Comet water discovered to be nearly identical in composition to Earth's oceans

Jim G says:
October 8, 2011 at 9:38 am
[POSTS IN ALL CAPS ARE SHOUTING – CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? try resubmitting sans capitalizing- Anthony]
Was’nt shouting, only trying to differentiate between what I was saying from the Bible info I posted. Too much work to repost plus this post will be gone by then.. Next time will use italics.

First, this headline “Comet water discovered to be…” is misleading, actually, they are only talking about one single comet here, thus it cannot be said to apply to all comets. Also, any comets that used to exist in the inner solar system, as well as many from other parts, will have gone on to their final rest as part of a planet or simply boiled off all their volatiles and thus now be known as an asteroid. In other words, the comets we are looking for are no longer there. It is quite possible that this comet started out long ago in our area, but was flung out due to any number of factors, and ended up way out there. Alternatively, the deuterium signature of our water could simply be due to many different comets and icy bodies falling together and mixing their signatures, and they just happened to find one that matches the signature we ended up with after all that.
But meanwhile, the only way to resolve the argument about where the earth’s water came from would be to know any eyewitness to those events; otherwise, this sort of thing is speculation. The suggestion that this comet data would invalidate religious ideas suggests that such an eyewitness may be possible. I have for some time been looking into the whole “religion versus science” thing, to see if there is any truth to either side, and have found some results by doing something that appears to be unique (although why it should be is anybodies guess), that is, read the biblical account from a purely scientific perspective (you know, the perspective of people who read this site), plus reading the bible using strict logic to see exactly what it says, and more importantly, what it does not say, sometimes resorting to using the original language to see how that differs from what is generally taught that it says today (which in many cases is radically different than what it actually says). I shall mainly stick around the topic of our oceans and where they came from, however, some other parts later also show how our atmosphere came to be like it is, including that pesky (or not so pesky) dangerous “pollutant” carbon dioxide, which is rather relevant to what this site is all about. I am sticking to the bible since I have found no other religions that even come close to matching scientific reality of creation, or even claim to.
Gen 1:1 There was a beginning (duh!), there is more but we are talking comets and water here. There was a lot of hydrogen, then, there were a lot of exploding supernovas. That threw out other elements, including the third most abundant element, oxygen. Thus, we see that long long ago, the basic elements of water were out there, thus we know that there must have always been a lot of water out there. There was also a lot of iron and inkle and other elements that later formed planets.
Gen 1:2 The earth was a mess, being in the process of formation. During it’s formation, some of that water would have been included with all the rocks and dust and gasses. If a “late heavy bombardment” could have happened, what is to stop an early one? If water is out there (we know it is, we have detected huge clouds of it in space), then what, were there cops out there pulling over any water bearing rocks (comets) and turning them back like California fruit inspectors (“you got any water in there?”)? This explains why we find no comets in the inner systems that match our water signature, they were all used up making this planet. The idea of this water evaporating due to the heat of the early earth assumes that the heat would make the water assume escape velocity once there was a fair amount of gravity, and assumes that before there was, there was also a lot of heat. The earth may very well have started out with a lot more water and lost some.
The result of all this was a planet so hot that none of the water could exist on the surface without boiling off immediately, hence, thick dark clouds of it, plus a lot of volcanic ash and possibly still dust thrown up from incoming asteroids and dust. This is also seen here Job 38:8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb,” Here we see a good description of “outgassing”, which, considering that the very very most likely way and time water arrived on earth is, of course, with all the other stuff that made up the earth (how would you keep it out??), a lot of the water would get buried by later rocks and stuff, and after the forming planet gets hot, would turn to steam and shoot up out of the ground.
Gen 1:3 All these thick clouds and dust made it pitch black at what we would now call sea level. The previous verse, talking to humans in language we would understand, specified that this next verse is true on earth at sea level “the surface of the deep”. When you understand that the point of view is what we humans know of, things become clearer (easily seen due to the fact the book is written for humans, not chimps, octopi, space aliens, or anything else). The “”Let there be light,” is thus seen as the time when things got just a little clearer when the dust settled out, although there was still thick clouds covering the whole earth, as seen here Job 38:9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness”. Note that this was not the creation of light, merely, as carefully specified, the first existence of light seen on earth at sea level.
