|
|
Volume 2, Issue 4
| February 5, 2012 |
|
The merits of a water-based cosmology
Water clouds in the Orion nebula (inset: typical galaxy)
Greetings,
In the first chapter of Genesis, along with other passages of Scripture, we learn that God created the universe from water. The Scriptures also refer to the 'waters above' and the 'waters below' as significant divisions of the physical universe. But even before the scientific revolution, cosmologists rarely thought either of the universe's creation or its composition in terms of water. One reason was their earlier adoption of Aristotle's cosmology which lacked mention of upper- and lower-most waters. Following the Copernican revolution, telescopes failed to discover water above the earth's clouds.
The first modern philosophers preferred seeing the world's creation in terms of particles moving in the vacuum (or else the ether) of space. The nebular hypothesis reckoned that particles or gases were drawn by gravity to form the sun and planets. Difficulties explaining the solar system's origins were resolved by proposing the collisions of stars and comets or the capture of planets. By the end of the eighteenth century, cosmologists were returning to Aristotle's view that the universe had no beginning. Only within the last century have astronomers believed that our world formed as the burst of energy from the Big Bang cooled to form hydrogen atoms. Widely supposed a rare substance in the universe at large, water hardly figures in the latest models of our world's creation or composition.
There are lots of unsolved problems in the present cosmology, far more than the question of what caused the beginning. For example, what caused hydrogen atoms that are uniformly expanding to cluster together so as to form stars? What gave the galaxies their observed angular momentum? As in the case of the beginnings of life, most of these problems are solved, if they are solved, by ad hoc hypothesis (that is to say, by more guesses). As I explained in the last newsletter, what gives theories scientific status is their ability to make predictions that can be tested. In fact, new observations and studies constantly refute current theories, at least those that make predictions sufficiently specific to be tested. As with so many fields, the more one knows about cosmology, the less impressed he can be with the latest proposals.
Not only can we not be sure about how the world was formed, we may not even know the material of which our present world is formed. Cosmologists currently suppose that to be chiefly hydrogen with a small measure of helium, and even less of the heavier elements. Planets, comets, and asteroids hardly count in this calculation due to the fact that the stars are far more massive. Of course that is literally a superficial conclusion. As the lightest gases, should we not expect hydrogen and helium to form the stars' outermost and observable parts? In truth, we haven't the slightest information on what is below the surface of the stars.
How can we know what comprises the stars and the dark matter that we fail even to see, when we don't even know the material that is far beneath the surface of our own earth. You may have learned that the deep interior of our earth is composed of liquid iron and nickel. That is due to the dubious presumption that our earth formed from meteorites. We know the earth's weight and density and we learn something of the interior structure by studying seismic waves. But we can't guess the material from this data because we don't even know the properties of materials at the temperature and pressures that exist far below the surface of the earth. We don't know the properties because we cannot create those pressures in our most advanced laboratories. Only recently, have we been able to create the pressures necessary for the formation of diamonds, presume to be created at pressures only about sixty miles below the earth's surface.
A different kind of cosmological thinking stems from asking a question in geology: why do the continents float on the earth's liquid mantle higher than the level of the oceans? Rocks and solid earth are heavier than water. According to the principle of isostasy, the heavier continents should sink deeper into the earth's mantle than the lighter oceans. Of course, they do not. Surprisingly, gravity is lowest at the earth's highest mountains, just as we would expect were the continents like icebergs floating above what is in fact heavier ocean basins. The only way I know to explain that is to accept that even now there is more water beneath the continents than in the oceans! That is confirmed by the increasing presence of water found in the deepest drills into the earth's surface. We see hot vents spewing virgin water from geysers, volcanoes, and even vents on the ocean floor. How ever did lighter water get below the earth's heavy rocks?
Perhaps, the earth is made largely of water, just as the Bible tells us. What we are likely to overlook is the fact that, at the ultra-high pressures that exist far beneath the earth's surface, water might be heavier and more dense than molten rock. As chemists know, water is a highly unusual material. Its compressibility increases at high temperatures and pressures, opposite of most forms of rock whose compressibility decreases at high temperatures and pressure. In the interior of the earth, what would be five gallons of water at the surface may fit in a two gallon bucket, whereas molten rock may resist compression from the high pressure, even expand due to the ultra-hot temperatures. Nearer the surface, rock becomes heavier than water though still mixed with water as deep drills reveal.
What else could explain the increasing presence of water in the earth's deepest drills? Hydrogen is also present in these deep drills, indicating some breaking up of water, its oxygen having been captured by some of the oxides found in the earth's rocks. The weight of the earth's rocky crust cap the compressed water though as geysers, volcanoes, and deep sea vents reveal, there are places where water seeps to the earth's surface. We can also see that the earth's crust would naturally form following the time that God gathered the water to form the earth. An act of God would be required to divide the continental from the ocean basins, as Genesis explains happened on the third day of Creation.
