My Theory of Creation

Recently, Verity and I have been watching an online controversy over a Christian school teaching evolution. In the ensuing online discussion, someone posted a challenge of sorts:

But yes - please, someone, show me a good, credible, well founded scientific account, that accounts for all of the evidence (rather than picking at the edges of a few pieces of it) and is consistent with recent creation, and I'll be enormously grateful.

I responded to that post with the following response. My method starts with the Bible to build my scientific theory, but uses scientific evidence to bolster the theory, and attempts to account for all actual, observable evidence (as opposed to other theories which do not start with the Bible). It is my claim that, though I may not have all the evidence (I don't) and the theory is open to change (like any theory), the basic points the Bible teaches need to be the foundation for truth.

I would like to hear of evidence you feel contradicts this theory (or that would support it, for that matter). I know I need many more references to back what are "founded" assertions (but without references provided). I will try to add these as I have time or assistance from others. With that intro, here is my theory.

The Age of the Earth

First, the physical rocks of the earth, created in the beginning by God, must have been created instantaneously. Polonium halos are found in the granite rocks of the earth, which demonstrate that the rocks must have formed instantaneously. If the rocks had been left over from a big bang, gradually cooling to granite, the results of polonium isotopic decay would not be visible for us today:

http://www.halos.com/

Second, the common idea that scientific dating methods make a long age of the earth certain, is in error. New research shows that "Instead of radiometric dating being a challenge to creationists, it is now a challenge to uniformitarians."

See http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-and-old-ages-in-disarray for details.

Radiometric dating depends on three main assumptions:
1. Known quantity of initial isotopes. (e.g. we know how long the candle was to start with).
2. Constant decay rate (e.g. we know how fast the candle was burning, and it remained the same the whole time).
3. Closed system (equilibrium).

Surprisingly, the second assumption is the one most wrong (contrary to what skeptics had long alleged). There is good evidence of accelerated decay in the past.

So far, we've only dealt with the evidence regarding dating of rocks and fossils. Now, to continue with the theory, guided by the Bible account of creation and the flood.

The Structure of the Earth

At creation, the Bible states that the earth consisted of a core covered with water (no continents visible). Thus, there must have been a large quantity of water on the surface until the dry land was made to appear. Revelation 21:1 tells us the new heavens and earth will have no more sea (meaning, no giant bodies of water). The weather we currently experience is largely governed by ocean currents and temperatures, and evaporation over the ocean provides atmospheric moisture for rain. Atmospheric heating and cooling is then responsible for wind which carries moisture laden air over landmasses where elevation cools the air and precipitates the moisture out of it. This supplies water for rivers and streams to water the surface of the continents.

It is reasonable to conclude that the original creation also had no sea, especially since Genesis 2:5 tells us that it had not rained yet at that point (and likely would not have until the flood).

Okay, skeptics are already laughing. No rain? No sea? Well, it is largely because humans are so used to life on *this* planet that we have a hard time imagining life in any other situation. But a simple survey of the universe should show us that things like the water cycle are not universal on every planet. They depend on a certain set of circumstances, ones which the Bible tells us were not there in the beginning.

Where did the rivers come from, to water the land? (Genesis 2:10)

To understand this, we must digress. Here are some of the factors which cause our current water cycle:
1. Atmospheric temperature fluctuation due to the rotation of the earth, and an atmosphere thin enough to permit significant solar heating
2. Large bodies of water (oceans) to evaporate.
3. Large land masses (continents) with changes in elevation (mountains) to trigger cooling and precipitation.
4. Heating and cooling cycles caused by the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun.

Parts of the world even today do not frequently experience our water cycle. We call them deserts.

