FW: [asa] Creation "waters"

From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Wed Sep 17 2008 - 17:07:44 EDT

 

Hi Jon,

 

I’ll be happy to elaborate for any interested. [I’ve tried longer
versions to attract attention. Looks like the little rim-shot posts are
more effective. *wink*]

 

M-Genesis assumes either an actual observer carried back in time for the
purpose of giving us an account of God’s creative works (at least some
highlights) or an person learning this in some other fashion (eg. Vision).
It also assumes that what is being observed would be in accordance with a
view normal to our sensory perceptions.

 

v. 2 The earth was without form and void.

 

That's fine, a formless earth could refer to a time before the solar
system and planets were formed, looking from God's vantage point.

 

Yes, but not just God’s vantage point. We are only just now (2008!)
observing regions within protostellar accretion disks that appear as voids,
and within these voids are protoplanetary formations, which are amorphous
regions that form their own relatively little accretion disks. [I posted
one example a month or so ago, and will be glad to find it if anyone wishes
it.] This means that our Genesis author could easily have been describing
the early creative works for our Solar system. There really was a time
when most all could agree that the Earth did appear as without form and [in
a] void.

 

v. 3 God said let there be light

 

That doesn't say anything about blue light.

 

[Blue light is not needed to make our sky or most any cloudless atmosphere
appear blue. Of course, the more blue the better, but the blue we see in
the sky comes from the blue portion of the visible spectrum that gets
scattered (Rayleigh scattering) much more than the longer wavelengths. So,
sunlight works just fine to making gases appear blue…. Watery blue. I will
explain why the disk is a bright blue shortly.]

 

Our observer is witnessing the three main objects: the void region where the
cloud of dust and gas is accumulating into our protoplanet, the huge and
flat stellar accretion disk that extends for billions of miles (blue in
color), and the nascent Sun.

 

It is my understanding that many accretion disks will form a shroud around
the protostar during the early formation period, but when the disk is quite
apparent. This may, somehow, keep this central region relatively dark
compared to the bright disk. If the shroud is ruptured by God’s command or
other timely event, then what would we see…. light!

 

v. 4 God divided light from darkness.

 

The vastness of space is indeed dark and the bright disk would make for
quite a contrast. Interestingly, note what God gives names to: Day, which
would indeed be daylight as we now it to-day, and night which is what we see
without daylight (ie space).

 

v. 6 firmament in the midst of the waters.

 

The so-called "waters" could represent that "blue thingy" seen in the sky
at the creation of the solar system on the 2nd day,

 

Yes, and let me argue for this a little further. In order for us to see
color, a surface must be bright enough, else only our eye’s rods will be
active and no color is seen. If the Sun is in a shroud, how could the disk
be bright enough for us to see color? The answer comes from the very bright
and numerous neighbors. Briefly, most stars are now known to form with
hundreds or thousands of neighbors. The big stars are normally the first to
form and these can be thousands of times brighter than our average (sorta)
star. They would also be very close to the Sun and one another since they
all formed from a single cloud. This could easily explain why this vast
“sea” would have appeared very blue and be describable as “waters” to a
novice.

 

…still from God's vantage point, but if so what is the firmament?

 

What did God Himself call it? Is it not Heaven, or a region of it, at
least? Why would God want to establish a region of His Heaven near Earth?
Looks to me like He had a plan from the start. I know of folks who claim to
have experienced a brief moment of time above the Earth due to the “hand” of
God or some other divine force carrying them up…. Up to Heaven.

 

Since Earth was still without form, there was no atmospheric dome-like
firmament, so I disagree with those that have that line of thinking. [Not
that I am insisting that any of my views are actually correct.]

 

And what is it dividing,…

 

It appears to be a division between another watery disk. The protosun and
its disk would not be the only star/disk in the region. Thus, the region of
Heaven (observable by our special guest of God) might appear to separate one
body of water from another. The view of these waters separating would have
required an sudden increase in the rate of time, which is a little awkward,
admittedly, but I think there is some plausibility to it.

 

And if we are going to hold God and this text to a "literal"
interpretation, why didn't God say "blue light" instead of "water"? Didn't
he know the difference?

