Genesis 1:3 Let there be...plasma...?

[FallingWaters]

I found this article to be incredibly fascinating and intriguing.
What do you other creationists think of his ideas on this subject?
This plasma concept makes a lot of sense to me.

Any non-creationist posts arguing against the merits of this information in this thread will be reported.

Barry Setterfield, April 20, 2007
"What I want to mention is that there is another basic model regarding supernova occurrences which is not considered in any of the above papers, but which is coming to the fore among a number of astrophysicists today. This is the model presented in Donald E. Scott’s The Electric Sky. In it, and I am fascinated by his model which answers an number of outstanding problems, he states that stars are linked via plasma filaments to electric and magnetic fields within their respective galaxies. As a consequence of this, there are strong electric currents in the photospheres and upper layers of a star which cause the plasma which the star is composed of to radiate in arc current mode. The bluer the star, the higher the current. At the upper limit of stars’ masses, the current can be so high that the electrical stress on the star is such that it is only just holding together. If the electrical intensity of the current increases, it becomes sufficient to explode the star, thus resulting in a supernova. On that basis, the fluctuation of electric currents and magnetic fields within our galaxy, or any other galaxy, is the determining factor as to which massive stars explode, and when. Therefore the number of supernovas which occur in any given galaxy cannot be modeled, at least not with our present state of knowledge."
bolds mine

The Electric Sky by Donald E. Scott
Amazon.com

The Electric Sky: Donald E. Scott
online info[/quote]

 

[busterdog]

The Plasma model is interesting as a comparison.

It is important to remember what it isn't. Evolutionists would like us to say: "here is the Gospel Truth that Plasma answers everything and rejects all other data and offerings." There is lots of stuff on this forum lately about what creation science is and isn't, and this is a prime example.

What does the plasma model do? It answers questions in a cogent fashion that other models can't explain. Does it create problems for itself? Maybe. But, so does every other model.

One thing this does is demonstrate the anamolies in other models -- such as the distribution, movement, mass, inertia and densities of various heavenly bodies and galaxies. Other models create mysterious "dark matter" gravitational effects to explain the unexplainable or hypothesize asteroid collisions to explain these phenomena. Plasma science answers these questions with graphic departure from the tired old models.

You may wonder where the energy for all these events comes from. Well, Big Bang has its "dark energy", so I see no reason why hypothetical processes are off the table for discussion.

But, by many reckonings, the energy is there or available, but we just don't know what sets it off. In other words, you can prove to a certainty the existence of the energy or its potential, you just can't explain why and when it is released. See Casimer effect and Feynman's formulation that it has no determinable limit.

The other thing this does is to graphically illustrate that we needn't embrace Big Bang out of desperation or failure of imagination. Big Bang is largely accounted for simply by lack of imagination and the desire for something ancient, slow and unobserveable. With so many enormous variables and unknown, the math is available for a great many possibilities. However, having math available doesn't make it so.

By the way, some of the electric universe guys are kind of crazy. Every now and then they start soap-boxing us to death on the supposed fairy tale nature of our Loving and all-sufficient YHWH. Some of their stuff is interesting, but speculative. They do a lot of stuff comparing Greek mythology to electrical phenomena (eg, Zeus and his bolts of lightening). But, they ask really interesting questions and point out some really interesting correlations with electrical phenomena as well as gaps in the standard model.

 

[mark kennedy]

I found this article to be incredibly fascinating and intriguing.
What do you other creationists think of his ideas on this subject?
This plasma concept makes a lot of sense to me.

The plasma concept is something that has never occurred to me, it's interesting but a little out of my depth. The way I have always understood the narrative in Genesis is that it's from the perspective of the Earth. You'll remember that the Spirit was hovering over the waters, then God says, 'let there be light'. The image for me is pitch black primordial oceans completely covering the face of the earth with thick clouds that did not allow any light through.

It seems to me the clouds abated enough that light shown through but the sun and stars were still not visible for the earth. Others will tell you that they simply had not been created yet. But getting back to the light, there is one more possibility that really intrigues me.

I don't have the references handy but the glory of God in the Temple and the Tabernacle is described almost like smoke or vapor. It is called the 'shekhina' (sp?) and it departed in Ezekiel with the removal of the Ark of the Covenant. It was a light that could be so intense that it drove the Levites out at the dedication.