Since the Bible states it had not rained in the beginning, our theory must conclude that there was no sea (which agrees with the description of the new earth in Revelation). Now, if there was no sea, where did all the water covering the earth in Genesis 1:2 go? Several places:

1. Some water went above the "firmament" (Genesis 1:6-7). The "firmament" or expanse or atmosphere did not simply contain evaporated water (like at present) but separated the waters. Some have speculated that there might have been an ice layer around our earth, which was destroyed in the global flood. While skeptics like to laugh this off, you must keep in mind that there are other planets which do have frozen gas layers of various kinds around them. Something of this nature may have shielded the earth from harmful radiation, unlike at present, and may have also served to equalize the earth's temperature much more. You may have noticed that on cloudy days, the day does not get as hot, but on cloudy nights, the night does not get as cool either.

Genesis 7:11 refers to the windows of heaven being opened. This could be describing the collapse of the trapped frozen layer of water above the earth. While it might not take 40 days and nights for that water to rain down, continual re-evaporation could prolong the process (as happens in modern rain forests, when it rains for months on end without stopping. Nobody would claim that is impossible-- it happens all the time).

2. Some water went below the surface of the ground (Genesis 1:9 says the waters were gathered together in "one place"). We've already established both Biblically and scientifically that there must have been no large bodies of water before the flood (else there would have been rain). And it would be consistent of God to promise a new earth like the original earth had been (no sea).

What would a large body of water under the earth do? We know what small bodies of water under the earth do today. Many places on earth benefit from naturally heated water. Greenland and Iceland benefit from geothermal energy for much of their energy needs. My theory is that God originally had a large circulatory system for the water under the earth. Instead of ocean currents causing hurricanes on the surface (as they do today), under-continent currents would heat the earth's crust evenly from below. Springs of water (artesian wells, geysers, etc.) would come forth at various locations to water the surface of the earth (see Genesis 2:10). The rivers produced enough evaporation to cause a light mist (dew) to form on the surface of the earth every night, but no heavy rains (Genesis 2:6).

So far, this is all theory, but there is good scientific evidence that the surface of the earth in the polar regions was once warm enough for large plants (e.g. giant ferns) to grow. I live in Alaska, where we regularly find fossils of this nature.

Now we've answered the question, "Where did the rivers come from?". There was a water cycle, but not the one we know today. Clearly the earth has changed much since it was created "Good, Good, Very Good".

The Inhabitants of the Earth

Now, we can make sense of some of the other things skeptics like to laugh at. Why did early people live so long?

1. Having just been created with great vitality, human life took a long time to wear out (barring accident or murder). Disease was practically unknown.

2. Having a radiation barrier, mutation-causing defects would be rare. It is interesting to note that it is only after the flood that barrenness (e.g. Sarah and Abraham) begins to happen. It may be the case that the flood stirred up a large quantity of previously buried radioactive material, which was now much closer to the surface. This could have decreased life spans, caused barrenness and birth defects, etc. As could the increased radiation from space.

3. At creation, there was no death. Skeptics like to point out animals (and even plants) which appear to be designed to be carnivorous, parasitic, or harmful in some way. However, deeper study can show alternate explanations for these cases. For instance, the case of thorns, it has been shown (I wish I had the article reference, but it was in Creation Magazine) that the genes which produce thorns are the same as those which produce leaves, only tightly curled in on themselves. Original creation was thorn-free, but God designed the ability for rapid, limited adaptation into each kind, in order for them to deal with the situations they would find themselves in.

In much the same way, humans did not eat animal flesh originally. It has been shown in scientific studies that human intestines actually lengthen in a matter of weeks when given a primarily vegetarian diet, and shorten when given a meat diet. This is (of course) to deal with the differing time needed to digest fiber-rich foods (plants) versus meat (which will stagnate and putrefy in a longer intestine). This is why people switching their primary diet from meat to vegetarian will claim they have less strength (they do for some weeks time).

The change away from a plant-based diet decreased lifespans after the flood.

The Global Flood

You already know my theory holds the Biblical flood of Noah's time actually occurred. Skeptics like to point out "flaws" in this idea. They claim that:

1. Noah could not have fit all the species in the ark.
2. Noah's boat would have sunk in the storm.
3. Water could not have covered the highest mountains.
4. All life could not have been destroyed and then grown back in such a short time.

And probably more objections I can't think of at the moment. I will first deal with these objections, then point out how the flood actually provides an excellent explanation for many things we see in nature today.

