In Defense of Creation

This blogs role is first and foremost dedicated to the truth of what scripture teaches on the subject of creation. However as a Christian Sci fi writer I am called upon at times to defend my theories and some of my writings. Some of my theories about creation are just that, theories. But I believe that if we take science and Christian doctrine and lay them side by side much as a person would a jigsaw puzzle, we find that when the pieces fit they form a mosaic of science on one side and the truth of Christ on the other, both of which introduce us to how awesome God really is.

Recently I was asked to respond to an article I posted on the blog entitled “Theistic Evolution and Abiogenesis and to defend what I believe to be the truth. In order to do that we have to look at a number of definitions. First off we’re dealing with two theories, evolution and creation. Let’s look at the definition of both. Evolution is described as a set of prescribed movements.

It’s described as,

Unfolding - The action or an instance of forming and giving something off. Emission - The process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state. Growth - The process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance or something evolved. It also includes the process of working out or developing, and the historical development of a society. Phylogeny, a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations or a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena.

In order for me to fully explain my position let me first add a quote from an article taken from a blog that supports evolution. (http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/)

“The concept of the Cambrian explosion is often used by anti-evolutionists as support for divine intervention during the origin of animals. If most animals appeared at the same time, they argue, evolution would fall apart since Darwin's theory depends on gradual change over time. It now appears, however, that the Cambrian explosion is a mere artifact of the fossilization process. Because fossilization is a chance process that requires multiple events of varying probabilities, the fossil record can be misleading as a true history of life on Earth. It provides a general guideline, but the first appearance of an organism or taxon in the fossil record cannot be taken as the first appearance of the taxon in history. Instead, the first appearance of a taxon in the fossil record is the first discovered fossilized account of that taxon.”

Now let’s get back to our definition of creation and the differences between creation and evolution.

The process explicable in terms of scientific laws compared to emergent (which is what we’re discussing) evolution that according to some theories involves the appearance of new characters and qualities at complex levels of organization (as the cell or organism) which cannot be predicted solely from the study of less complex levels such as the atom or molecule. Creative evolution is a creative product of a vital force rather than a spontaneous process explicable in terms of scientific laws. Merriam – Webster

Here again is another quote from the same article mentioned above.

Previous molecular studies have been inconsistent. some support the Cambrian explosion and some refute it. Blair and Hedges argue that the results that support the Cambrian explosion are flawed because they either misapplied calibration points or used an improper model of nucleotide substitution. The allegation of calibration point misconduct is a bold one coming from the Hedges lab, considering a recent review in which the authors conclude that Hedges and collaborators' "divergence-time estimates were generated through improper methodology on the basis of a single calibration point that has been unjustly denuded of error." I'll stop at that, as I don't want any grief from the folks upstairs (and, no I don't mean god -- the Hedges lab is literally "upstairs" from me), but I will point out that Hedges and Kumar did refute the allegations here.

I think the best definition for evolution comes from Rajesh C. Miranda. He is an associate professor in the department of neuroscience and experimental therapeutics at the Texas A&M University System Health Science Center. He says, Evolutionary theory cannot speak to the truth of the existence of such a creator. It simply deals with how species emerge, adapt, survive or disappear when faced with a changing environment.

It is on his definition of evolution that I base my argument. It is the emergence of the species. But not through the process that evolution speaks of, but through adaptation and interbreeding. The two quotes I added above demonstrates there are still arguments about the evolutionary process. The first argues against your point of:

First, how can you deny evolution? What about the overwhelming evidence for it? For instance, there is a well established series of fossils that show that the horse, zebra, and donkey evolved from a fox-sized creature that lived 50 million years ago. The best explanation for that evidence is that the horse and zebra evolved from earlier creatures.

George Gaylord Simpson was an American Paleontologist, an expert on extinct mammals and a major contributor in the amalgamation of contemporary thought that contributed to his books of “Tempo and Mode Evolution” written in 1944, and “Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals” in 1945. He is also noted for concepts such as punctuated equilibrium, (a theory in evolutionary biology which I’ll address later.) In his work, “Quantum Evolution” he dispels the myth that the evolution of the horse was a linear process ending up with what we see today. So your argument for the evolution of the horse seems to have gone by the wayside by one of your own.

Simpson's first major contribution to theoretical biology was in the area of evolution. Since Darwin, paleontologists had almost exclusively been evolutionists, but, again with little exception, they failed to accept Darwin's mechanism for evolution or natural selection. They commonly believed, as epitomized by H. F. Osborn that long-term phenomena of evolution or macro evolution, such as speciation or major changes in a line of descent (for example, the shift from three-toed to one-toed horses), required explanations that could only be reached through studies of the fossil record. Here again we come up with a problem such as was stated above, that the fossil record can be misleading as a true history of life on Earth, which brings me to my point. In every case in the theories of evolution the words, (if, hypothesis, maybe, and can be are used.) And for all these theories models are often used.