If God formed the earth from ordinary (that is to say, mineral laden) water, why not the other objects in our universe? Indeed, this water cosmology predicts many of the observed properties of the planets, moons, comets, and asteroids, giving the theory the all-imortant testability lacking in so many of the present theories. For example, what happens if the mass of water is much larger than the earth? The mineral content of the water should be a fixed percentage of its radius, but surface area increases by the square of the radius. This explains the lower density of the giant planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. They are insufficiently capped by a layer of molten or solid rock. Only the small planets and the moons are terrestrial (having a rocky surface). Asteroids are but rocks that are blown from the terrestrial planets and moons due to the impact of large comets, which as now believed are themselves mostly water and ice.
That leaves only the stars, the dark matter, and of course the large masses of water that have been observed in intergalactic space. Clouds of water are observed in the Orion nebulae (photo above). The formation of stars would require an even larger mass of water than the giant planets: sufficient to create the pressures and temperatures necessary for nuclear fusion. Water breaks down into hydrogen and oxygen. If the stars are formed from water, hydrogen together with helium formed from hydrogen fusion must necessarily be observed in the stars outer and visible regions. Dark matter may just be water that has not been collected into visible stars. We should not be surprised that astronomers are finding so much water on planets, moons, comets, and even in intergalactic space.
Best regards,
Philip Williams
|
|
|
New recipients
If this is your first, please take a look at our archive of earlier newsletters.
|
How scholars explain the Genesis cosmology And why their explanation is but a glibly-conceived myth
Disappointingly, even many regarded as conservative scholars are increasingly turning to the view that the early chapters of Genesis are not factual history. They are accepting the view of nineteenth century German scholars that the Creation account in the first chapter of Genesis is a Hebrew version of Ancient Near Eastern myth in which the world was created from watery depths. According to these scholars, the Sumerians who created this myth lived in a land of rivers frequented by floods. Naturally, those who lived in such a watery land will conceive of creation in terms of powerful forces of water. As evidence of the mythical roots of the biblical account of Creation, scholars point to Scriptures (e.g. Isaiah 27:1) that refer to the Lord battling a great creature of the sea in his process of creation or restoration. Similar accounts of creation are to be found among Ancient Near Eastern texts. These scholars should know something about the creation and uncritical acceptance of creation myth. Consider their explanation of the creation account of Genesis. Is it in fact more than glib speculation, widely accepted only because there is no better explanation for why the biblical account of creation differs from what scientists now believe? Another reason may be due to widespread belief that the Bible teaches that this account of Creation was first revealed to Moses. That is indeed a myth of the rabbis and church fathers, but found nowhere in the Scriptures. To the contrary, the Scriptures show the patriarchs and others from the time of Adam with whom the Creator also communicated. It would be strange if Enoch, Noah, and Abraham failed to know that their God was also Creator. We may assume that Noah knew that God created the world from water because the Chinese and other nations retained accounts of the creation of the world from water just as they retained memory of the Flood. Why must scholars assume that only the Hebrews borrowed this account of creation? Do not widespread accounts point to the common origins of nations, just as the Bible explains? In fact, the very name Sumerian derives from Shem, son of Noah, ancestor of the Hebrews, and as I claim, also the ancestor of the Chinese. The Sumerians were not island-dwelling fishermen or famous for their navy. How was water a greater part of their experience than mountains, plains, deserts, or clay? In fact, they lived near the center of the earth's largest connected land mass. They were probably unaware of the earth's largest oceans. Were floods more important to the life of Sumerians than the Egyptians who lived by the Nile? In fact the Sumerians traced their origins to the land of Aratta, which one must reach by crossing seven mountains, but appropriate to the place where Noah's Ark rested. Clearly the scholars are making up their story of composition. Their explanation is uncritical myth. Of course, the Sumerians and Hebrews are just like us in needing to read their received account of Creation in terms of their own particular experience of water, whether that be rivers, lakes, deep wells, great oceans, or water in intergalactic space. The account of creation in this newsletter reads what mankind presently knows or believes about the universe through the Genesis account of creation. Our understanding changes, but astonishingly, the account of Creation is suitable to our varying experiences. Scripture is never obsolete because it is in fact the living Word. Finally, what about the biblical account of the Lord's battle with the monster of the deep? Perhaps the Lord had to contend with forces of darkness during Creation as he did in the time of Daniel and the Persians. The Scriptures such as those in Daniel refer to some of these forces as beasts or monsters. Satan himself is often depicted as a dragon. This may trouble those who prefer the God of the philosophers, but the Scriptures use historical language and even refer to the Lord's Creation as work! The Creator did not rest until the seventh day of Creation. Christians understand the world in terms of spiritual battle and we believe that the Lord, our Creator, fights our battles if we allow him. Whatever images we use to visualize these spiritual battles, are we to suppose that the ancient servants of God were unable to sense the spiritual dimensions of mankind's struggles? Thinking like that is due to the arrogance of modern Western scholars. |
|
|
Plate tectonics and creation of the earth's magnetic field? How water from the Flood and ions above the earth better explain the facts
Ocean floor ridges (National Geographic)
Some will object to a water-based cosmology due to the theory of plate tectonics: supposed conveyer belts of magma deep within the earth moving the continents back and forth across the oceans. Objections will also come from theories pertaining to the creation and reversals of the earth's magnetic field from supposed currents deep within the earth. Variations of magnetism where the ocean floors are spreading is supposed to demonstrate reversals of the earth's magnetic field and consequently the ocean floor spreading taking place over millions of years.