Answers to Flood Objections

1. Evolutionists know about diversification of species but seem to think that creationists do not believe in it. Fixity of species is not a Biblical viewpoint, and Creationists recognize that Noah would only have had to take one of each original Bible "kind" into the ark (Genesis 7:14). What exactly these kinds were, we don't know, but there are some things we can be fairly sure of. The idea held by some Theistic Evolutionists that the original kinds were at a high level classification (such as "mammals", "birds", "reptiles") and then they evolved from there, does not fit the fossil evidence. Since these "kinds" of creation were the same "kinds" to be taken into the ark (letting the Bible interpret itself), it is not surprising that the fossil record contains a large number and variety of animals, much as we have today (and many which have since gone extinct). However, if there were only a few basic types created, "mammals", "birds" and "reptiles", etc. we would expect to see only a few basic prototypical "kinds" in the fossil record (assuming you place the flood near the beginning of evolution). Or if you place the flood in the recent past (but still with long ages of evolution before it), then you would expect to see only a few basic kinds alive today (not having had enough time to evolve).

All that said, Noah could have taken one "horse/zebra/zorse/donkey/zonkey" etc. pair, one "cat" pair, one "dog" pair, and even pairs of the major dinosaur kinds (as eggs perhaps, or small juveniles). There have been a number of positive results of feasibility studies of Noah's job, given what we know about technology of the past.

2. Technology of the past was much greater than most people realize. Archeology has revealed that early cultures knew about smelting iron, some techniques we don't even know how to replicate in modern times. They knew about batteries, and possibly about winged flight (airplane-shaped models found), certainly about hot air balloon flight.

With decent technology and 120 years to build, Noah could do quite well building the barge. Barge? Yes, the design of the boat as given in the Bible is much like a modern barge, designed not to be steered but to be stable in high waters and rogue waves. Even modern ships are hard pressed when a wave nearly 100 feet high hits them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave

But Noah's boat was designed for that (by God's instructions), and of course we must not discount God's supernatural protection (if you believe in God, as I do).

3. Water could not cover the mountains we have today, but as Genesis recounts, in the beginning, water covered the entire planet. Even now, there is plenty of water to cover the planet, if the continents were leveled and the undersea plates were raised. My theory is that the undersea plates cover vast collapsed basins which once held the water God gathered "into one place" (Genesis 1:9). It is interesting that the deepest sea (Marianas Trench) is geographically near the highest mountains (the Himalayas).

Evolutionists of course believe that raising new mountains takes eons of time, especially for ones of non-volcanic origin. But there is significant evidence overlooked (or ignored) by evolutionists. In a number of mountain ranges (one in Italy comes to mind) the granite rocks are twisted in an interesting pattern, a tight whorl, which proves the rocks must have been in a soft state (though non-volcanic). Evolutionists claim these layers were laid down slowly over millions of years, then plunged below the crust to be heated, softened, and twisted into their present shape, then brought back to the surface and raised to their present height as mountains. However, the flaw in their theory is that the individual layers have been preserved. They would have been melted together if they had been in a molten state when they were laid down. The flood explanation fits much better, with the rocks previously being mud layers laid down in the flood, then raised up while still in a soft state, to their present mountain height.

The objection might be raised that granite cannot have formed from mud! However, this is simply uninformed opinion. That mud can mineralize in a short period of time has been demonstrated in a number of locales around the world.

In summary: My theory is that as the Bible claims, the flood covered all the highest mountains of the time (which were much lower than the highest mountains around now). The water to do this now exists in the current ocean basins. These basins were formed when existing surface plates sunk into the space occupied by the "fountains of the great deep". The subterranean cataracts of water that broke forth, combined with the water raining from the vapor barrier above the earth, caused the worldwide flood which destroyed all breathing animals not in the ark. Some marine life did survive (though many were also entombed in under water mud slides, etc.) Of course, many insects and microbes were able to survive amidst the debris floating on the surface, as well as by being free-loaders on the ark.

