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 ...?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 9 by EarthScienceguy]

Or the way that his theories actually makes predictions that other cosmologist can't.

But he hasn't done this. What he does is assume a 6000 year old universe and then try to come up with ways to force that to make sense. For example, his planetary magnetic field "predictions" are where he assumed all the planets were initially balls of water with aligned H2O molecules creating the initial magnetic field, then he works out how that would decay over time (exponentially) and gets some number close to 6000 years to match the fields seen today. This is just coincidence since we know, for a fact, that the planets did not start as balls of H2O.

I could propose that the moon is made of concrete, then calculate the gravitational field of the moon. Since the resulting number is in the same ballpark as the actual moon's magnetic field, I could then claim that I have proven that the moon is made of concrete (or pick any substance with a density near 3.3 g/cm^3). This is all Humphrey's has done with his planetary magnetic field predictions, and most of his other claims have been shown outright to be false (like his claim of clumped red shifts). The guy isn't doing science ... he's assuming the results and then looking for ways to make his numbers fit (ie. standard creationist's tactics).

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 10 by EarthScienceguy]

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

Science is not a belief system. Faith (the perspective you are coming from) is a believe system. Apparently you do not know the difference, which is pretty astonishing.

A group of Ph. D's can peer review their work.

That's the fundamental problem with these creationists websites and their "scientists." They are peer reviewing their OWN work. Don't you see the difference between that, and sending papers out to a general community of experts in the relevant field and having them review a paper independently and without bias? Clearly you don't see the difference, which is why you can't understand what everyone is telling you. You don't understand how the scientific method works, or peer review, or how these differ from pure faith.

... they do not even have a theory of why mass causes an indention in the fabric of space...

Ever heard of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity? That is over 100 years old now and you've never heard of it? You need to do a little more reading.

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.

Brilliant. The whole science world is wrong and your small band of creationists are the only group who really know what is going on. The reality is that creationism is nothing more than a fringe subject these days that real science buried long ago along with flat earth theories and other similar nonsense. It has no validity in the modern world.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Brilliant. The whole science world is wrong and your small band of creationists are the only group who really know what is going on. The reality is that creationism is nothing more than a fringe subject these days that real science buried long ago along with flat earth theories and other similar nonsense. It has no validity in the modern world.

With regards to where the universe came from, yes the whole science community is wrong.

How did the universe come into being? Big Bang Theory? Really? Is that what you believe?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 13 by EarthScienceguy]

How did the universe come into being? Big Bang Theory? Really? Is that what you believe?

I'm a physical chemist, not a theoretical physicist, and spend zero time worrying about whether the Big Bang hypothesis is correct or not. The answer to that has no relationship to anything I've ever done or ever will do, and is irrelevant to me as a subject. So I don't have an opinion one way or another as to whether or not it is a correct hypothesis, and don't have enough expertise in theoretical physics to make any challenges to it (and, I expect, neither do you).

However ... it has a lot going for it and is the current "best" description for how the present universe came into being (eg. cosmic background radiation, extrapolation of the currently observed expansion, etc.). That is, there is good reason to believe that it may be a valid hypothesis, and when the legitimate physics community supports it as the current most probable description I am happy to accept their position as the recognized experts in the field.

Compare this to creationism (pick any of the many versions of such events that have been concocted by different religions):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

None of these have any supporting physical or observational evidence. They are described in various holy books, then groups like AIG and CRI (in the case of the popular christian bible's creation myth) spend a lot of time and money trying to validate the myth and justify it, all for naught. They start with the assumption that the myth is true, then try to shoe-horn science into that belief. That is not how real science works.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 14 by DrNoGods]

Eight well known problems with the big bang theory.

1. Flatness problem (Why is the universe so flat.)
2. Horizon Problem (Why is the temperature of the universe so constant? It has less variation in temperature than glass of water does.)
3. Monopole Problem (Why are there no monopoles
4. Cosmological Constant problem (Why is the calculated value of the energy of space so different than the observed value?)
5. Ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
6. The Methuselah star appears older than the universe.
7. What started and stopped inflation.
8. The big bang theory violates the second law of thermodynamics.


The Big Bang theory has soooooo many problems that you do not even have to go to a Christian website to list them.

However ... it has a lot going for it and is the current "best" description for how the present universe came into being (eg. cosmic background radiation, extrapolation of the currently observed expansion, etc.). That is, there is good reason to believe that it may be a valid hypothesis, and when the legitimate physics community supports it as the current most probable description I am happy to accept their position as the recognized experts in the field.

There you go bringing your faith into our discussion again.

Its too bad that you have not actually investigated what you believe. Cosmology is a much more interesting discussion than biology.


So which one do you want to start with.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 15 by EarthScienceguy]

These discussions ALWAYS end up as a critique of science.

THIS discussion was supposed to keep the microscope on "scripture" ...

To see "scripture" defended by the faith community.

But the faith community know they can't defend "scripture".

The scriptural "reality" is creation mythology - just like that of any other culture.

It's time more of the faith community were honest about it.

THEN they are free to discuss science.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 16 by StuartJ]

Post 15

I gave 8 problems with your big bang theory. Do you ever have any facts?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 11 by DrNoGods]

For example, his planetary magnetic field "predictions" are where he assumed all the planets were initially balls of water with aligned H2O molecules creating the initial magnetic field, then he works out how that would decay over time (exponentially) and gets some number close to 6000 years to match the fields seen today. This is just coincidence since we know, for a fact, that the planets did not start as balls of H2O.

We also know that water cannot generate a magnetic field.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 17 by EarthScienceguy]

I gave 8 problems with your big bang theory. Do you ever have any facts?

They are just unanswered questions. Can you explain how any of those questions actually refute the BB theory?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 18 by brunumb]

We also know that water cannot generate a magnetic field.

No problem ... Humphrey just invents a "god did it" event to solve that problem. He proposes that god created the planetary balls of H2O with every single atom of every H2O molecule having its nuclear spin aligned exactly the same way. The cumulative effect of all these aligned nuclear spins is responsible for the initial magnetic field. Then, apparently, god decides to tend to some other miracles, or whip up a woman hear on earth from a rib, and reality sets in and all the nuclear spins randomize over time causing the magnetic fields to decay.

Seriously ... this is his great explanation of planetary magnetic fields. It is really mind boggling that anyone buys this nonsense:

https://creationresearch.org/creation-p ... ic-fields/