The separation of waters was my attempt to give my children an explaination of the events on the six days, without overloading them on the more difficult scientific principles. I was trying to leave out as much words as possible, without compromising the understanding required. Hence to answer all the reference and proof queries, i will attempt to add to this FAQ as and when i have the time to do so.
We must know that science changes every day, but the Bible cannot change. We can only wait in faith that science catches up with the possibilities described in the Bible. Everytime humanity made a new discovery, we will realised that we know more about things that we did not know we didn't know before. Darwin would be surprised today that even though he got most of the general ideas of evolution correct, he missed all the finer details revealed in Molecular Biology, just 200 years can make so much difference. He did not live long enough to see God's signature in the DNA. Even though he is buried in a Church, by most popular account he had lost his faith. To the mystery in the Bible that science could not explain, i can only say i wait in faith. This is possibly the worst case of science-geek-christian possible, i am eating my cake and having it too!
for those of you with more questions, i recommend the following books:
I have read this book serveral times over a number of years, and each time i still find fresh understanding of things that had missed me before. I have three copies but i am not giving you mine, go buy your own copies:-).
This book was my introduction to stars. Really good book, i had read this serveral times too, yes, i am not too clever, my first language is chinese, i had to read several times to understand. It is relatively old so not sure if you can find it in any bookshop, if you are in Singapore, you will have to find a bookshop first:-)
This is quite expensive, mine cost me SGD $80.00, which was really painful, but it walks you through the maths, good if your maths is abit rusty.
I write software for a living. I work from home nowsaday taking care of three kids, God has blessed me with kids that ask alot of questions, i am mostly a geek-dad, trying to make some sense for my kids. About Milton Choo
A chemist may argue based on the composition of stars, that some stars are 16 billion years old. I am using the age published by NASA's WMAP website, 13.7 billion and 378,000 years when the Universe became transparent. Most astronomers will use these values. What is a couple of million years or even a couple of billion years when you are talking about 14 billion years? Focusing on the numbers will just make you miss the bigger picture, the pattern of darkness and light that was apparently obvious in the first 3 "days". I googled and i was surprised i could not find anything on this dark and light pattern explained with scientific principles, sometimes i think i may be wrong, but what if i am right?
i got alot of strange looks when i tried to explain this for most people, most will just humor me and treat everything i said following as a big lie... unfortunately, the expansion of space is predicted in Einstein's theory. His biggest mistake was he failed to see this himself. Please read the first recommended book. I actually had this explained to me close to thirty years ago, my friend did a bad job, he told me i was expanding too, that was why i cannot see that space is expanding:-)
I don't know, maybe my heavy human anatomy book fell on my little girl's head when she was small, she is facinated with skulls and bones, to keep her attention on the book, i drew some of these in.
Erm...while i am not exactly a young earth creationist, nor am i an old earth creationist, actually i was not really asked to go buy a new watch, but i get that kind of look, that tells me to go buy a new watch, i just prayed that my church will not kick me out because of this book :-(
The 4th,5th and 6th day was out of my comfort zone of physics and maths, it had added complexities from geology, but i think i found sufficient evidence to continue my hypothesis on the pattern of darkness and light
Specifically, where did i deviate from accepted scientific principles? I tried as much as i can to fit in the accepted scientific principles, the biggest leap of faith is "the separation of waters", while i did not do a literature search, i googled and had not seen anyone describing the formation of a water-based planet, all the current theories are for rocky and gassy planets. However, i believed that formation of a water-based planet is not impossible, the electrostatic charges of water molecules will naturally lend itself to initiate this process. Temperature in the initial disk cloud is a gradient, the cooler outer edge of the molecular cloud will have a zone that is hospitable to liquid water.
While Genesis did not describe exactly the mechanics of darkness, Job 38:9 was the reference for the dark clouds that was wrapped around the earth, where God asked Job, "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the Earth?"
Get your copy of "The Separation of Waters"