4. Regarding the rapid recovery of life on the earth, it has long been claimed by scientists that all humans can trace their Mitochondrial DNA back to a single woman (known in popular media as Mitochondrial Eve. Recent research has shown several problems with the assumptions this theory was based on. Read the details here:

http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp

Summarizing the article, the mitochondrial clock will have to be recalibrated such that "*Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6,000 years old (1998, Science)*". But the author goes on to reject this, saying "no one thinks that’s the case".

Several other areas of science have shown that a recent recovery from the flood makes sense. By reverse-extrapolating current population growth rates, we can conclude that there was a small group (say, eight) individuals about four thousand years ago. Interestingly, the Mayan calendar had a "year zero" which produces an age of the earth less than one hundred years different from that calculated by Bishop Ussher's Chronology.

Flood contributions

The flood does provide some good explanations for what we observe in nature today. The vast beds of fossils, laid down by rapid deposition in water, demonstrate floods of at least a local nature were in play. In many cases, fossils protrude through more than one "layer" which would otherwise be assumed to be millions of years apart.

The claim by evolutionists that the layers demonstrate the age of the fossils has another explanation possible. In my Bible-based theory, the fossils were laid down as any modern flood would do with rocks. When dealing with rocks, gravel and sand, the finest sediment ends up on top due to the weight and turbulence of the water. The same thing happens when animals are buried in modern floods. The idea that less developed animals were buried millions of years before later developed life forms is flawed. The same evidence can be explained by a single global flood occurring merely thousands of years ago.

Flood waters are also much more powerful than people had assumed. Some recent floods (one in Iceland I believe) demonstrated the power of flood waters to erode solid concrete and rock through cavitation (the same phenomena that damages ship propellers). The same thing has happened to dams that have washed out.

Features such as the Grand Canyon could have eroded in short order, especially considering that what is now rock was once layers of mud. But even the solid rock could erode rapidly when confronted with cavitating water moving at great speed and pressure, such as would have occurred if there was a lake behind the canyon area.

I could post much more on this subject but will stop now due to limited time. If you have more questions or objections, I'd be happy to respond.

Conclusion

I'm sure there are many other objections to be raised by those who disbelieve the Bible account. You have to take off your "evolutionist glasses" in order to see the same evidence through the lens of God's worldview. Once you do that, you will find that the same evidence which is "proof" to an evolutionist often turns out to fit well into a young earth creationist framework. Some times there are challenges to the young earth creationist views, but more often than not, there are significant evidences in favor of the young earth view taught by the Bible, which are overlooked or ignored by evolutionists.

I challenge you who are on the edge between believing what God says literally, or believing the conjectures of most science, to give the literal Bible record a chance. I'm not asking you to believe it outright, though I think it would be wonderful if you did. Jesus said, "Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29). However, I am asking you to at least take what the Bible says as the starting point of a theory, then see how well you can fit the evidence into it. This is the same process used by evolutionists to develop their theories, so why can't you use it to start your own Bible-based theory? If you do that, I suspect you will be amazed to see how the evidence *does* support the Bible, if you give it a chance.

God bless as you study his works.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork." (Psalm 19:1)
"The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple." (Psalm 19:7)

Bible-believing: Minus the Bible

It is with great sadness that I realize many who are in church are believing and teaching the lies of the devil. If it was confined to believing, it would be sad enough, but to be teaching others these things is very tragic. We have come to a time when we need to stand firmly for the truth of the Bible. What seems unusual about the situation is that now people are claiming to believe the Bible while teaching things clearly contrary to the Bible, even to the most casual observer.

Verity and I have been watching an online controversy over a Christian school teaching evolution. One church member defending this practice eventually admitted many other things he also no longer believes from the Bible (while still claiming to be a Bible-believing Christian).

This post is a response to some of his "no-longer-beliefs", not to prove him wrong (though I believe he is) but to demonstrate that his "not-beliefs" are incompatible with clear statements of Scripture.

I no longer believe that God created the earth less than 10,000 years ago to look like it is billions of years old. Why would he lie?