The “first day” was, in the original language, the first YOM (original Hebrew word), a period of time, length unspecified http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html . The idea that many have where they insist that these are only 24 hour days appears to be a reaction to evolution, the idea being to make evolution impossible by denying it the time necessary to happen (evolution is covered later). Basically, the whole “seven days” thing appears to be groupthink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink , the idea “we have to stop those evil, godless evolutionists by any means possible”. See CAGW for a good example of groupthink. Much of “creationism”, at least the young earth brand (the one most people think of) seems to stem from this basic idea.
Gen 1:6 The crust starts to cool enough here that water can now fall onto the surface without boiling off Gen 1:7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. You can clearly see it in Gen 1:7, water above and below being specified, thus, before that, they must not have been separate, they must have all been one big hot cloud. The idea of some crystal sphere or something holding water up at first is a later idea, caused by the Hebrews not knowing anything about a hot early earth, planetary formation, or all that. Moses got this description when God told him about it in his tent; he just wrote it down, he did not necessarily understand it all. With our current understanding, however, we can, so there is no reason to repeat old misunderstandings (or to insist that old King James English still be used). Also seen here (speaking still of the sea) Job 38:10 when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, Job 38:11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt’?
Gen 1:11 The first plants. Note about evolution, this states Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation:”, note the land is doing it, not God directly, God specified a speaking, transmitting of information, not a doing, no plants made from nothing or from clay or something is stated or implied, despite what many creationists say. Thus, this does not deny evolution, in fact, it demands it. Many still say that evolution is impossible, and with good scientific reasons http://www.lifesorigin.com/chap9/Prebiotic-synthesis-DNA-RNA-Protein-1.php , to which I must reply “is anything impossible with God?”. The most likely method to do it would be for God to arrange for a long series of events to happen planned from the big bang resulting in a series of extremely unlikely events happening all at one place and time billions of years later at one small planet called earth. The ideas that God would reach down and do miracles to change genetics seems farfetched, not because he couldn’t, but because why take so long and with so many inefficiencies and false starts and the like? It could still be arraigned (if you have infinite intelligence to foresee all the possible options), but it would come out just as we have seen, not perfectly or fast, but “adequate”, or as good as it can get given the method (thus leaving us evidence, which would not exist if it was done instantly by miracle).
The first plants are important here due to their effect on the atmosphere. This atmosphere appears to have been largely methane, a potent greenhouse gas, which would keep the earth hot and thus the planet would still have a complete cloud cover, not super thick like before, just regular but all encompassing clouds. These first plants (microscopic but numerous) used sunlight and munched on water to create free oxygen, which for quite a while was used up making rust.
Gen 1:14 The appearance of blue sky seen for the first time through the clouds due to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event . All that oxygen finally finished off the rust, gathered in the atmosphere, and combined with the methane to create water (the oxygen has been made by the plants mostly from water to begin with, not net gain of water) and carbon dioxide, that pesky but actually rather comparatively weak greenhouse gas. The conversion of the atmosphere to nitrogen, oxygen and some carbon dioxide and no methane meant a lot less greenhouse effect, the planet went into an ice age, there was a lot less evaporation, hence the first appearance of blue sky (and probably the first appearance of ice). Some say that this was the first creation of the sun and moon, however, the text does not specify this, it says they were already in existence by the specific words used, they were just visible for the first time at the previously specified location, sea level on earth (basically, the usual human perspective, the perspective the readers would understand).
Gen 1:20 Sea critters and birds. The great oxygenation event killed off a lot of the early one-celled organisms, new ones started to evolve to fill the new niches of the radically changed environment. The birds were in existence at this time in the form of dinosaurs (one is described in Job, not because he saw one, other things are described in Job that he never saw, as above), they are called birds here since the readers, humans, would never know dinosaurs directly.
Then came mammals and eventually mankind. Note that no method is described for the creation of mankind in the first chapter, the second, however, very pointedly specifies a fashioning, a new word used, unique to mankind, as different from a gradual evolution. This makes sense when you think about it from God’s viewpoint, if mankind, a sentient creature, is given souls, what would you do if they gradually evolved, give the half sentient creatures half souls? Thus, God could be said to have “cheated” here with mankind, and skipped all that evolutionary stuff.
