Evidence for God from Science

I just finished this video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... aked+truth, and it mentions that manna is actually the magical mushroom psilocybe mushrooms. I looked around, and found another article on this, http://deoxy.org/manna.htm. Anyone care to explain what manna really is?

Angels food. (not the cake)

Exo 16:31 And the house of Israel called the name thereof Manna: and it was like coriander seed, white; and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey.

There is another theory that suggests that Manna (meaning, what is it?), was originally in the form of hydrocarbons and on contact with the upper atmosphere was subsequently converted into carbohydrates which fell like snow in the early morning dew.
The source of the hydrocarbons was the tail part of a great comet which passed closely by the Earth and which also was the cause of the earlier catastrophic events of the Exodus.

John

John T wrote: hydrocarbons and on contact with the upper atmosphere was subsequently converted into carbohydrates which fell like snow in the early morning dew.
The source of the hydrocarbons was the tail part of a great comet

Hi John,
How well supported a theory is this?
E.g., what hydrocarbons are typically found in comet tails?
What reactions do such hydrocarbons undergo in the upper atmosphere?
What are reasonable concentrations of the product?
What area of earth would they fall upon?

sandy_mcd wrote:

How well supported a theory is this?
E.g., what hydrocarbons are typically found in comet tails?

Hi sandy,

It appears that the theory is not that well supported at all, mainly I think because of its Biblical implications.

However, hydrocarbons such as ethane and methane have been found in cometary tails such as comet Hyakutake http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/ ... utake.html and carbon signatures 'C-H' in Halley's comet.
The hydrocarbons I have referred to are essentially petroleum products consisting of just two elements, carbon and hydrogen.

What reactions do such hydrocarbons undergo in the upper atmosphere?

By a process of irradiation, hydrocarbons in the upper atmosphere would mix with atmospheric hydrogen and oxygen, generating formaldehyde.
Once formed, various types of sugars and starches would be further generated to form polymers.
It is the polmerization of formaldehyde that forms the substance known as manna, a carbohydrate, which is always of a milky white composition and falls like seeds with the morning dew.

What are reasonable concentrations of the product?

Not exactly sure what you mean, but edible substances have been similarly produced from petroleum in the laboratory.

What area of earth would they fall upon?

Those areas of the world that were directly affected by the fall-out of hydrocarbons due to the passage of the comet.

Cheers

John

John T wrote:sandy_mcd wrote:

How well supported a theory is this?
E.g., what hydrocarbons are typically found in comet tails?

Hi sandy,

It appears that the theory is not that well supported at all, mainly I think because of its Biblical implications.

What biblical implications? Who's to say that's exactly how manna was intended to be produced? Assuming, of course, the theory is plausible.

John T wrote:However, hydrocarbons such as ethane and methane have been found in cometary tails such as comet Hyakutake ...
By a process of irradiation, hydrocarbons in the upper atmosphere would mix with atmospheric hydrogen and oxygen, generating formaldehyde.
Once formed, various types of sugars and starches would be further generated to form polymers.
It is the polmerization of formaldehyde that forms the substance known as manna, a carbohydrate, which is always of a milky white composition and falls like seeds with the morning dew.

Thanks, I was just interested in a ballpark estimate of the likelihood. [I believe Velikovsky may have contributed to this idea.] I was unaware that hydrocarbons formed formaldehyde, but have also found that information on various websites.
The polymerization to form carbohydrates I could not locate any information on (formaldehyde does tend to polymerize to form 1,3,5-trioxane and polyoxymethylene, but those don't seem to be sugars or starches although they have the same elemental composition).
By concentrations, I meant how much of these initial cometary hydrocarbons would be necessary to produce the estimated quantity of manna needed.
Presently we release large amounts of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere and these apparently produce formaldehyde http://www.ucar.edu/communications/staf ... brief.html, but I haven't found any mention of carbohydrates.

Hi sandy,

You wrote:

Thanks, I was just interested in a ballpark estimate of the likelihood. [I believe Velikovsky may have contributed to this idea.]

Yes indeed.

You further wrote:

The polymerization to form carbohydrates I could not locate any information on (formaldehyde does tend to polymerize to form 1,3,5-trioxane and polyoxymethylene, but those don't seem to be sugars or starches although they have the same elemental composition).
By concentrations, I meant how much of these initial cometary hydrocarbons would be necessary to produce the estimated quantity of manna needed.
Presently we release large amounts of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere and these apparently produce formaldehyde http://www.ucar.edu/communications/staf ... brief.html, but I haven't found any mention of carbohydrates

Earlier, I mentioned that the process began through irradiation in the upper atmosphere ie that part of the atmosphere directly exposed to the rays of the Sun (not so from the ground upwards)

You appear to know your chemistry very well, so I'll quote a passage from
W.K. Kuong, who informs us that if:

"...hydrocarbons shrouded the Earth, part of it would mix with hydrogen of the hydrogen layer and another would be oxidized by the oxygen of the oxygen layer. The main products of combustion are carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and water vapour through cosmic irradiation, as laboratory experiments suggest. The action of cosmic radiation on the carbon dioxide/hydrogen/carbon monoxide/water vapour mixture would generate formaldehyde. Once formaldehyde is formed, various types of sugars and starches would be generated by the process of polymerization and aldol condensation. The general formula for the process is,

nCH2O = (CH2O)n

"In the above equation n is any integer. In n =5, the product is pentose; if n =6, the product (isomers also exist) is a hexose, etc.