 

But why would He say blue light? The object being observed was not blue
light, but a gasesous and dusty disk that scattered the light causing it to
appear as waters. Perhaps “waters” (mayim) could be used for such a
description. Dick, any thoughts? There may be some examples of the use of
waters other than a reference to H2O. Perhaps Jer 10:13 (When he uttereth
his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the
vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth;), and then there are the
“living” waters.

 

v. 9 waters gather into one place, the dry land appears, which was called
earth.

 

Is this where you would suggest that the planet was formed, after the
initial creation of the solar system?

 

Yes. Note the reference frame of the observer. He appears to be on the
Earth rather than in Heaven above the Earth.

 

v. 11 let the earth bring forth grass.

 

Pretty large jump in sequence, to the time when life had formed and plant
life began to appear on earth, including seed-bearing plants which came much
later.

 

But this is Creation 101 for Moses, not a 600 level course. J What did we
likely miss prior to plants? A few remaining asteroid blasts and some
volcanic activity would have been an exciting addition, but these are not
that important.

  

> v. 14 lights in the firmament.

> Where do these fit with an M-Genesis theory? All the above I assume is
referring to the creation of earth and solar system. Where does the
creation of the universe and other galaxies fit, if at all?

 

Another good question. There are a couple of ways to interpret this. One
way is to note what God actually said and what was observed. Letting the
objects in space serve the stated purpose could be the meaning behind “Let”.
M-Genesis claims that these stars were there all along, but now they have a
useful purpose for mankind. These normal appearing stars may not have been
visible to Moses during his time above the protoearth, but after the Earth
formed and the sky cleared (where plants can now absorb sunlight during the
Day), then our now terrestrial observer would finally be in a place he was
familiar: on land with normal night skies above. Recall that the early
formation period included extremely bright neighbors that might have created
far too much glare for seeing many “normal-looking” points of light (stars).
[Surprisingly, there are at least 25 objects that amateur astronomers can
observe during daylight with small telescopes, but the glare prevents all
but a few to the naked eye.]

 

M-Genesis does not see God commanding the rest of the stars and universe to
come forth; they were already there, which had much to do with the normal
formation of our Solar system from a giant molecular cloud, possibly
triggered into collapse by a supernova, which is not uncommon in
astronomical observations of stellar nursery regions. In other words, Big
Bang Theory is in no way a conflict with M-Genesis.

 

> v. 20 creatures appear on earth.

 

> Yet biology tells us that many sea creatures appeared before flowering,
seed-bearing plants appeared (some biologist please correct me if I'm wrong
about this). If the scriptural sequence differs from the biological
sequence of events in some non-literal fashion, does this affect your zeal
for finding a concordist explanation for the astronomical events?

 

Doesn’t bother me as this was not a science lesson but a personal walk with
God as if through a garden. The order of things seen in a garden walk are
not important, but what it is that is being observed. But, perhaps plant
life was a much more obvious life form before sea creatures were more
obvious. I don’t know, but either way, it doesn’t put M-Genesis in deep
water regardless.

 

v. 24 land creatures come forth. Again someone correct me if I'm wrong,
but didn't land creatures appear before flying ones, according to the
standard biological timeline?

 

Maybe. There was one obscure article long ago that intrigued me. It
suggested that flying fish may have been an earlier form to birds. I don’t
know if this has any merit. Again, it appears to me that our observer is
seeing a great number of things during this 5th day he was taken back into
this era where such life was so noted. The order may simply represent the
order he saw them and not the evolutionary order, which would have been far
beyond any determination our observer could have made without God telling
him.

 

I'll leave it at that, and not ask about what was the seventh day from a
purely scientific/concordist interpretation, or why you think Genesis 2 has
a different sequence (which omits the "celestial" creation).

 

Genesis 2 is only a brief recap of Genesis 1. Notice that the heavens and
earth are stated to have been made in one day, which is a figurative way of
using “day” and not literal as in the more formal Genesis 1 account.

 

I'm not asking for a lengthy discourse, but just an explanation of why
you think M-Genesis contributes to our knowledge of either science or
theology through a literal concordism in the above verses.