You’re Question.

And what about the long series of mammal-like reptiles, that become increasingly more mammal-like as time progressed? There were no mammals living before or during the time when those mammal-like reptiles lived, but after the fossil record passes through a long series of intermediates, mammals are then found in more recent layers. The most likely explanation for this is that mammals evolved from earlier creatures. Do you have any explanation for this at all?

To answer your question we have to review data that the evolutionary processes use and how it is interrelated and compare it to data from several models that are in use today. We’re familiar with weather and hurricane forecasting, and we’re also aware of the predictions of global warming, so we’ll use those models and compare them against evolutionary models.

“Few terms are used in popular and scientific discourse more promiscuously than model.” Nelson Goodman [1976]

Bruce Winterhalder says, “Models represent observed or hypothesized relationships of structure and function in simplified or abstract form. They transform a reference situation, usually a complex system or process, in order to make it more accessible or tractable. Everything important about a model is shaped by its being an instrument of prediction or investigation. Because of this, the properties of models and the capacities expected of them are nearly as varied as are the goals in using them. Models are ubiquitous in archaeology, biology, and related historical evolutionary sciences. They are particularly useful in these fields because the subject matter is complex

The first model is Molecular-Genetic systems origin. This model describes mathematically some hypothetical evolutionary stages of pre-biological self-reproducing macromolecular systems. Manfred Eigenis is a German biophysicist and a former director of the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Göttingen, and is a member of the Board of Sponsors of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. In the 1970’s he and his associates preformed an in-depth study on the life origin problem. They tried to imagine the transient stages between the molecular chaos in a prebiotic soup and simple macromolecular self-reproducing systems. They developed several mathematical models, illustrating the hypothetical macromolecular systems; quasispecies and hypercycles are the most significant. The models were intensively analyzed mathematically as well as compared with biochemical experiments and discussed from different points of view.

The conclusion, “The considered models of course can't explain the real life origin process, because these models are based on various plausible assumptions rather than on strong experimental evidences.”

Jay Odenbaugh, Department of Philosophy of Lewis and Clark College Portland, Oregon wrote a paper on models. Here is his conclusion.

“In this essay, I have attempted to survey the recent and not-so recent work of philosophers of science and biology on models. We have considered models as analogies, relational structures, partially independent representations, and material objects. Whether there is an extant account that can make sense of the bulk of models in biology remains to be seen. However, as we noted in the Introduction, there is much work to be done. Moreover, we have barely touched on the functions that models play in biology, on how they provide explanations, how they can be tested, and the trade-offs that may exist in model-building.”

Lets first look at an abbreviated model for evolution.

The Hadean time - It is believed that the earth formed after the Big Bang some 4 ½ billion years ago (4500 mya) It was during this Precambrian period when profound events occurred, leading ultimately to "life" as we know it today. It started at 4500 million years away or mya to 3800 mya. It was during this period the sun formed by gravitational compaction, and eventually reached the temperature and pressure conditions for nuclear fusion. As this was happening other particles coalesced under gravity to form continually growing planets. Science is unaware that life existed during the Hadean time, but the prerequisite ingredients for life to emerge were in production. If life did arise during the Hadean, it did so in a truly hellish environment.

The Archean time – It started at 3800 mya to 2500 mya - atmosphere that existed during Archean time would be toxic to most extant life. It is believed that life on earth made its appearance in the seas. The first life is believed to be the Eubacteria (i.e., bacteria), single-celled prokaryotic organisms with no DNA-containing Nucleus. The most prevalent theory is that the Eubacteria are ancestral to the Archaeans, only identified as a distinct domain of life in the 1970’s. Domain Arachaea include organisms that can exist, and maybe are the only organisms that can exist, in extremely hostile environments, such as thermal vents and hyper saline water.

The Proterozoic time – It started 2500 mya to 544 million years ago (mya) It produced events paramount to the further evolution of life, most notably the steady buildup of oxygen in the atmosphere. Stable continents formed. Bacteria and Archaean microbes, some able to tolerate extremely hostile environments, became increasingly abundant. By about 1,800 mya, eukaryotic celled animals appear as fossils. Cyanobacteria, photosynthetic Eubacteria that produce oxygen as a metabolism byproduct may have appeared of early as 3.5 billion years ago, but became common and widespread in the Proterozoic. The rapid build-up of oxygen in the atmosphere was primarily owing to their photosynthetic activity. Regardless of whether the Eukaryotes with DNA-containing nucleus evolved in the Arachaen or Proterozoic, these ancestors of all plants, animals and fungi are believed to have obtained their energy complex metabolism systems from endosymbiotic bacteria (known as the theory of endosymbiosis

The Paleozoic Time - Meaning "time of ancient life." This era lasted from 544 to 245 million years ago, and is divided into six periods over 300 million years. They are the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, and Permian.

