First Water?

Formless and void matter, nothing but God and water Seems to be a lot of water right there at the beginning of creationNow take a look at yesterday’s article at Nature.com. Here are a few excerpts: "Perfect liquid?"....Hmmm....Does this confirm the Bible account or is it just coincidence?This message has been edited by Monk, Wed, 04-20-2005 11:22 AMThis message has been edited by Monk, Wed, 04-20-2005 11:22 AM

Where might you want this? It is awfully close to Is it Science but I can see it getting smashed there. Do you want to see it in Faith and Belief where it can have a better chance?

---

Faith and Belief is ok

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

coincidence, i suspect. but interesting. i like fun coincidences like this, where themes line up with those in the bible.while this is not precisely what the bible describes, it does share the element of having a liquid as the primordial element. however, the bible is specific that it be water. it is later this primordial water that god uses to wipe the slate with the flood.but like i said, interesting coincidence nonetheless.

Do you agree or not agree with the following statement?If the bible is infallable, then every description of nature in the bible must match with our understanding of nature. If the bible is not infallable, then we can expect inaccuracies in the descriptions of nature found in the bible.

I suppose that if you really, really pushed it you could consider the mention of water to be a very small coincidence. But water is just the obvious example to use. But I think that's pushing things too far.A quark-gluon plasma isn't water. And if it's a superfluid it would be more like liquid helium than water - but it wouldn't be right to call it liquid helium either.So no it isn't support for the Biblical account and it isn't even really worthy of being called a coincidence either.

Would one of its properties be light or would light exist at this stage? That would seem to be important here.

There ought to be photons, although I don't know if their energies would be low enough to appear in the visible spectrum. But then if you can call a quark-gluon plasma "water" I dont see why you shouldn't call all photons "light".On the other hand Genesis 1:6-10 are all talking about ordinary earthly water and I don't see any reason to insert a huge temporal gap between 1:2 and 1:6 or any reason to assume that the waters of 1:2 are not those of 1:6-10.

quote:

---

If the bible is infallable, then every description of nature in the bible must match with our understanding of nature.

---

No, I don't believe this because I don't believe that our understanding of nature is infallable.

quote:

---

If the bible is not infallable, then we can expect inaccuracies in the descriptions of nature found in the bible.

---

I believe that the spiritual message contained within the Bible it true. But since the Bible was written by imperfect humans then, yes, there are inaccuracies. I'm not a literalist.

---

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein

What about simple things, like the shape of the Earth? Do you doubt that the Earth is a sphere? How do you know where to draw the line between the imperfect stuff written by imperfect humans and the spiritual message?For example, is Leviticus 21:9 an imperfect message or a real spiritual message? How do we know this?

quote:

---

I suppose that if you really, really pushed it you could consider the mention of water to be a very small coincidence. But water is just the obvious example to use. But I think that's pushing things too far.

---

I thought you were going to give grudging acknowledgment of a very small coincidence, but by the end of your post you seemed to change your mind and retract. But is it really pushing it?It's closer to the Biblical account than hot gas which is what was expected. And if it had been water, would the argument against be wrong temperature?When you consider all the possible things the Bible writers could have said; fire, lightning, etc. I find it interesting. Sort of the same as during the early 60's when most of the scientific community believed the universe had no beginning which contradicted with the beginning creation story in the Bible. Of course all that changed with the big bang.

---

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein

Option 1: The universe had a beginning.Option 2: The universe did not have a beginning.Could you give us a third option?

quote:

---

What about simple things, like the shape of the Earth? Do you doubt that the Earth is a sphere?

---

C'mon what do you think?

quote:

---

How do you know where to draw the line between the imperfect stuff written by imperfect humans and the spiritual message?

---

That's a good question.

quote:

---

For example, is Leviticus 21:9 an imperfect message or a real spiritual message? How do we know this?

---

Prostitutes being burned in fire? Seems kinda harsh doesn't it

quote:

---

Option 1: The universe had a beginning.

​

Option 2: The universe did not have a beginning.

​

Could you give us a third option?

---

I don't have one, but you seem to so what is it?