 

Imagine if you had a dozen dogs and one were missing. If some photographer
came in and showed you a picture of a dog that looked just like the one you
were missing, you’d be thrilled. In the history of mankind, we have never
been able to get high resolution of stellar accretion disks. It wasn’t that
long ago that they were only theoretical. Now we can see them, and what do
we see. To see a creative moment for a star system where protoplanets do
appear as regions describable as without form and void should be a very
exciting event for anyone believing in God’s Word. Something lost may
indeed be found and we [scientists and theologians, of which I’m neither]
need to explore this possibility.

 

Further, how many literal views are concordant with mainstream science? J

 

Also, does anyone know why blue accretion disks appear blue? Does it
have anything to do with the nature of the light generated being changed as
it travels through a billion miles, or is it affected by our observational
instruments? If so, what does this say about God as an observer of the
creation of this solar system?

 

I think my earlier comments may be enough, but this is really a cool
subject, so I’ll make this long post longer. In fairness, astronomers are
very limited in actually observing the color of accretion disks. If one is
illuminated enough by nearby stars, then the glare would be a problem. New
instruments are now be used that do a great deal to cut the glare. To my
knowledge, a blue stellar accretion disk has not been claimed. However, one
astronomer has told me that a few edge-on disks are redder than normal (due
to Rayleigh scattering), which is a very strong indication that the disk of
the face will be more blue than normal (but not necessarily bright enough to
excite our color cones). Color of these disks is not a priority, no doubt.
However, if we obtain their spectral irradiance data in the visible portion
of the spectrum, then it won’t be that hard to determine their dominant
color. It really isn’t much of a stretch to suggest some disks will appear
blue… watery blue.

 

Also, what does the blue skies of Saturn have to do with the blue
accretion disks of distant galaxies?

 

The blue sky of Saturn is a stronger case for blue disks, I think, than our
blue sky. The reason our sky is blue is not simply because our particle
sizes in our atmosphere our smaller than the wavelength of blue light
(required for Rayleigh Scattering), but because the number of particles is
about right. If we had a much more massive sky, we would not see a blue sky
because blue light would now be scattering so often that they would
scatterer away from us. The blue sky is a result of only one or two
scatters before it hits your eye. Saturn has a very thick atmosphere and
even the blue region we see from above might not look blue if we were
standing below the atmosphere (you would appear blue, however, ice blue. J )
Yet, because we are above Saturn’s thick atmosphere and still see the blue
effect, then thick stellar accretion disk will, likely, also appear blue
(given enough light).

 

An entire book could be written about this last topic. Indeed, “Why the Sky
is Blue” (Gotz Hoeppe, 2007) is a dandy.

 

Not trying to be argumentative, but I confess to being a bit skeptical
over how this concept provides any value to establishing the "truth" of
Genesis 1, according to God's intended meaning for us.

 

In every case, interpretation is required for Genesis. No one
interpretation is proveable or even makes so much sense that it clobbers the
others. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be discussing alternative interpretations,
right?

 

What is different is the evidence that is only now emerging before us.
This new information may, or may not, contribute to any or all interpretive
views. Look what happened to the Geocentric model once a dinky telescope
was turned into the region God called “Night”.

 

Thanks greatly for your questions and interest. I am doing this in-between
massive interruptions during work, sorry if any is incoherent.

 

“Coope”

 

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Jon Tandy

 

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Cooper
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:06 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [asa] Creation "waters"

 

I am still quite enamored with the idea of a literal view of the “waters” of
Gen. 1. Here is some new evidence supporting such an idea.

 

Here is a pretty image of a star forming region only 40 trillion miles down
the road from here.

 

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080916.html

 

It demonstrates the likelihood that our Sun could have been bathed in
copious amounts of light. This would have produced a very blue color
emanating from the Sun’s accretion disk such that one might describe it as
“waters”.

 

This is seen not only in our sky but off-world, also. For instance, here is
the result of starlight (Sun) illuminating the dense northern hemisphere of
Saturn (during a period when its sky was clear).

 

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/17feb_bluesaturn.htm

 

It is quite plausible that an observer – one taken back in time to be the
designated witness -- would have described what was observable in a fashion
that we find in Genesis.

 

Coope

 

 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Sep 17 17:08:16 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 17 2008 - 17:08:16 EDT