Could this be the light in 1:3? Hard to say for sure but that is the alternative interpretation I entertain from time to time. There is also a section in Leviticus where the inaugural sacrifices are being offered up and a 'fire from before the Lord' bursts out and consumes the oblation. That fire could never be allowed to go out and only that fire could be used for sacrifices and incense. When the sons of Aaron offered up 'strange incense' fire came from 'before the Lord' and killed them both.

Plasma? Sure sounds like an interesting thought but with no more then I know about physics I couldn't tell you what the merits are, BD is the resident cosmology enthusiast on that aspect.

Oh, by the way, there is also that passage in Romans 6 that describes Christ being raised 'through the glory of the Father'. I believe that to be more then figurative language, I believe it was the glory of God that literally raised Christ from the dead. That's one of the reasons I'm a strong YEC, all of this fits together for me as a hermetical principle. It's like I keep trying to tell the TEs on here, YEC has it's foundation in the New Testament. You interpret the Old Testement in the light of the New Testament but they just don't get the conept.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[FallingWaters]

The plasma concept is something that has never occurred to me, it's interesting but a little out of my depth. The way I have always understood the narrative in Genesis is that it's from the perspective of the Earth. You'll remember that the Spirit was hovering over the waters, then God says, 'let there be light'. The image for me is pitch black primordial oceans completely covering the face of the earth with thick clouds that did not allow any light through.

It seems to me the clouds abated enough that light shown through but the sun and stars were still not visible for the earth. Others will tell you that they simply had not been created yet. But getting back to the light, there is one more possibility that really intrigues me.

I don't have the references handy but the glory of God in the Temple and the Tabernacle is described almost like smoke or vapor. It is called the 'shekhina' (sp?) and it departed in Ezekiel with the removal of the Ark of the Covenant. It was a light that could be so intense that it drove the Levites out at the dedication.

Could this be the light in 1:3? Hard to say for sure but that is the alternative interpretation I entertain from time to time. There is also a section in Leviticus where the inaugural sacrifices are being offered up and a 'fire from before the Lord' bursts out and consumes the oblation. That fire could never be allowed to go out and only that fire could be used for sacrifices and incense. When the sons of Aaron offered up 'strange incense' fire came from 'before the Lord' and killed them both.

Plasma? Sure sounds like an interesting thought but with no more then I know about physics I couldn't tell you what the merits are, BD is the resident cosmology enthusiast on that aspect.

Oh, by the way, there is also that passage in Romans 6 that describes Christ being raised 'through the glory of the Father'. I believe that to be more then figurative language, I believe it was the glory of God that literally raised Christ from the dead. That's one of the reasons I'm a strong YEC, all of this fits together for me as a hermetical principle. It's like I keep trying to tell the TEs on here, YEC has it's foundation in the New Testament. You interpret the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament but they just don't get the concept.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I'm no expert either, but it made a lot of sense.

The glory of the Father burnt the image of Jesus onto cloth. It must be something.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm no expert either, but it made a lot of sense.

The glory of the Father burnt the image of Jesus onto cloth. It must be something.

That was one of the things that interested me about the shroud of turin. I'm not sold on it's authenticity by any means but it is does fit the scene as I have pictured it.

 

[busterdog]

Could this be the light in 1:3?

Interesting idea. Hadn't thought about that connection. There isn't much to go on. But, we can dream, can't we?

Mat 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

 

[FallingWaters]

God separated the light from the darkness.
I think understanding this is important to understanding the light in Genesis 1:3.

Not only that, but Heaven is lit with light, and there is no need of the sun.

Revelation 21:23 ESV And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.


Revelation 22:5 ESV And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.

 

[busterdog]

God separated the light from the darkness.
I think understanding this is important to understanding the light in Genesis 1:3.

Not only that, but Heaven is lit with light, and there is no need of the sun.

Revelation 21:23 ESV And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.


Revelation 22:5 ESV And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.

Hmmm.

Different frequency perhaps, but ......