The Mesozoic Era – This gave rise to dominance of dinosaurs in terrestrial ecosystems. The Mesozoic lasted from 245 to 65 million years ago, and is divided into three periods. The Mesozoic, which derives its name from the Greek with a rough meaning of middle animals, began after the Permian extinction and ended with the Cretaceous extinction. It comprises the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous Periods.

Cenozoic Era – This was made up of two eras. The Tertiary Period from 65 to 1.8 mya, and the Quaternary Period that began less than 2 million years ago marked the origin of the close human ancestors as well as the modern forms of the animals we see today.

I’d like to point out several things in this model. Look at the area’s highlighted in red, there is nothing on the website that I could find that said, this proves life evolved, it simply states, It is believed, The most prevalent theory, are believed, everything is based on supposition. That’s not to say that time lines are not correct, that certain species did exist, but there is no evidence that the spark of life evolved. There are some that teach on theistic evolution, that God used evolution to create, I disagree with the teaching on the grounds it puts limits on God and does not agree with what scripture teaches, however theistic evolution comes closer to solving the mystery than Darwinian evolution.

Now let’s look at the models for weather and global warming and the data they use. There are are six widely accepted conditions for hurricane development. The first condition is that ocean waters must be above 26 degrees Celsius or 79 degrees Fahrenheit. Below this threshold temperature, hurricanes will not form or will weaken rapidly once they move over water below this threshold.

The second ingredient is distance from the equator. Without the spin of the earth and the resulting Corioles force, hurricanes will not form.
The third ingredient is that of a saturated lapse rate gradient near the center of rotation of the storm. Hurricanes are warm core storms. The heat hurricanes generate is from the condensation of water vapor as it convectively rises around the eye wall. . The fourth and one of the most important ingredients is that of a low vertical wind shear, especially in the upper level of the atmosphere. The fifth ingredient is high relative humidity values from the surface to the mid levels of the atmosphere. . The sixth ingredient is that of a tropical wave. Often hurricanes in the Atlantic begin as a thunderstorm complex that moves off the coast of Africa. It becomes what is known as a midtropospheric wave.

The question then, how do we use these six conditions in developing a forecast? And the second would be, is all this data accurate?

The behavior of the atmosphere is governed by physical laws which can be expressed as mathematical equations. These equations represent how atmospheric quantities such as temperature, wind speed, direction, humidity, and what ever else you want to use will change from their initial current values to what they might be given certain data. If we can solve these equations, we will have a forecast. We can do this by sub-dividing the atmosphere into a 3-D grid of points and solving these equations at each point. However these models have three main sources of error:

The first is initialization. We have an imperfect description of what the atmosphere is doing at the point of initialization due to the lack of up to the second data. When the model starts it has an incorrect picture of the initial state of the atmosphere so it will always generate a forecast that is imperfect.

To answer your question about the fossil records and the appearance of mammals, evolution has used data they think is correct. Unlike today where we have documented data verified through history, they use data that I believe is inconclusive, so the initialization of their models is incorrect based on what was said above and other data not covered here.

The second is resolution. Models are run on 3-D grids that cover the entire globe. Each grid point represents a piece of atmosphere as large as 35 miles on a side. Anything smaller such as thunderstorms are not handled as well, and must be parameterized, or in laymen’s terms, we create fudge factors that do a good job giving the right forecast most of the time. Obviously, the fudge factors aren't going to work for all situations.

Here again since all the evidence is not in, evolution uses theories based on data produced in a laboratory or by some other means. The problem I have, is the data correct or does it just fit with a certain theory?



And third is our basic understanding. Our basic understanding of the physics governing the atmosphere is not perfect, so the equations we're using aren't quite right.

Once again, our understanding of the past outside of recorded history is a matter of supposition. Just as our understanding of our own atmosphere is which we can observe, make models of, and perform experiments on and be able to verify the results. Even with what we know the data is not perfect, and may I say much more so are the equations, models, data, and our understanding of the evolutionary process

The best hurricane forecasting models we have are global models that solve the mathematical equations governing the behavior of the atmosphere at every point on the globe. The four best hurricane forecast models are GFDL which is the NWS/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory model, the GFS - Global Forecast System model run by the NWS, UKMET - The United Kingdom Met Office model, and NOGAPS - The U.S. Navy's Naval Operational Global Prediction Center System, these are all global dynamical models. These models take several hours to run on the world's most advanced supercomputers. They are all good forecasting models but none of them are perfect, although they have been improved over the years and are becoming quite accurate.