Historians of geology point out that there is no direct evidence for plate tectonics. They see this video-game theory as a move from empirically-driven geology back to the highly-speculative theories that dominated geology before the late eighteenth century. In any case, phenomena such as ocean floor spreading, the Pacific 'ring of fire' (volcanoes), and the rise of continents and mountains are better explained by water from the Flood draining from the continents and elevating their mountains as they deepen and stretch the ocean basins. In fact, there exists evidence that the Pacific Ocean has significantly deepened and that the earth's highest mountains have significantly grown within historical times. The sources for these scientific studies as well as those historians of geology may be found in my book (available below right).
I also point out that those who developed the current theory for what produces the earth's magnetic field ignore basic laws of electromagnetism. That is to say, the dialectic (non-conducting medium) required for creation of the earth's magnetic field from electrical currents cannot in fact be found inside the earth (because the conductivity of the earth prevents it) though it does exist above the earth. On the other hand, the earth's spinning of its positively-charged ionosphere must create a north-south magnetic field more or less as we observe. This can be tested by observing the magnetic fields of the planets that in fact track the intensity of their ionospheres and the rates of their spin. This means that the earth's magnetic field cannot reverse unless the direction of the earth's spin also reverses. In fact, the variations in the earth's magnetic field on the ocean floors and on the sides of volcanos are more simply explained by the displacement of paleomagnetic rock.
Hardly anyone today disagrees that the earth's land masses have shifted since their creation but we don't need plate tectonics to explain this. Most shifting probably occurs due to the centrifugal force of the earth's turning causing the earth's solid crust to move across its liquid mantel. I contend that we see evidence of this in the displacement of magnetic north from true north and in magnetic declination: varying local changes in the earth's magnetic field from true north.
|
|
NAMI's Ark documentary
| Give image time to download
|
 (Documentary)
|
|
| Can life on earth be older than the sun?
Plants' need for light before the creation of the sun may explained their puzzling design
Plants on early earth*
The first chapter of Genesis tells us that God created the earth, its land, and even plant life prior to his creating the sun, moon, and stars. But plant life as we know it today depends on the light and warmth from the sun. How could plants have survived on the earth prior to the sun?
The answer is that warmth and light need not come from the sun. In fact, the account in Genesis is logical. God created everything needed for the life of plants - water, light, and soil - prior to his creation of the sun. God began his creation with water and created light on the first day - before he created the sun. Many believe that the low-level of infrared radiation detected in the background of the universe (more commonly used to support the Big Bang theory of Creation) is nothing other than the light that God created on his first day of creation. The earth's early plants would have enjoyed constant light.
Because the universe is expanding and its expansion is accelerating, this light would have been at a higher intensity and shorter wavelength (due to red shifting) than we observe in the background radiation today. This always shining light would have had to be sufficient in intensity and wavelength for use by plants, but we may presume that the intelligence of the Creator was also present to design the appropriate ecosystem for the life of plants on earth on the third day of Creation as for the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh days.
The Lord's design for the life of plants without the sun may explain something that has puzzled plant scientists. Chlorophyll absorbs light in the blue and red parts of the spectrum, which is why plants appear green. But our present sun radiates mostly in the yellow spectrum. Why weren't plants designed with a light absorption material that could more efficiently use the sun? The design of plants may have in fact been due to their need to absorb light from a less-intense source on the red side of the spectrum, the wavelength of the first day light in the era of the earth's history that existed prior to God's creation of the sun.
The above illustration of early plant life on earth is drawn from fossilized plants, but we may know little of how plants really looked during this time. This is because plants die and decay, creating the rich compost now found on the earth. The compost is carried by rivers and streams into the oceans where it is covered by increasing deposits of sand eventually producing oil and gas found under the ocean bottoms, which may eventually become land. But this explains why oil and gas are most abundant near the mouths and surrounding area of river deltas. Interestingly, we may owe most of our fossil fuels, that supply our energy apart from the sun, to life on earth without the sun.
*Illustration by Mary Parrish, Smithsonian Institute |
 The Archaeological Evidence
 | | Click to purchase |
The Archaeological Evidence of Noah's Flood is available from many online booksellers. We notice that the fastest and most reliable way of obtaining the book is from our website which can be accessed by clicking the book icon at right.
Price: $34.95
S & H: 4.00 (US addresses)
Tax: 2.70 (NC residents only) |
Join Our Mailing List!
If I somehow got your email on my mailing list to which you did not want to be subscribed or if you received this at more than one of your email addresses, please accept my apology and unsubscribe by using the SafeUnsubscribe utility below.
|
|
|
About Us
Christian Leaders & Scholars is the newsletter and publication site of Philip Ernest Williams, author of The Archaeological Evidence of Noah's Flood (2011). The site is also a ministry not only to Christian leaders and scholars but all who are interested in the more difficult issues pertaining to the Bible and its implications for science and history. (Read more) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
