The Dome of Heaven in a Water-Filled Universe

[StuartJ]

E v C debates are almost always a critique of the limitations of science.

A ploy of the faith community is to steer them away from a focus on Genesis mythology.

Let's see if we can keep the microscope firmly on "scripture":

6And God saith, ‘Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.’ 7And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so. 8And God calleth to the expanse ‘Heavens;’ and there is an evening, and there is a morning — day second. Genesis 1 YLT

Quite clearly, biblical creation mythology has this version of Creator God open a dome of air in a water-filled universe.

Can the faith community leave science alone and back up their "scripture" with anything other than belief ...?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 1 by StuartJ]

Really, they should.

A creation physicist named Russel Humphreys correctly predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus, Neptune and predicted how the magnetic field of Mercury degenerated from Mariners fly by of Mercury to the latest fly by of Mercury.

He accomplished this by using a model in which the universe started out as a large volume of water.

His theory correctly predicts the CBR temperature and also explains why it is so constant, something that physicists today cannot.

So unless you know a physicist that can predict the magnetic field of the Alpha century system a feat the Humphreys can do. I think that secular science my want to follow the leading of the Bible.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 2 by EarthScienceguy]

As a mythologist, I'm going to leave the "universe started out as a large volume of water" model to the scientists in the forum.

However (I love howevers) I'm going to put on my prophetic hat and predict that they will cause that notion to evaporate very quickly.

But back to the biblical creation mythology: can you demonstrate that the Elohim of Genesis One had anything at all to do with the large volume of water ...?

Besides quoting more of the mythology and cultural propaganda that is.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 3 by StuartJ]

I give you facts and you give me what was that?

Do you know any model that can accurately predict the magnetic field of a body before it is measured?

And as far as mythology goes. The state at which cosmology of the Big Bang theory is in right now is nothing more than mythology.

So if you care to bring facts that is one thing. But your make believe stuff I like Curious George Better .

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 2 by EarthScienceguy]

A creation physicist named Russel Humphreys...

Please ... not this quack. Virtually everything he has proposed in the areas of a young earth, radiometric dating, cosmology (such as clumping of red shifts), etc. has been shown to be wrong. Even other Christians have pointed out his errors:

https://www.trueorigin.org/rh_fackmcin1.pdf

Just another person from the Institute for Creation Research who abandoned their scientific training to peddle young earth creationism. At least Tomkins has done some legitimate work and published it in real journals ... this Humphrey's guy was a total failure as a physicist (something like 14 papers published in real journals in a 40+ year career, only 1 or 2 as first author, and zero citations for those). He's never made an original discovery of anything, as shown by his publication record and the thorough disproving of virtually all of his young earth and creationism claims.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 4 by EarthScienceguy]

You seem to have forgotten to give me the "facts" relating the Elohim to the large volume of water ...?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 5 by DrNoGods]

Please ... not this quack. Virtually everything he has proposed in the areas of a young earth, radiometric dating, cosmology (such as clumping of red shifts), etc. has been shown to be wrong.

It says a lot when creationists have to hang their hat on such a shoddy hook. If they had a compelling case to make why would they rely on examples that only serve to undermine it?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 7 by brunumb]

It says a lot when creationists have to hang their hat on such a shoddy hook.

Yes ... ESG is just parroting stuff from creation websites, and they all have a collection of Ph.D.'s who try to convince people that certain aspects of accepted science are wrong (of course, only those aspects that are at odds with their biblical interpretations ... everything else seems to be fine). But their stuff is only "published" in journals and websites that they, themselves have created, because it can't pass muster in the real world of peer-reviewed science which has repeatedly shown their various objections (eg. to the accuracy of radiometric dating) to be flawed.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 5 by DrNoGods]

So, what is it you do not like about Humphrey's. The way he is unapologetic about the his beliefs. Or the way that his theories actually makes predictions that other cosmologist can't.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 8 by DrNoGods]

Oh!!!! I am laughing out loud!!!!

Yes ... ESG is just parroting stuff from creation websites,

Really, what about all of the papers I have read from you "parroting" your belief system.

they all have a collection of Ph.D.'s who try to convince people that certain aspects of accepted science are wrong (of course, only those aspects that are at odds with their biblical interpretations ... everything else seems to be fine). But their stuff is only "published" in journals and websites that they, themselves have created, because it can't pass muster in the real world of peer-reviewed science which has repeatedly shown their various objections (eg. to the accuracy of radiometric dating) to be flawed.

A group of Ph. D's can peer review their work. That is what a magazine has is a group of Ph. D's that review the work of theorist and experimentalist that submit papers. And then the rest of the community reads those papers and to falsify them.

But if you wonder why they do no publish in your journals is that our theories our better and they make better predictions about universe we live in. Your journals are stuck back in the dark ages. They cannot make correct predictions about the early universe, they do not even have a theory of why mass causes an indention in the fabric of space, they consistent accurate theory of why the CBR is as constant as it is and they do not even have a theory on the cosmological constant problem.

Your Journals are in the Dark Ages. Come out of the dark ages and see the light and you may see some theories that can actually make predictions.