In response to this and other Evolution-related beliefs, I have written another post introducing My Theory of Creation.

Even though a scientist doesn’t acknowledge God, I no longer believe it is possible for him to be outside of a relationship with God. How can devoting your life to understanding how God works be anything other than worship?

Romans 1:22,25 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools ... Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator..."

I no longer believe I would have made a different choice than Eve. I agree with Eve, I would rather know, than to not know, and I would rather know the difference between good and evil than to be naïve.

...

If knowledge of God is the greatest good, then Eve made the right choice.

Genesis 3:5 records the devil's assertion that "God knows that in the day you eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Is it safe to follow the logic of the devil? I think not.

I no longer believe that sin separates man from God. ... I think it is fear that separates.

I no longer think that either my sin, or my death bothers God much. ... He isn’t sorrowful. He is joyful.

In contrast Isiaiah 59:1-3 says, " Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid [his] face from you, that he will not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness."

I no longer feel it is important for me to struggle against sin and my bad habits.

This one is tricky because it is true that we cannot overcome sin in our own strength. But Jesus came into the world to free us from both the guilt and the power of sin. I John 2:4 warns us that "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." I appreciate the promise of Philippians 1:6, "Being confident of this very thing, that he who has begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ" and Malachi 3:3, "And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness." (Read Malachi 2:17-3:6 for the context).

God wants us to overcome sin and He promises to do it through His power. So yes, stop struggling in your own strength, but as Hebrews 12:4 says, "You have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin." So we do need to resist sin through the power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in our lives.

I no longer believe that preaching the gospel or saving souls is the most important thing for me, or the church to do.

But Jesus last words to His disciples (Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 1:8) included that commission. It is perhaps even more important for your salvation than it is for the salvation of those you reach. If you don't do it, God will find another, but you yourself may be lost if you refuse God's call on your life. (Esther 4:14)

Ezekiel 33:6 warns, "But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand."

I no longer believe that God has a plan for your life or mine.

But God says, "For I know the plans that I have for you, declares the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you hope and a future." (Jeremiah 29:11)

I don’t think you can expect God to intervene to prevent your death.

This misunderstands the purpose of life and death here on earth. God desires our life but is constrained by the accusations of the devil to leave us with only a time of probation here and now, prior to Heaven and the New Earth.

I'd rather take the attitude of the three friends of Daniel prior to their trial by fire, which was basically, "God is able to save us, but even if He does not, we will not worship your gods" (Daniel 3:17-18). God did honor their commitment to to Him with intervention to prevent their death. I know God has intervened personally in my life to prevent my death. No, I don't expect eternal life in the here and now, but I do trust that God has my life in His hands and I do not fear death because I know it can only happen when He sees the time is right. And I have hope for eternal life at His coming.

I don’t know if there is heaven or hell after death, but I know there is heaven and hell here and now. Don’t miss the heaven here, while hoping for the one in the future.

I would rather miss the heaven here in order to prepare for the one in the future. Jesus promised blessing on those who are persecuted for righteousness sake (Matthew 5:11-12), and Paul tells us that "all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. " (2 Timothy 3:12)

It is true that Jesus gives us peace in the here and now, regardless of our external circumstances. But this peace is not the peace the world gives (John 14:27). I think of the many Christians who have been at peace while in the midst of persecution, prison, and threat of death. But I fear that if you are enjoying heaven in the here and now, it may be because "You have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton [wasteful]; you have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter. " (James 5:5)

Many of us have been living in comfort while others in the world are starving, suffering from disease, etc. and we have done little or nothing to help them. How much better if we had chosen to live in simplicity, sharing our surplus with those in need, both in our local communities and in the world at large. We cannot claim ignorance of world needs, when modern media has made us very aware of them. But I fear we have become callous to the pain of the world. Jesus wants our hearts to hurt with the suffering of those in pain, so we can be in sympathy with Him and care for them as He does.

I pray that everyone who reads this, myself included, will resolve to believe the Word of God as it stands, and by the grace of God, choose to live by every Word of God, as Jesus did and calls us to do.