Mankind was specified to have been created in “The garden of Eden”, a specified, named, located place. As a garden, it would be different from the non garden outside of it, no weeds, carnivores, etc, hence the word “garden”. Much of creationism seems to think that the whole world was like this, this is very clearly *not* specified, in fact, the word “garden” makes it clear this one areas was different from all the rest. Thus, when they sinned, God did not need to change the whole world and all it’s natural laws, merely remove them from the garden, out into the wild were there were carnivores and weeds and work that they had to do themselves if they wanted to eat, in contrast to the already planted and weeded garden they had lived in before. Thus we see much of the mythical and unscientific looking parts of creationism are not actually in the bible at all, and in fact are specified to not be true. Basically, much of “creationism” seems to be totally unbiblical, stories made up with no biblical or scientific foundation, and thus no foundation at all. Some “religious” people may object to that, but hey, either you believe that bible, or you don’t, and if you do, you must believe it the way it was actually written, not later stories made up around it.
After they left the garden, they are specified to have moved “east of Eden”, where they multiplied. Thus, that whole “flood” thing need not be global, but only where they were at, which is almost certainly here http://www.livescience.com/10340-lost-civilization-existed-beneath-persian-gulf.html , the flood specified to be only local seen here http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html . Much of what is said to be evidence of a global flood is probably from the gradual emergence of the land from the sea seen in Gen 1:6 and since then with continental drift and the like. We see further evidence of it in the human genetic record, “Mitochondrial Eve”, and “Y-Chromosomal Adam” dated much later, who was really Noah since his Genes would overwrite Adams since he was the father of all men still living at that time, his 3 sons and their wives of different mothers. I merely included the whole flood thing and the garden thing because they always comes up.
In short, it may be possible to find out how the water got here by hearing it from an eyewitness (as dictated to Moses). This biblical version, when read using strict logic, only what it says the way it says it, matches up with the most likely, even, dare I say it, only reasonable choice explanation. Specifically, that the water arrived here when everything else did, formed a thick cloud, the earth cooled, it settled and became seas, and the reason we cannot find many comets with our seas signature is because you’re standing on them.

“I always thought the bible to be a book of faith, not of exact science”, this is belief, as stated, it is your faith. I am not talking about faith here, what I beleive or do not, but about what the text actually says, or does not say. If you are God, why not tell the truth? After all, as God, if it turns out to be wrong, just change it backdated to the beginning of time, you need never be wrong that way (kinda like skepticalscience on steroids).
“In fact, it is not scientifically correct – like I observe from Gen. 1:14 that the plants arrive before the sun and the moon and the stars came (Gen. 1:11). I don’t know how you can grow plants without the UV light from the sun?” read what I wrote again, I never claimed that the sun etc was created after the plants, only that they were visible at sea level on earth for the first time due to the first appearence of blue sky, the first break in the clouds, due to the removal (conversion actually) of methane to carbon dioxide and water, result, less greenhouse effect, less heat, thus less clouds, thus blue sky. The specific words used in the original language indicate that the sun etc were already in existance at this time. We clearly see this in the very first verse, where God create the heavens (includes the sun, moon, stars) and the earth long before this. Verse 1 comes before verse 11, nuff said.
You reference to John 9:1-7 makes no sense at all, jesus is not even mentioning the beginning of life there. he mentiones on fellow, however, one man is not all life, is it? Was this man born at the big bang?
“Coming back to the problem on hand: we have to admit that at the initial stages of the formation of earth it must have been very hot and water could not possibly exist”, uh, perhaps you have not heard, water can exist in several forms, solid, liquid, and GAS. Look up, see any clouds. that’s water. How, exactly, would you keep the water away from the earth during it’s initial formation? For that matter, how would you keep the Oxygen, the thrid most abundant element, away?
There is plenty of oxygen on other planets, just not FREE oxygen. Example (if any is needed), the atmosphere of mars, carbon diOXIDE. You might want to check out Venus while your at it, Ozone, what is Ozone made of, how did it get there, scroll down to see the artical.
“cataclysimic events that triggered multiple nuclear reactions & various radiation types”. Please be specific, where is this in the scientific literature, exactly?

squareheaded says:
October 11, 2011 at 11:51 am
Legatus says:
October 11, 2011 at 12:57 am
that is, read the biblical account from a purely scientific perspective (you know, the perspective of people who read this site), plus reading the bible using strict logic to see exactly what it says, and more importantly, what it does not say

Legatus, you might have been heading down a noteworthy path when you started, but you violated your first principles immediately in your extended speculatory flights of fancy about what the Scriptures say. The exercise is the same for the proponents of CAGW and every religion.