The best time to view these models in action is when a storm is being tracked. If you go to a weather page you’ll see different colored lines predicting the storms path and those lines are the result of data from each of the models. The same goes for the models used in tracking global warming. They use different data and different algorithms just as the models used to track hurricanes, however we have to understand that the models used for global warming are still in their infancy, and just as our understanding of the physics governing the atmosphere is not perfect neither is our understanding of what causes global warming or even if its happening, and I think this also applies to evolution.

So how do we predict global warming or the evolutionary process? Here again we’re in the infancy of two new sciences. We can use the ice to checkout weather patterns that have occurred over time. Evolution says it can predict the origin of life by the fossil record. Global warming uses the ocean currents as well as measurements collected by devices called microwave-sounding units on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellites using different channels of the microwave-sounding unit’s measure radiation at different frequencies, providing data for different layers of the atmosphere. These measurements are important because, for years, satellite data inconsistent with warming at the surface have fueled the debate about whether climate change is actually occurring. So how do they check warming at the surface?
The Atlantic North Equatorial Current flows westward off the coast of northern Africa. When this current interacts with the northeastern coast of South America, the current forks into two branches. One passes into the Caribbean Sea, while a second, the Antilles Current, flows north and east of the West Indies. These two branches rejoin north of the Straits of Florida.

In the first phase the current travels north, the warm water transported by the Gulf Stream undergoes evaporative cooling and brine exclusion. The cooling and evaporation is caused by the wind moving over the water leaving saltier brine, in so doing the water increases in salinity and density, and decreases in temperature. The second process involves the formation of sea ice, which likewise increases the salinity of the brine solution, thereby decreasing its freezing point. These two processes produce water that is denser and colder. In the North Atlantic Ocean the water becomes so cold and dense that it begins to sink down through warmer, less salty and less dense water. This downdraft of heavy, cold and dense water becomes a part of the North Atlantic deep water with a transit time of about 1600 years which becomes a south going current.

There was some speculation that global warming could decrease or shutdown thermohaline circulation and therefore reduce the North Atlantic Drift. However the time it would take to accomplish this is unclear. There were very aggressive estimates that ranged from a few decades to conservative estimates of a few hundred years. If this did happen it could trigger localized cooling in the North Atlantic and lead to cooling which would affect areas such as Great Britain and Scandinavia.

The accusation that scientists bend their observations is a very serious one, for bending one's observations to fit what one expects to find is the opposite of good science. Doing so deliberately would invariably destroy a scientist's career.

Here again we have data, more than we know what to do with. My point is this, if we cannot make models (they are getting better) about events that are occurring now with reliable and fairly accurate data, how can we say what happened a million years ago on data that could be flawed or skewed on the scientist’s perception, teaching, the models being run, data from a possible flawed model, and school of thought. Example, at the time that Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published, the earth was "scientifically" determined to be 100 million years old. By 1932, it was found to be 1.6 billion years old. In 1947, science firmly established that the earth was 3.4 billion years old. Finally in 1976, it was discovered that the earth is "really" 4.6 billion years old… What happened? Data changed. Was the data correct? For the most part yes, but you see my point. Most scientists don’t deliberately bend the their observations they go along with the current model and the newly updated information. However as we will see later there are some in the Neo Darwinian community who are willing to do just that.

I’m not going to go into radiometric dating techniques, to do so would add to the article and most would not read it. What I will say is this, just as there are flaws in the models used so are there flaws in the dating process. What I will do is add a website address if you care to check out the dating process.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html

In order to understand the time difference between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 we have to understand something. Scripture was not written as a science or a history book, but as a plan to redeem man, therefore God left out a lot that we must take by faith.

In order to understand creation we have to understand who God is. God is eternal, that means he had no beginning and he has no end. (Headache time). For us to conceive of this is impossible because we are creatures of time. Who is God and can we know him? I think the answer is yes. God is creation because all of who he is, is reflected in it. First of all creation as we know it is endless, look out at the night sky and know you are looking into eternity present and past.

God is order. Our atmosphere contains water vapor which helps to moderate our daily temperatures. Our atmosphere contains 21% oxygen, which is necessary for us to breathe, 78% nitrogen, and .9% argon. The other 0.1% consists of water vapor, carbon dioxide, neon, methane, krypton, helium, xenon, hydrogen, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and ozone. These latter elements are important to have because they help to absorb harmful solar radiation before it can reach the surface of the Earth. If present in larger amounts, most of these latter elements would be poisonous to humans. If the Earth was any closer to the Sun, it would be too hot to support life. If the Earth was any farther away from the Sun, it would be too cold to support life. God is the beauty we see, the essence of love, intelligence, and the large variety of both plants, animals, scenery, and humans.