"Formaldehyde should be formed during the day when the gaseous mixture is bombarded by particles from the solar furnace. The product would polymerize in the cool of the night, particularly on dust particles, and rain down in the early morning. If one refers to Exodus and Numbers, one finds that manna was deposited early in the morning with the dew.

"Dr. A.J. Swallow, in his text Radiation Chemistry of Organic Compounds writes, 'The synthesis of organic compounds through the agency of high energy radiation had been amply demonstrated in the laboratory, an elementary example being the alpha-induced reaction between carbon dioxide and hydrogen to give formaldehyde, which then reacts further. Carbon monoxide can be reduced similarly. The main final product of irradiation in both cases appears to be a white solid composition (CH2O)n, which is presumably produced by polymerization of formaldehyde"
[emphasis added]

Reports around the world describe manna as "milky" or "honey-like".

John

Byblos wrote:

What biblical implications? Who's to say that's exactly how manna was intended to be produced? Assuming, of course, the theory is plausible.

I think the theory is at least plausible.

Moreover, if the theory is eventually proven, then perhaps scientific credence might at last be given to those Biblical passages that pertain to the fall of manna.

Just my opinion.

John

John T wrote:Byblos wrote:

What biblical implications? Who's to say that's exactly how manna was intended to be produced? Assuming, of course, the theory is plausible.

I think the theory is at least plausible.

Moreover, if the theory is eventually proven, then perhaps scientific credence might at last be given to those Biblical passages that pertain to the fall of manna.

Just my opinion.

John

Ah! Thanks for the explanation. I thought you were saying if science proved how manna was formed it would have a negative biblical implication. I see that you meant quite the opposite, which by the way, I totally agree with. There are many theories as to the miracles in Exodus, including very plausible scientific theories. The conclusions, however, do not exclude divine intervention. In the following link, I like very much the author's analogy and conclusion:

The fact that we can explain an event in terms of physical mechanisms does not mean that we have explained it away. Physics can explain how all the notes in Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony are produced, but that does not mean that Physics has explained why it is great music, nor that physics has eliminated the need for an expert composer.

He goes on to say

Many years ago Aristotle wrote about miracles and he said that the 'efficient cause' of a miracle could be a natural agent, with the 'final cause' being the will of God. The miracle is revealed by the extraordinary timing of the event.

Beautiful.

Byblos wrote:

Ah! Thanks for the explanation. I thought you were saying if science proved how manna was formed it would have a negative biblical implication. I see that you meant quite the opposite, which by the way, I totally agree with. There are many theories as to the miracles in Exodus, including very plausible scientific theories. The conclusions, however, do not exclude divine intervention. In the following link, I like very much the author's analogy and conclusion:

The fact that we can explain an event in terms of physical mechanisms does not mean that we have explained it away. Physics can explain how all the notes in Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony are produced, but that does not mean that Physics has explained why it is great music, nor that physics has eliminated the need for an expert composer.

He goes on to say

Many years ago Aristotle wrote about miracles and he said that the 'efficient cause' of a miracle could be a natural agent, with the 'final cause' being the will of God. The miracle is revealed by the extraordinary timing of the event.

Beautiful.

Indeed.

The author further writes:

I believe that the “efficient cause” in many of the Exodus miracles was a natural agent (a porous rock, a strong wind, a volcano, etc.) and that science can discover this natural agent and give the mechanism of the miracle.

My point precisely, so what about an errant comet being the natural agent and cause of all these disasters, including the fall of manna?

John

Hello all,

I wonder, are there anymore ideas as to what 'Manna' actually is (or was), Biblically speaking?

The reason I ask, is that this particular 'thread' seems to have fallen flat on this subject.

I thought that my explanation as to the scientific causation of Manna was sufficiently reasonable and worthy of further debate.

If 'Manna' really did fall from the sky in the way that I have briefly outlined (and as written in the Bible), then there are many other important questions to be considered.

This subject surely just cannot be casually "written off" as some kind of Biblical "fairy tail", because according to the Bible, the event actually happened, was long-experienced and as a result must have ramifications as to the entire preceding episodal disasters of the Exodus.

Your comments are most welcome.

John

Very well then lets critically analyze this hypothesis.

We'll start off with several simple questions.
1. How much material would of had to have been deposited by the tail of the comet in order to provide manna for forty years?
Exodus 16:45 The Israelites ate manna forty years, until they came to a land that was settled; they ate manna until they reached the border of Canaan.

2. Why did the manna not fall on the Sabbath?
Exodus 16:27 Nevertheless, some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather it, but they found none.

3. If the manna fell for forty years, how possible is it that it will remain localized? Wouldn't the hydrocarbons deposited by the comets tail have diffused around the globe after such a long period?

I think this points out the potential pitfalls of finding naturalistic explanations for miracles. Sometimes we forget that these miracles are ultimately caused by God, even if He works within His creation, He oculd still manipulate occurences.

Although God could have used these naturalistic means, this does not exclude Him acting within His creation to perform miracles.

It is fascinating to explore such possibilities...and lest I come off as critical, I do like thinking about different ways God could have performed the miracles.

However, I don't like dismissing the historical accuracy of the miracles by some who have found a naturalistic explanation for an event. For instance, trying to "explain" why the river turned red and dismissing the miracle as being some sort of natural event.

zoegirl, your treading on thin ice with regards to old earth theory here

I concur. Some cannot seem to just accept by faith (the Truth), rather needing to explain the how and the why in human terms. Your either going to beleive what God says literally or your going to have to go hunting for a new perspective on things.

Theories and speculation are fine, as long as we don't superimpose our lil experiences on the Word (aka trade Truth for a lie).