Re: [asa] water above the solid dome in Genesis

From: George Cooper <>
Date: Tue Apr 15 2008 - 16:33:53 EDT

  You raise a good question, and, near as I can tell, "we've never done it this way before"; this does seem to be a new interpretation. To answer your question:
  First, the lack of scientific understanding of our creation history on the part of author and readers does not diminish its efficacy nor detract from the intended purpose of establishing God as Creator.
  This is easily seen in fictional movies where the lack of science -- often it is a laughable abuse of science -- is not needed to make the movie a big hit. Indeed, how many science fiction movies come close to accurately depicting the laws of physics. Yet the dramatic purpose goes unscathed.
  Secondly, there is a chance, perhaps, that an onion layer is being removed and something fresh may come forth to help us in our times and troubles. The Bible is looking more and more mythical especially to those who compare YEC claims to modern scientific evidence. Could God have intended to help re-establish His Word when such times came upon us? Maybe so.
  Thirdly, if we allow the material highlights of creation to be for the Earth, Sun, Moon & stars, land & seas, plants and animals, etc., then only when we could see other planets and stars form would we be able to have a better understanding of the account given in Genesis 1, at least the material aspects of it. Protoplanetary disk observations are only now detailed enough to allow us to see their visual internal structure. Only since last February has the first accretion disk of a planet -- it could be a dwarf star's disk instead -- ever been seen. [I am fairly sure that a protoplanetary disk (proplyd) does not refer to a disk forming around a planet, but only of a disk surrounding a star.] Not surprisingly, the observed region was obviously describable as a "void", and, if we had more powerful telescopes, the protoplanet might be observable as "without form", too. To date, due to their vast distances, no exoplanet has ever been directly observed, but that will
 change in the near future, too.
  These are amazing times for astronomy, like many other sciences. Perhaps some revelation will follow.

gordon brown <Gordon.Brown@Colorado.EDU> wrote:

  On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, George Cooper wrote:

> Little has been said as to the Gen 1 account of the "waters above". I am still entertaining the idea that these waters were the author's best effort to describe planetary accretion disks. [It certainly would have been an important event in our history.] The "waters below" likely containing a certain protoplanet that had, on the author's first day of observation, appeared as "without form and void", similar to the recent image of a protoplanetary void region seen of AB Aurigae. I see no reason why accretion disks, if higly illuminated, would not appear as blue as the sky above, and for the very same reason -- Rayleigh Scattering. Many nebula (reflection nebula) also appear "watery blue" for this reason, albeit, they are not illuminated enough for the naked eye to see their blue color. Stellar nurseries, however, can be very bright with hundreds of very bright stars -- the brighter ones were blue-white.


For what purpose would someone write a creation account including material
that noone would be capable of understanding until 3000 years later?

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 15 16:35:26 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 15 2008 - 16:35:26 EDT