God is mystery, thus the confusion over creation. Example What is dark matter and the virial theorem? In mechanics the virial theorem provides a general equation relating the average total kinetic energy of a system with its average total potential energy. Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) applied this theorem to the coma cluster of galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky estimated the cluster's total mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge. When he compared this mass estimate to one based on the number of galaxies and total brightness of the cluster, he found that there was about 400 times more mass than expected. The gravity of the visible galaxies in the cluster would be far too small for such fast orbits, so something extra was required. This is known as the "missing mass problem". Based on these conclusions, Zwicky inferred that there must be some non-visible form of matter which would provide enough of the mass and gravity to hold the cluster together. Thus we have dark matter.

As I said earlier we would get back to the theory of punctuated equilibrium. At the time Darwin wrote Origin of the species he postulated that things would change gradually over time using slight variations eventually creating all that we see now. At the time of his writing Darwin said, at this time we have not checked out the earth, we have not checked the fossil record yet, so in the years to come we’ll collect all this fossil evidence and if my theory is correct we’re going to have to find as he said innumerable fossil records showing change over time. We’re 149 years later now and the fossil record is complete with billions of fossils and multiple museums and we still have no definitive species in transition, we have only fully formed fossils in the fossil records. There are not any fossils that show bumps, little appendages, or slight changes as Darwin suggested. If evolution is to be considered correct we should find thousands of fossils in definitive transition along with fully formed fossils based on statistics. But we don’t! So to counter this the Neo-Darwinian theorists have said you’re right, the fossil records don’t match traditional Darwinism which is a slight change over time, so now we have huge punctuated events in history that are not seen in the fossil records. So now instead of slight change over time you have an event every million years or so that makes drastic changes in the evolutionary cycle. For example, a super nova occurred or some other catastrophic event took place and a creature in the water gave birth to a species that could live on land as well as water. Now the problem is they don’t know why it happened it just did because they believe it did. Sound fantastic, this is main stream theory not fringe stuff. This is what the top Darwinian thinkers of the day believe. Instead of slight change over long periods of time they believe in punctuated equilibrium or macro evolution, change from kind to kind.




If we are to believe that God is eternal, then we also have to believe that God in eternity past has always been in the mode of creating. Before I go any further lets see what theoretical physics has to say.

1. Three physicists say they have done calculations suggesting that before the birth of our universe, which is expanding, there was an earlier universe that was shrinking.

2. Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, a cosmologist who has explored some related concepts, wrote in an email that the new research “supports, in a general way, the idea that the Big Bang need not be the beginning of space and time.”

3. Some versions of string theory portray our visible universe as a three-dimensional space embedded in an invisible space having more dimensions. Our zone, called a braneworld—the word comes from its similarity to a sort of membrane—could periodically bounce into another, parallel braneworld.

But before we get to Genesis lets look at creation. God created the laws of physics, chemistry, and the mechanics that control our universe. The first question that needs answering is this. If God created, was it a perfect creation? And the answer is yes, but since God established the laws that govern creation he then follows those laws. To better understand what I mean let’s look at our sun. First of all, if you want the current age of the sun which is estimated to be about 5 billion years old. (Using the current dating systems) This number is determined from radioactive dating of objects in the solar system which are known to have formed around the same time as the sun. The total lifetime of the sun before it becomes a red giant is around 10 billion years, meaning that the transition will occur around 5 billion years from now. We can estimate when the sun will die, and that will be when the sun runs out of energy to keep it shining. The time for this to occur is roughly the total energy the sun has that can be turned into light, divided by the rate at which the sun is giving off energy. My point is, the sun was created and is governed by the laws of physics, so eventually the sun will die. Is that perfection in creation? It is when God created the universe and the laws that govern it. Let’s look at another example. Genesis states that God created man. The man that God created was perfect in every way, but was man designed to live forever. We see that God planted a tree called the tree of life. When Adam sinned what did God do? And the LORD God said,

"The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.

God planted the tree of life to give man the ability to live for an extended period of time. Perhaps the fruit regenerated man. We have to understand that God created man with a biological clock and man was created from something that was not perfect, dirt. The only thing that God created that was eternal was the soul of man. God breathed into man the breath of life and he became a living soul. The day Adam sinned his spiritual side died leaving the body as God said to return to the earth. To prevent sinful man from living forever God drove him out of the garden where the tree of life was.

So, if God creates and knowing that creation according to the laws that govern the universe God also re-creates. The big bang theory that took place that science says created our universe, was it creation or re-creation?

So it’s my contention that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there was devastation, to the point that all life was destroyed and that in Genesis 1:2 God recreated. Do I have proof, no more than what evolution teaches. It’s a possibility if we look at what scripture says..

God told those he created to be fruitful and multiply, to replenish the earth. The Hebrew word that is used for replenish I find to have a plethora of meanings, so it just might mean as another translation says “to fill” the earth.

Now, this brings us to another question, could the destruction we see in the fossil records be from the flood of Noah? Let’s take a look at what scripture says and what it doesn’t say.

When Noah was 600 years old, on the seventeenth day of the second month, all the underground waters erupted from the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky. The rain continued to fall for forty days and forty nights.