These “speculative flights of fancy” are simply the scientific descriptions, as we now know them that happen to match the text. The text does not go into such great detail, however, what it does say matches this. If you want to read about exactly how the text says this in the original language, here are some links that go into it exhaustively.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dayagedefense.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/psalm104.html
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/gilgamesh.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/progressive.html
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/origin_first_plants.html
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/genesis2.html
That should cover most of it, there are probably a lot more, including on other websites, that I have links to, but we were discussing comets and water here, and that is a bit off topic. I did not include a word by word how the scriptures say what I said, the above sites do, to do a word by word here would be very long and also even more off topic.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Well, then later you say you are reading what was written and understand it as it was intended, excuse me, “understand it as it was intended”? That sounds like you first decide, “how it was intended” and then read it that way. I have a better way, simply read what it says, the text. As you yourself said if the vast bulk of the Scriptures are written in such a way that you cannot know the interpretation (translation notwithstanding), of exactly what use are they? A loving and kind God, and one who is worthy to be listened to, does not hide behind a cloak of incomprehensibility. Simply put, the vast bulk of scripture says exactly what it means, and means exactly what it says, Genesis is no exception. Genesis was obviously written as a simple narrative of what happened, nothing more (the whole book is such a narrative), there is no need to “understand the intent of the author” or other such deconstructive nonsense.
You may be holding to “interpretations” held by many churches today, such as
“Its just allegory”, (odd, it is not written in that style, places that are very clear, such as calling it a ‘parable”), or…
“Poetical” (odd, it doesn’t look like Hebrew poetry, Psalms does, this doesn’t), or…
The many “interpretations” that break the very principles you say I should follow, adding a lot to the text, such as saying that God created the life out of nothing instantly (which is not in the text), or insisting that these are only 7 24 hour days (despite the exact wording used).
instead of cherry picking verses of scripture to support your theology Exactly how did I cherry pick here? Be specific. I was talking about the formation of the earth, with special interest in its seas, where is that written about, exactly? So which verses should I use? Those are the ones I used, how is this cherry picking? I did not quote the verses or go into a line by line to show exactly how they say that, because that would be lengthy and off topic, plus I supplied links that go into that in detail which you can click, thus saving a lot of space on this site.
In any event, you should be willing to admit that you may not have been trained particularly well in how to read. That is the case for all of us.
Actually, I have been trained since boyhood in exactly that (there’s this thing called school, plus I have a fair amount of training in the bible specifically). But, perhaps more to the point, all you are saying here is “your wrong” without giving even one example of exactly how or why I am wrong. Since you have given me no actual specific reasons of exactly how I am wrong, your unsupported personal opinion is of no value. I cannot be convinced by anything you have said, since you haven’t actually said anything.
If you wish to convince me that I am wrong, be specific, exactly where am I wrong, and for what exact reason? Here I am talking about the topic in question, creation, with special interest in Genesis the first chapter, and it’s description of same. Simply more of you are interpreting scripture wrong opinion without supplying any detail of exactly where and how I am doing so is of no value. I suggest that before you reply to that, you click at least some of the above links and then decide. That is because I did not include exactly why I gave this “interpretation”, since the above sites go into that sort of thing exhaustively and that would fill up a whole page just for that. There are already sites for that, and WUWT isn’t it.
Here are some questions for you (chosen to be on topic, comets and water):
In Gen 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Note the exact wording, first, formless and empty, literally, empty and in emptiness (original language), an apt description of what the earth is like just before and during the time it forms from rocks and dust and gasses and ices in space, you know, space, “emptiness”. As it is forming, at first it is rather formless, wouldn’t you say, a chaotic mess for a while there? It was certainly unlike the earth we know now, it was not in the form we know now, and so “formless” is also an apt description.
Now see darkness was over the surface of the deep, surface?? How can there be a surface when we see later (Gen 1:6) that the water “above” (clouds) and “below” (seas) are not separate? If they are not separate, where can they possibly be? If they are as liquid water on the surface, at least some would have formed clouds in the air, and would be separate, now wouldn’t it? Water evaporates, after all, and especially so on what all scientists agree would be an initially rather hot earth (as does the physical evidence). Therefore there can only be one place for this water, up in the air, since any rain that fell on the hot earth would instantly vaporize to steam. There really can’t be any other option here, not with the text, or the simple physics of the situation, the earth ,must be hot under the circumstances, and the water, if not separated (as explicitly stated in Gen 1:6 and demanded by the physics of water), must be in the form of clouds.
