reliable scientific knowledge.
Similar statements can be found coming from such religious organizations as Lutherans, Jews, Methodists, Unitarian, and Catholic. In fact, there is a website called The Clergy Letter Project that’s designed to demonstrate religion and evolutionary theory is compatible. So far, as of June 21st, 12,812 signatures of Christian clergy have singed the statement includes the following:
“We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.”
There are separate statements signed by Rabbis and clergy from Unitarian Universalists at The Clergy Letter Project urging public school boards to affirm their commitment to teaching evolution as a fundamental concept of science and a core component of human knowledge.
As is noted in the statements, “Fundamentalists of various traditions, who perceive the science of evolution to be in conflict with their personal religious beliefs, are seeking to influence public school boards to authorize the teaching of creationism,” and see it as a “breach in the separation of church and state.” Those who believe in a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation are free to teach their perspective in their homes, religious institutions and parochial schools; but to teach it in the public schools would be to assert a particular religious perspective in an environment which is supposed to be free of such indoctrination.
I guess that’s the key word here, “indoctrination.” Immersion in scripture seems to, for a lot of bibleheads, cause them to adopt an anti-science mind-set. They would rather believe in imaginary mythological invisible supernatural beings than take the time to learn about the science of evolutionary biology.
Dodge I am not episcopalin, however you bring up a question why would any church, why would any believer. That studies scripture. Prehaps it is the division of sects of churches, or maybe in truth it not being able to look at it rationally because evolution leaves out the word the word God or supreme being. You route everything you believe back to you don't believe God exist, yet you accept evolution and do not accept Biblical record of creation.
Now dodge we both agree with certain things. You would not be moved on your indoctrination either will I. That why we look at things we do agree on and decide ot teach it. Just like that law of separation of church and state, but there is no problem with a plaque on school walls demonstrating this point. For faith is truly individual, but historically it should not be left out of history class. In other words why not a study of the temple as historical architecture, or the order of kings of Jewish people and how their relationship with other countries as far as culture not benefit students. I learn about india, europe, Arabia in school and even hinduism, buddhism and china without ever hearing about the jewish people. Nor was Noah ark ever mentioned.
Now if I give you evolution you could at least allow history of jewish, christian and islamic world how they interact and any progress they made in culture.
Turtle -- You said that “evolution leaves out the word of god.” Of course it does, because science involves the investigation of the natural world. Hypothetical “supernatural” agents can’t be observed or recorded by the procedures of science. Science works on the assumption that natural events have natural causes (called “methodological naturalism”). This is the nature of scientific research, using the “scientific method” to investigate phenomena.
The process of finding truth through the scientific method involves asking a question, doing background research, constructing a hypothesis, testing a hypothesis through experimentation, then analyzing data and coming to conclusions. Then you’re ready to communicate the results in peer-reviewed journals.
Claims involving the supernatural are outside the proper domain of scientific investigation. You can’t add supernatural involvement into the account of evolution by natural selection by allowing a god to meddle in the evolutionary process, because it would no longer be natural selection.
Try to understand this, Turtle -- the scientific method doesn’t involve the supernatural. In evolutionary theory, natural selection explains apparent design in nature by a purely materialistic process that doesn’t require supernatural forces. If you add the supernatural into the mix, it becomes creationism…not science. So-called “intelligent design” is unscientific, because it relies on un-testable supernatural explanations; making it and “creation science” flawed and illogical and rightfully rejected by the scientific community.
Supernatural explanations are not needed. We manage to understand the natural world just fine using reason and materialism; and our study of the universe is going to continue until humans become extinct.
As far as teaching the history of religious ideas, that’s not the domain of science. There are other disciplines more suited for that; such as comparative religion and world history. Just keep religion and the supernatural where they belong…out of public school science classes.