There are some that think there was a canopy that surrounded the earth. Think about this, if the canopy was destroyed from above by a meteor, the impact on earth would have caused the underground water to erupt, and depending on the canopy and the volume of water in it, think of the devastation, that could explain the different layers that the fossils records are found in. Take for example the Mount St. Helen eruption. One particular canyon was formed, which has since been named the ‘Little Grand Canyon.’ About 100 feet deep and somewhat wider, it is about 1/40th the scale of the mighty Grand Canyon. This canyon was formed in one day from a mudflow. A newly formed river then flowed through the Canyon formed by the mudflow. The erosion of this canyon enables scientists to see some of the layers that were laid down. What astonished them were features such as the 25-feet-thick deposit that consisted of thousands of thin layers. People around the world are indoctrinated by evolutionists who believe that layers like those we see at the Grand Canyon took millions of years to be laid down. That belief of ‘billions of years’ is foundational to evolutionary thinking. What happened at Mount St. Helens is a powerful challenge to this belief.

In the creation story it says that God created everything in six days. It goes on to say that God created Eve. It also tells us that God placed man in the garden to care for it.

Just as I believe there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there’s a gap between Genesis 2:25 and Genesis 3:1 the bible doesn’t tell us how long they were in the garden. But I think we can draw some insight due to the punishment God placed on Eve. Then the LORD said to the woman, "You will suffer terribly when you give birth.”

God told Adam that his punishment would be working the ground and it would be such that he was going to sweat. We know Adam took care of the garden, so when driven out Adam suffered because he understood the punishment. He knew what it was like in the garden and now he knew what it was like to work by the sweat of his brow. I think we can draw a reference here. Was childbirth a pleasant experience in the garden? Genesis says “This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. Could it be that the couple had children while in the garden, the Bible is once again silent. If I were to have said to my daughter who is now 20 at the age of 12, because you did this thing I’m revoking your driving privileges. It wouldn’t have meant a thing because she didn’t drive. My point is, outside the garden Eve also understood her punishment. We also don’t know how many time Eve had her conversation with the serpent. The Bible doesn’t indicate in any way she was surprised by its ability to speak. If we look at temptation and how it is presented we don’t usually give in the first time, so this also may have been a long process over many years.

The next thing we have to look at is the age of Adam. The Bible says, When Adam was one hundred thirty, he had a son who was just like him, and he named him Seth. Adam had more children and died at the age of nine hundred thirty.

Now the question is, when did Adam start to age, at the time of his creation or at the time he sinned and was driven out of the garden? If they were in the garden for any length of time would there have been a need to count time? If Adam had eaten of the tree of life then time would not have been an issue. Think on this. God placed him in a garden full of fruit trees and there was only one he could not eat of, being human, having just been created, if it were me I would have tried every tree including the tree of life. So my point is, did Adam age while in the garden? These are all questions that have no answers, but I think they might better explain the age of the earth.

Now let’s get back to Genesis and the creation story and see how the creation story fits. In my own mind and way of thinking I’ve dispelled the notion of the fossil records having evolved. The fossils are there, they did exist, the question is when?

What about the creation story? I think we’ve established the possibility of a gap between verses one and two and the possibility of multiple creations. Here again some would say that verse one is a foreshadow of the creation, and it is possible, and if it is we’ll see another foreshadow a little later. But let’s look at what scripture does and doesn’t say. Jesus said in Luke 10:18

"I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightening."

I believe Satan was on earth when he initially revolted against God. Notice what said in Isaiah 14:13 about Lucifer or Satan.

"For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven; I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north.”

Satan decided to take on heaven. Now we don’t have a record in scripture about what happened, but I think we can look at other scriptures to get an idea. First of all look at Ezekiel 28.

Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

Here we find a description of Satan before he fell. When he rebelled, what happened? The scripture really doesn’t say, but I believe that he must have had some authority or rulership over our universe, and while he was still obedient God made a decision that I believe sent him into action against God. Hebrews 2:5-8 says,

“We know that God did not put the future world under the power of angels. Somewhere in the Scriptures someone says to God, "What makes you care about us humans? Why are you concerned for weaklings such as us? You made us lower than the angels for a while. Yet you have crowned us with glory and honor. And you have put everything under our power!"

God had not created man as yet but the plan is made known. Satan finds out that God never intended for the angels to be elevated above their original creation. He never intended them to rule the world that is to come. Satan resents God for who he is and then a plan is put forth to create yet another being who will rule over even Satan. Satan is then in full rebellion. Rev. 12:7-9,

"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceived the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. "

From this scripture it does appear that Satan will once again try to rise up from the earth to attack heaven, only to get cast down again.