So, now, how can “the Spirit of God be “hovering over the waters? Notice the specific wording used here (this is God, if he can plan an entire universe, he can certainly plan to use very exact language when he wishes), specifically spirit. Well, what is a spirit? It isn’t like a material body, as seen here Luke 24:39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”. The word ‘spirit” is described in the bible as something not physical, not like us, not made of atoms or photons or anything which we can detect, and not being physical, it does not have extension in space, and cannot be said to actually “be” anywhere. So why even include this, when God can only be said to be everywhere and nowhere? Once you understand why this text must be included here to understand the context of “let there be light”, the light will start to dawn (so to speak).
This is the bible, written to human beings. As such, it must be written from a perspective we understand, and most people throughout history have lived not too far above sea level, on the surface of this planet, earth. Not in outer space, not in the air, few on the tops of high mountains, and none underwater, thus, God will not write from those perspectives. As such, God must be very carefully and pointedly including this text the surface of the deep for a specific reason (as usual). God is showing how the earth was terraformed from it’s earlier, uninhabitable state into the state we now know and enjoy. One thing that we humans need is a little light down here to see by (plants also need it). God is here then showing how once, long ago, at the specified place, sea level (as we know it), when there was Job 38:9 thick darkness (another place where the seas and their formation are specifically described), God was at work terraforming the planet, in this case, during planetary formation, the dust and volcanic ash fell out and some light was seen at the surface (there was still a complete and very thick cloud cover over the whole earth as seen in both Job 38:9 and Gen 1:2). You might say as some do, that there was no light, no sun then, however, first, Gen 1:1 states the “the heavens” were created before this, and “the heavens” is all that is above us humans, sky, sun, moon, planets, stars. Later, where sun and moon are described, the specific phraseology is that of already existing things, not of just created things. Thus, there was a sun, but it was not seen at sea level, ask yourself, why? If the entire seas were up in the air, as clouds, which I have already shown must be so, both from the text and physics, would this make “thick darkness”? Would a very early earth, very hot, and thus with much volcanic activity (and a lot of outgassing of water and other stuff, as seen here Job 38:8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb) have a lot of volcanic ash in the air, have you seen how dark that stuff gets? Would still incoming big rocks smashing into the earth throw up any dust? All that dust and ash, plus those thick clouds, does that sound like good visibility conditions to you?
Now we are discussing the seas, where they came from, in this thread. Where in the bible would I find such early creation of earth type things described? Does Genesis sound like a good place (hint, the name, Genesis)? So I look there and I find Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth., well, that certainly sounds promising for a description of the earths formation! What about those seas? Well, there is that ‘surface of the deep” and ‘waters’ stuff a few verses down, that sure sounds appropriate! Are there any other places where God describes to anyone this creation of the earth and it’s seas? Well, there is this Job 38:4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand., that certainly sounds like a place God is describing the creation of earth, anything about seas? How about a few verses down Job 38:8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb,, well, certainly appropriate, sounds like what scientists would call “outgassing”, the most likely explanation of where all this water came from (since it is most likely to occur when 99% of the material that made up the earth gathered together as this earth, I mean, how would you keep it away?). Is this a good place to look for a description of Gods creation of the sea? After all, you said I should learn to read this, I do, and I see this thing called a subject, the sea, and I see God saying that he did something with it, shut it up, then it burst forth, sounds like verbs. This “reading” thing is not all that hard after all! And what, exactly, do you say about the very next verse Job 38:9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness”, well, that certainly sounds like darkness, as also seen in Gen 1:2, doesn’t it, and also associated clearly with the sea, as it also is in Gen 1:2, where the phrase “the deep” is used.
So tell me, when I am looking specifically for the topic of this thread, the creation of the seas, should I look at the two places where this is specifically described, Genesis the first chapter, and Job the 38th? If I do, how is this “cherry picking”? About this topic of the sea, how, exactly should I “read” it differently, to do it “correctly? Should I ignore all that noun and verb and subject stuff? How should I read these few verses in Genesis and Job, describing the seas creation, the way you believe it should be read? How exactly is that done? Could you show me, in the same, word-by-word, phrase-by-phrase way I just have, how these verses describing the creation of the seas mean anything else than I have stated here? Be specific, not just some vague idea like “your reading it wrong”, show me how you would read it, and why.