 

[busterdog]

By the way, I may thread this,

As far as changing constants and fundemental properties to make the universe happen in a theoretical way, it seems pretty much nothing is off the table:

However, to this day no one actually knows what dark energy is, or where it comes from. Professor Jose Senovilla, and his colleagues at the University of the Basque Country in Bilbao, Spain, have proposed a mind-bending alternative. They propose that there is no such thing as dark energy at all, and we’re looking at things backwards. Senovilla proposes that we have been fooled into thinking the expansion of the universe is accelerating, when in reality, time itself is slowing down. At an everyday level, the change would not be perceptible. However, it would be obvious from cosmic scale measurements tracking the course of the universe over billions of years. The change would be infinitesimally slow from a human perspective, but in terms of the vast perspective of cosmology, the study of ancient light from suns that shone billions of years ago, it could easily be measured
The team's proposal, which will be published in the journal Physical Review D, dismisses dark energy as fiction. Instead, Prof Senovilla says, the appearance of acceleration is caused by time itself gradually slowing down, like a clock with a run-down battery.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/01/scientist-says.html#more

I mean really, how many freaking variables are there in cosmology? Time, the quantity of matter, the quantity of energy, first density, etc., etc.?

 

[shernren]

Obviously I can't present any contrary data here. If I start a thread in OT on how plasma cosmology falls short, will anyone be interested in it? Or maybe I shouldn't bother.

In any case, I would just like to point out that as far as I've been looking online, most plasma cosmology people (not people who jump on the plasma bandwagon while supporting a fundamentally different cosmology, such as Setterfield) aren't Christians (though I'm more than happy to be corrected) and don't believe in any sort of creation. The guy who started the plasma bandwagon, Hannes Alfven, apparently rejected any form of ex nihilo theory (which would include the Big Bang) as a stealth form of creationism.

So, it might not be wise to hitch your bandwagons to this train before figuring out where it ends up. Better to have a Big Bang and try to pull 14 billion years into 6,000 ... than to try to stuff a beginning into a model that was designed explicitly to get rid of beginnings.

 

[busterdog]

Obviously I can't present any contrary data here. If I start a thread in OT on how plasma cosmology falls short, will anyone be interested in it? Or maybe I shouldn't bother.

In any case, I would just like to point out that as far as I've been looking online, most plasma cosmology people (not people who jump on the plasma bandwagon while supporting a fundamentally different cosmology, such as Setterfield) aren't Christians (though I'm more than happy to be corrected) and don't believe in any sort of creation. The guy who started the plasma bandwagon, Hannes Alfven, apparently rejected any form of ex nihilo theory (which would include the Big Bang) as a stealth form of creationism.

So, it might not be wise to hitch your bandwagons to this train before figuring out where it ends up. Better to have a Big Bang and try to pull 14 billion years into 6,000 ... than to try to stuff a beginning into a model that was designed explicitly to get rid of beginnings.

Thomas Edison was a bit of a jerk, but I still use the lightbulb regularly.

I already pointed out that many of the electric universe guys come off as committed pagans. I am happy to have their information nonetheless and I can't imagine how that would possibly lead to Paganism.

 

[shernren]

Not paganism - steady state cosmology. The model just isn't designed to work with any kind of beginning in time at all. You and Setterfield (and I) are committed to time beginning somewhere. Something has to give.

 

[busterdog]

Not paganism - steady state cosmology. The model just isn't designed to work with any kind of beginning in time at all. You and Setterfield (and I) are committed to time beginning somewhere. Something has to give.

No matter what man does, that theoretical elusive point of beginning always retreats before him. Matter and energy do similar things.

The very idea of a steady state simply begs that enormous question.

Its one of the first things you learn in Sunday school really, which is, everything has to have a creator. I don't know that that logic alone is completely irresistable, but the problem is intractible.

I don't really care how the plasma guys build a cosmology. What is interesting is the nature of current anomalies. Big Bang cosmology sees gravitational lensing or unexplained gravitational relationships and posits even energy or dark matter, and then extrapolates back to day one, so to speak.


Plasma cosmology is not all that different. It takes the distribution of elements in the solar systems, galaxies, etc., as well as angular momentum, and other data and posits plasma as a cause.

Of course, there is also all that stuff about craters really resembling the result of electrical arcing rather than meteorite strikes. I don't know what Setterfield says about the latter. But, the information is interesting.

How any of these guys extrapolates backward is not all that critical to me. Nor must one accept anyones extrapolations simply based upon an appreciation for how current phenomena are explained.

For some people, like lawyers, when they have established "reasonable doubt", they have done their jobs. They aren't even looking for certainty or probability. Because plasma cosmology opens up the imagination to other mechanisms for creation, doubt is created and the Big Bang prosecution can't convict creationism of being wrong. Some of course would suggest that it is "wrong" until proven probable. That also begs an enormous question.

Feel free to open up OT on this. I don't think the above is inherently argumentative, so I don't think it offends here.