Now there’s something else we have to look at. Scripture makes mention of three heavens, Paul makes reference to it in 2 Corinthians 12. The third heaven is where God resides, the second is where the stars reside, and the first is the atmosphere that surrounds the earth. Scripture says he was cast down to the earth, the first heaven. I believe that when he was cast down he didn’t go willingly but destroyed everything on his way down. Now here’s something else we need to think about. Genesis 1 talks about God creating the sun, moon, and stars. We know that light travels at 186,000 mps. If God were to follow the laws that he created than it stands to reason that they must have been created in time past. Listen how Moses writes, God said,

"I command lights to appear in the sky and to separate day from night and to show the time for seasons, special days, and years. I command them to shine on the earth." And that's what happened. Now Moses goes on to explain the creation much like he did if you believe in foreshadowing as some believe happened between verses one and two. God made two powerful lights, the brighter one to rule the day and the other to rule the night.

Notice Moses is talking about the sun and the moon. And then almost as an after thought he says, He also made the stars. Now here is where it gets real interesting. Then God put these lights in the sky to shine on the earth, to rule the day and night, and to separate light from darkness. It’s almost as if Moses is saying, God created them with his hands, he checked them out and then placed them in just the right place, because he ends with, and God looked at what he had done, and it was good.

While were speculating could it be that what God is talking about is not only our earth but our particular solar system which consists of the sun and the other celestial objects gravitationally bound to it: the eight planets, their 166 known moons, three dwarf planets Ceres, Pluto, and Eris and their four known moons, and billions of small bodies. This last category includes asteroids, Kuiper belt objects, comets, meteoroids, and interplanetary dust which happens to be in the milky way. A previous creation would allow the light from distant stars to be seen. I’ve been watching “The elegant Universe” and the theory called M-theory, a proposed "master theory" that unifies the five superstring theories. The five theories all share essential features in that they all have vibrating strings, one being a closed loop the other four being open. We’re living in a universe of eleven dimensions with parallel universes right next door. A magnificent universe composed entirely of the music of strings. String theory says that everything in the universe from the tiniest particle to the most distant star is made from one kind of ingredient, unimaginably small vibrating strands of energy called strings. Just as the strings of a violin gives off a variety of tones and music, the strings in string theory vibrate in many ways making up all of what we see around us. So in essence the universe can be compared to a symphony orchestra. M-theory also theorizes that our universe is but a bubble in an ocean of universes, perhaps dark matter is what holds everything together. This got me to thinking. If M-theory is correct than could it be that since God resides outside of time God has for eternity past, present, and future been conducting an orchestrated creation? Could it be that Satan who in theory was the chief angel of music in heaven have been involved someway in creation? Ezekiel 28:13 NKJV seem to hint that Satan was involved with music in Heaven. For it says:

“The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes was prepared for you on the day you were created,” Ezekiel 28:12-19 says,

“You were the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering: The sardius, topaz, and diamond, Beryl, onyx, and jasper, Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes was prepared for you on the day you were created. 14 “ You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones. 15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you. 16 “ By the abundance of your trading You became filled with violence within, And you sinned; Therefore I cast you as a profane thing Out of the mountain of God; And I destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the fiery stones. Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to the ground, I laid you before kings that they might gaze at you. 18 “You defiled your sanctuaries by the multitude of your iniquities, by the iniquity of your trading; therefore I brought fire from your midst; it devoured you, and I turned you to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all who saw you. 19 All who knew you among the peoples are astonished at you; you have become a horror, and shall be no more forever.”

Could it be that when he rebelled he destroyed the music of creation and the creation account in Genesis is a recreation of what he destroyed?

In any case both are theories and neither one can be proven, but thinking about the possibilities of everything that’s out there doesn’t it send a chill down your spine as to how great God really is and how fantastic the creation is. I think that’s the part I enjoy the most, writing about all the possibilities, for scripture says it has not entered into the heart of man what God has prepared. Can you imagine God knowing all that he knows and still considers us as the crowning glory of his creation, for he says that even the hairs of our heads are numbered. Is my faith in him challenged what I try to understand it all or I’m challenged by those who do not believe? No! My faith is strengthened because I don’t have to try and disprove every new theory that comes along or a new report of a new discovery. I accept the fact that God is who he said he is and was and everything else falls into place.

Uh, excuse me, but what irreducibly complex systems are you talking about? Can you name even one irreducibly complex system for which it can be proven that it could not possibly have come about by evolution?

As a matter of fact I can. But before I go any further let’s give the definition for an irreducibly complex system for those who may come across this site and not know what we’re talking about, and let’s put the definition down for evolution as well.