Dodge science is not built on mythological creatures, it is built on facts proven by scientific experiences and hypothesis that form a theory and when experiment done a conclusion is found whether it be right or a wrong conclusion time will tell. However the Bible has stood the test of time and God said let there be light and there was. Then let water form and let it be separated by water. How hard is that to understand as being God created, His design being first, though you can say you disagree, you can not prove otherwise. Only science says today it takes so many billions of years to form earth. However have you forgotten that there are people that age more quickly then others. Some people at age six live in a seventy year old body. Why because their growing process is sped up compare to what is normal. How does science know this did not happen in the creation process, so that it only took six days instead of billions of years? So God could be talked about in science, as a book of knowledge of creation.Last edited by turtle; 06-27-2012, 07:12 PM.
Turtle -- The level of your misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and confusion indicates a profound lack of comprehension accompanied by an inability to express yourself intelligently. I know that responding to what you write is an exercise in futility; but you insert your incoherent comments in the middle of conversations all the time, essentially disrupting communication.
You go on about the biblical “god” “designing” the Universe, saying “let there be light,” and “letting water form and letting it be separated by water.” What in hell does that mean? What is the “face of the waters” that existed before the Earth was formed and in which this “god” “moved upon?” There is no meaning here, it’s nothing but religious mythology. You challenge me by saying that I can’t “prove otherwise.”
Prove what? That an invisible supernatural being “moved upon the face of the waters,” that “darkness was upon the face of the deep,” and this “god” made “light” appear by “speaking” it into existence? There are descriptions of a “firmament” being “in the midst of the waters,” and “dividing waters from waters,” “waters” being both “under the firmament” and “above the firmament.” The more vague something is written, the more you can project your own interpretations into it.
Then you say something about people with some sort of rapid aging disease (Progeria?), and suggest that something like this happened “in the creation process.” Huh? I don’t know how to respond to your suggestion that the Universe “rapidly aged” like someone with Progeria (which is a genetic abnormality). This is one of the most ridiculous things you’ve posted.
You mentioned that “science says today it takes so many billion of years to form earth.” Actually, the scientific consensus is that the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old. We know this from observations about rocks and minerals that make up our planet, which change over time in the process of radioactive decay. This process of change by decay happens at a steady pace that scientists can measure. They can tell how old a rock is my measuring how far the decay of molecules in that rock has progressed.
The minimum age of the Earth is limited by the age of the oldest known object that formed on Earth. The oldest zircons (the Jack Hill zircons) yield an age of 4.4 billion years. These crystals are the oldest pieces of Earth material ever found, even older than the rocks of the Jack Hills (in Western Australia). They were formed only a few hundred million years after the birth of the Earth itself.
The age of the Earth in relationship to the age of the Solar System has been established with the oldest dated objects in the Solar System (calcium-aluminum-refractory inclusions in chondritic meteorites), which have been dated to 4.5672 billion years. You could read all about this in Dieter Rehder’s book, Chemistry in Space: From Interstellar Matter to the Origin of Life (copyright 2010), if you really wanted to educate yourself.
The age of the Earth may be calculated by determining the amount of time necessary for the Earth to accrete from the oldest objects in the Solar System. If accretion began at about the time that the oldest CAI formed then the age of the Earth based upon mean life of accretion is about 4.559 billion years.
You can believe that an invisible imaginary supernatural being “spoke” the universe into existence if you want; but I prefer a more rational scientific approach.
Dodge take two seeds place them in a baby food jar, one wiht a lid and the other one without. Now water the seeds make sure you can see the seed maybe a bean seed. Now which do you think will sprout and begin growing first and get a vine growing. Remember water both once and not more. seal the jar one and jar two leave lid off. Now measure daily. Which will grow faster. The bean in the jar, but it will cease growing because of a lack of room. The other might sprout and grow but it will dry out quickly.
Now give creation a bubble and inside the bubble gases are trapped inside. Inside are all basic chemicals of life and non life. Shake it what happens to it. Will if hydrogen mixes with oxygen it forms water. Water mixed with carbon and oxygen produce algae that will decompose and begin to form dust of the earth and water makes it clump. Now i might not have all the things going together correct you know better. However how long in a sealed bubble will this take? Will when a sperm connects to egg in womb, it takes nine full months to have a full human baby. In small animals process is shorter. Yet they rapidly develope into aged species faster then humans. A six month old cat is a young adult. A six month old baby is what still a child.