You might try the old one, that Moses was only speaking as he knew, or was transcribing old folklore. However, look here Exo 33:11 The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. You yourself quoted 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, well, God speaking directly to Moses, that makes sense when describing something that no one could possibly know, it being so very long ago and under conditions that would kill any human who witnessed it, such as planetary formation. How could one have folklore of something that no one ever witnessed? Why would Moses write down something he had no knowledge of, when he could just ask God “face to face”? And look what God said to Job Job 38:21 “Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years!”, yup, 4.5 billion year old Job knew all about this stuff. And Job was said to have lived long before Moses. Thus God is stating the obvious truth, that no one did or could know about the things God described to Job or narrated to Moses. Or are you saying I should decide the “intent” of Moses and Job when I read them, and change the clear meaning of the text as written to “match” that “intent”, and exactly where am I to find this “intent”, if not the text? Could you show me this “intent”? How, exactly?
So now the ball is in your court, show me exactly how I should read it, if I am reading it wrong. Be specific. To keep things short, you might want to stick with the text I used above, the text dealing with the topic of discussion, the creation of our seas. If you think I am “cherry picking”, tell me, why should I not use Genesis and Job, when they are the text’s describing the topic, the creation of the seas/? Be specific.

HenryP says:
October 11, 2011 at 5:56 am
Now that I heave read the relevant section of your book linked below, I can understand what you are talking about here.
Interesting for you to know is perhaps Jesus’ reference to the beginning of life (and the miracle that followed) in John 9:1-7
The bringing together of sand (earth = formless, emptiness = chaos) and His Water (the water that gives life: His Spirit); makes a combination that causes light to shine in the darkness…..
You have made one error here however, you read to John 9:7 and then apparently stopped, if you had read further you would have realized that there was a reason Jesus did what he did with the mud he made, and it had nothing to do with Genesis 1. Jesus made the mud so that he could tell the man to go wash in a pool which was elsewhere. He did, and then, having been blind all his life after all, and not knowing where Jesus was, he went home (he at least knew where that was), all according to plan. Naturally, at home, he is now surrounded with people who know he has been blind since birth, and who are naturally surprised, and words gets around, also, according to plan. The word got to the local Jesus hating religious leaders (just because you say you are religious doesn’t mean you are), and they questioned the man, which caused the man to come to a belief that Jesus was someone he should listen to (instead of them), exactly as planned. Jesus now seeks out the man, now that his making that mud has resulted in the man being receptive to Jesus’ words (the plan all along), and the man listens and becomes a believer. Thus, instead of merely being sighted for a while (temporary), and then dying and going to hell, he goes to heaven (forever, not temporary). That was the plan, and why Jesus made the mud in the first place. It had nothing to do with Genesis, and there is nothing (zip, zilch, zero, nada) in the text to even suggest anything about Genesis, any connection to it, sand/earth/formless/chaos (quite a stretch there), his water, light, or any of that stuff you mixed in. All you needed to understand the mud he made was the text.
John 9 is talking about the actions Jesus took in this part, not Genesis, if he were talking about Genesis, he would have said so. He mentioned nothing about “the beginning of life” here, only about this one mans life, that is clearly seen in the text. For you to read in “the beginning of life” where it is not stated or implied means you need to learn to simply read the text. You can’t just make up stuff like that, when it says one thing, it means that one thing, making it mean something other than what it actually says is for guys like skepticalscience. The same is true of the first chapters of John, it is talking about the book of John there, specifically about “The Logos”, Jesus. You might want to look up what “The Logos” (“the word”) means, specifically what it meant back then. . It is off topic here however.
You cannot just ‘spiritualize” the text of Genesis this way. Genesis states in the text what it is talking about in the very first verse. John does the same for what he is talking about. They are obviously talking about different things, because they say so in the text. That is why they both exist, if they were both talking about the same thing, one of the texts would be unnecessary. If you are going to go around and turn different things you read into somehow semi-connected, spiritualized, rambling meanings (if it can even be called meanings), why, whatever you read could mean anything, and thus, actually will mean nothing. Do you read the newspaper this way, where a front-page article about the governor’s actions will be turned into an allegory about the ball game in a different article in the sports pages?

[snip – OK enough with the Bible quotes, see our policy page – this conversation is OVER – Anthony]