Irreducibly - Impossible to transform into or restore to a desired or simpler condition.
Complex - A group of obviously related units of which the degree and nature of the relationship is imperfectly known
System - A numbering system, a gravitational system, a thermodynamic system, digestive system, a lymphatic system, a river system, etc, etc, you get the idea.
Evolution - It’s the act of change or to increase in complexity


So do we have any modern day ICS that shows evolution or something that has evolved? The population of English speaking people in this country, our highway system started from a few cow and wagon trails to what it is today. Our phone system, the power grid across the country just to name a few, but in each case we know how and where they started, because in a sense they did evolve just as the above definition indicates. But if we look at life and to say it evolved… there are some questions that need to be answered.

Have you read “The Flagellum Unspun” by Ken Miller? The synopsis of his article is that the flagellum is not a irreducibly complex system, but that a simpler, functional system (the TTSS - a subsystem of the bacterial flagellum) has been discovered among the protein components of the flagellum, the claim of irreducible complexity has collapsed, and with it any "evidence" that the flagellum was designed.

Now I’m not a biologist or a scientist, but throughout the entire article, using Darwin's theory he offers no insight into how the flagellum arose. If Ken Miller had any idea of how such systems arose by naturalistic mechanisms he would have put it in the article. Ken Miller also used a publication called Darwin’s Black Box” by Michael Behe. He uses a publication (1996 first edition and 2006 second edition) to point at the type three secretory system as a possible evolutionary precursor to the flagellum. Here again if there were any new evidence in the evolutionary process he would have used it to provide a detailed explanation of how a system like the bacterial flagellum arose by Darwinian means. Another example would be a question I found doing some research. The question is this

Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed, right.

Here is the response

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms.

Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it

Here again there is no evidence to support evolution, just the same old song and dance, (other processes might have) so without any more support for evolution than what we have here and I’ve looked for it, we can say that the human body is full of complex systems, namely the skeletal, control (nervous), cardiovascular, lymphatic, respiratory, digestive, urinary, reproductive, just to name a few.

The question is not - name even one irreducibly complex system for which it can be proven that it could not possibly have come about by evolution, but which one did.

Can you really contend that a science must be wrong because some scientist in the past once made a mistake? It would surely seem to me that the fact that one scientist once made a mistake would not prove that all of a particular field of science is wrong. Of course the models of abiogenesis are still being tested. The origin of the first living cell happened a long time ago, and there is very little evidence of what actually happened.

Why does much of your email dwell on abiogenesis, about which we know little, and ignore the overwhelming evidence that all existing creatures on earth evolved from early one-celled creatures?

You just lost your argument. If we have very little evidence of what actually happened and abiogenesis is still being tested without a specific answer that would be like… Example, I worked for a pharmaceutical company where assays and equipment were developed to test drugs. If we had worked from the assay side down to the disease we would have never come up with a drug that would either treat or cure the disease. That’s what you call reverse engineering. When I was in the military and the Soviet Union got there hands on something we made they did do some reverse engineering to come up with a similar model. That’s also like someone trying to reverse engineer a computer without a working knowledge of electricity. To develop an assay you must first understand the disease and it’s the same for evolution. You’ve created a time line, creatures, man, and a theory by working backwards. However, think on this. Reverse engineering does not always produce the end result you are looking for.

I made the comment

Do they really believe that God took a pool of goo and said let there be life and a one cell animal crawled out to later become man? If that is the case than man is no better than the animals and that is what evolution is all about.


Your response was - Ah, but I know that men (and women) are better than animals in those essences I value most, such as creative thinking, understanding the world, and working together to improve it. I don't need anybody to tell me about the greatness of being human. I can see it for myself. In fact, that is why I call myself a humanist, to show my respect for the greatness of humans. Exactly why would anybody tell a humanist that he needs to have more respect for the greatness of humanity? That's what our viewpoint is all about! So no, evolution does not give me a low view of humanity.

As for your statement, if evolution is indeed a fact and man did evolve, then why the preoccupation with religion? If all we are is a mammal on the evolutionary ladder why are we so concerned with death, and the preparation for it? We’re the only species that buries our dead. If we are an evolutionary creature as you would say where did the emotion or the conscious awareness of humanity come from. Something had to place in man the need for, the awareness of, or the understanding of God, because we’re the only creature that does. Our closest ancestor (so to speak) doesn’t seem too concerned. Evolution didn’t put it there, the creation by a supreme being did and that’s what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

I’m going to leave this article with an interview preformed by Dr Benjamin Wiker; it’s from a book entitled One of the World's Most Famous Atheists Changes His Mind.

In the interview long time atheist Antony Flew answered this question.

Benjamin Wiker: You say in There is a God, that "it may well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned from denial…to discovery." Everyone else was certainly very surprised as well, perhaps all the more so since on our end, it seemed so sudden. But in There is a God, we find that it was actually a very gradual process—a "two decade migration," as you call it. God was the conclusion of a rather long argument, then. But wasn't there a point in the "argument" where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the realization that "There is a God" after all? So that, in some sense, you really did "hear a Voice that says" in the evidence itself " 'Can you hear me now?'"

Anthony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.