Your problem is you like to be rude. Very rude and your rude comments are distasteful that why no one wants to talk to you.
Origin of Life on Earth
What, are you kidding me Turtle? “Give creation a sealed bubble with gases trapped inside with all the basic chemicals of life and non-life and shake it up?” Do you have any idea where these "basic chemicals" came from?
Picture the beginning of space and time almost fourteen billion years ago, a point out of which an enormous burst of energy emanated. After 300,000 years or so things cooled down, and particles (electrons, protons, and neutrons) started to stick together to form atoms. With the help of gravity these atoms gathered together to form enormous clouds of very hot dust. Out of these clouds came the first stars, massive balls of fire supercharged with energy left over from the Big Bang.
These stars gathered together into galaxies of various sizes and shapes, including our own, the Milky Way, having formed about 13.6 billion years ago. Left-over gas and dust from previous burned-out stars collapsed and ignited to form our sun about 4.6 billion years ago. Rings of gas and dust orbiting around the sun eventually condensed into small particles. These particles joined together to form planetismals, which in turn accumulated into large masses. From this a proto-Earth developed. Gravity then shaped the Earth into a sphere. When the Earth cooled enough, moisture condensed and accumulated, and the oceans were born.
It is at this point we can talk about the origin of life on Earth. Observations and experiments in chemistry, geology, and physics have led scientists to propose a scenario, where chemical and physical processes on early Earth, aided by the emerging force of natural selection, could have produced very simple cells.
I will be using as my sources Campbell Biology (9th Edition), copyright 2011 (a college textbook used in most introductory biology courses); FIRST LIFE: Discovering the Connections Between Stars, Cells, and How Life Began (University of California Press copyright 2011), by David Deamer; and Origins and Evolution of Life: An Astrobiological Perspective (Cambridge University Press copyright 2011), edited by Muriel Gargaud, Purificación López-García, and Hervé Martin. I have these books in my library.
The Campbell Biology textbook, in Chapter 25, talks about the history of life on Earth and the conditions on early Earth that made the origin of life possible. The sequence of events outlined include the abiotic (nonliving) synthesis of small organic molecules such as amino acids, the joining of these small molecules into macromolecules like proteins and nucleic acids, the packaging of these molecules into protocells, and the origin of self-replicating molecules that eventually made inheritance possible.
As the authors say, this scenario leads to predictions that can be tested in the laboratory; and they examine some of the evidence for each stage. They start with the formation of Earth 4.6 billion years ago, condensing from a vast cloud of dust and rocks that surrounded the young sun.
For the first few hundred million years, life probably could not have originated or survived on Earth because the planet was still being bombarded by huge chunks of rock and ice left over from the formation of the solar system. The collisions generated enough heat to vaporize the available water and prevent seas from forming. This early phase likely ended about 4.2 to 3.9 billion years ago.
As the bombardment of early Earth slowed, conditions on the planet were extremely different from those of today. The first atmosphere was probably thick with water vapor, along with various compounds released by volcanic eruptions, including nitrogen and its oxides, carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and hydrogen sulfide. As Earth cooled, the water vapor condensed into oceans, and much of the hydrogen escaped into space.
The chapter continues to describe experiments that demonstrate the abiotic (nonliving) synthesis of organic molecules being possible under various assumptions about the composition of the early atmosphere; and that a second source of organic molecules may have been meteorites, pointing to a 4.5 billion year old carbonaceous chondrite meteorite found in Australia in 1969 containing more than 80 amino acids, some in large amounts. Recent studies have shown that the meteorite also contained other key organic molecules, including lipids, simple sugars, and nitrogenous bases such as uracil.
I will continue in this examination of the origins of life on Earth from the above-mentioned sources in other posts, getting into the abiotic synthesis of macromolecules, protocells, and the first genetic material (self-replicating RNA and the down of natural selection).
Great off your high horse. come down to basics and think for a minute. If you could mix all primary elements together at base level what would happen, would they explode.