A scientific theory for creation

In 1998 I published a 288 page paperback titled 'Before the First Day' which I believe is the nearest we will ever get to formulating a theory for the formation of the Earth (and rest of the Solar System. The book is based on common sense mainstream science as well as scriptures taken from throughout the Bible.
This is not a plug for the book but an appeal to anyone interested to contribute to the third edition which hopefully will put right the errors and ommmissions of the first two editions. To this end I will be pleased to send a free complimentary copy of the book to anyone who may be interested in it for its own sake or to help in the re editing. Details of the book appear in its website http://www.btinternet.com/~pimenta/ but a summary of some of the findings can be give hereEx Nihilo instantaneous creation of the Earth is an outdated doctrine
that is neither biblical nor scientific.Scriptures and science must be treated with equal respect in our search for truth.The formation of the Earth from pre existing matter is biblicalThe age of the Earth and Universe are not specified in the Bible.The formation and structural makeup of the planet we live on must be understood in order to understand the 'natural' events described in the Bible such as the occurrences listed in Genesis 1 and the cause of the Great FloodThe fundamentals of mainstream science and the fundamentals of scriptures are much more compatible than commonly believed.
Both are subject to personal interpretations but scriptures can be
argued about on scriptural grounds only and scientific discoveries can be argued on scientific grounds only. For those who can see it there is no conflict between revelations from science and the revelations from scriptures apart possibly from differences in time scale. In the final analysis the time diffference is not that important anyway.About the author: University Lecturer and Geotechnical Consultant
Christian. Not a member of any creation society

Every contribution on this website is a plug for something-a book, an idea, a paper or even self esteem. Thats the fun of the web!
What I am really 'plugging' for is a healthy debate on whether the creation we live in and around is Divine (as I believe it to be) or
Accidental as atheistic evolutionists think it is.
I am firmly convinced that the creation is Divine in origin and that
mainstream science is overwhelmingly of the same view but will not be too ready to admit it. Evolutionists have long asked for Creationists to produce A scientific theory for creation. Well my book is just that. It is for sale through the normal channels but in the interests of truth I am offering it free to members of this website-thats the plug.
I dont think its going to make any difference to convinced atheists-but it is a challenge.

Yes that is a genuine comment. I have had similar comments from other university lecturers and even better ones from other professional people. I will be completely honest and say that I have also had some bad comments-mostly from YECs (who think I am an evolutionist) and hardened atheists who cannot accept the scriptures I have used and
cannot shake off their preconceived ideas about Geological processes etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
If you view the creation of the earth as a statistical uncertainty, how then did this uncertainty develop through time? Was it a near 100 percent certainty at the start of the universe that earth would be? Did it gradually become more certain, or did it become more certain through leaps and bounds and falls?

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

No I do not view the Earth as a statistical uncertainity. But I do believe that some fine tuning and direction of the forces of nature were necessary to make the Earth what it is. This is why I believe that 'In the beginning God crerated the heavens and the Earth.

Not being a biologist I would not be able to do the research you suggest. I can ask however how do the Japanese trace their ancestory back to 12,000 years. If it is by dating of archeological artifacts then this is a problem. Biblical dates are based on a history which I believe in. Others may prefer to believe in a dating process of some kind rather than a written historical record. Perhaps the Japanese have historical records that go back to 12,000 years. If so they would certainly have the longest history in the world. All the other civilizations I can think off have historical records which only go back at the very most to about 3000 years and it gets very blurred indeed beyond this.

I don;t see a necessary conflict between archaeology and history - especially from periods where we have no written history. Your Flood *should* leave at least a clear discontinuity in the archeological record. It isn't there in Japan - or other places, such as Egypt.According to the Bible the Flood occurred only 1600 years after Adam and during these years there could not have been more than one civilization. The Flood killed all the people of this civilization
apart fro four couples who would have continued living in much the same way after the Flood. Hence biblically there is no reason to expect to find a break in the archaeological record. It was only well after the Flood that the nations dispersed to form their own civilizations and for this reason historical records only go back to perhaps after these dispersed people began keeping records.Another dubious point is :"The near circular supercontinent broke up into continents within the last few thousand years"Even the Creationist organisation Answers In Genesis rejects this as interpreting Genesis 10:25 (I assume 10:23 is a typo) as a reference to the Tower of Babel.AiG is an organisation committed to a doctrine of ex nihilo instantaneous creation. I am not committed to this doctrine as I feel it cannot be defended biblically or scientifically. I am committed to showing that the truths in the bible do not differ from the truths revealed by science. As there is a big difference between
our aims it is not surprising that our interpretation of scriptures
differ. My interpretation was originally used about 500 years ago by Wegener who first proposed that the continents were once joined together.

What are the consequences for your theory if the scriptures are found to be wrong?None whatsoever. I believe that the theory I have proposed for the formation of the entire Solar System is scientifically the best yet and should hold up to any scientific scrutiny or test. A scientific theory can never really be proved to be correct-but it can much more easily be proved wrong-hence my desire to spar with those in the know.
The scriptures only serve as stepping stones and historical signposts and are thrilling for me because they lend suppport to my belief that God is not only the architect of the laws of nature but also is the spirit behind the writing of the Bible.LRP

PaulK asked about the timing of the split up of the supercontinent
and said there is evidence that this happened 200million years ago.The Bible suggests that this happened only about 4500 years ago.Having studied all the methods used to time this event (isochron dating, reversed magnetic stripes, immensely thick deposits of sediments, current rates of plate movement etc I have had to rule them all out as inapplicable to the model for the formation of the supercontinent and its subsequent breakup that I have suggested in my book. Perhaps you can tell me what you think is the most reliable dating method that confirms the timing you mention.200 million years is an immensely long time. In the area I live in the coastline is being eroded away at a phenomenal rate. So if this happened for 200 million years the continents would have lost much of their original shape-but they still fit together well enough to form the original circle so a few thousand years does not seem to have affected their shape as much as I would have expected in 200million years.Sorry-I should not have mentioned Wegener as the first to suggest
the drifting apart of the continents. He did this only about 90 years ago. I know someone suggested it a long time before Wegener and got his inspiration from the Bible. I will have to dig out my research notes and will tell you who it was.

And what evidence led you to choose your model over the existing one?It a lot simpler and has biblical support. The dating of the breakup of Pangaea is based primarily upon the direction of magnetization of dateable layers (that's dateable by whatever means, but ultimately radiometric).Its radiometric dating again after all and magnetization direction.
A lot of assumptions in both of these leads me to regard this with great skeptism. But if you feel confident about the accuracy of the method thats fine by me. I am sure you have had discussions with creationists on radiometric dating before so lets not go into it again.If the tide kept coming in for 200 million years you'd be covered under miles of water. Some coastlines are being eroded a little, some a lot, some are being deposited a little, some a lot. Some volcanic islands were born in a day (Surtsey, Iceland, November 15, 1963), some over millions of years (Hawaiian chain). Sometimes a storm erases a sandbar, sometimes it creates one.Yes but you are talking of little land masses-not continents with complex geology of sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous rocks.Looking at your eroding coastline and concluding that your coastline has always been and will always be eroding that at that rate, and that all coastlines everywhere are also eroding at the same rate, is obviously wrong, primarily because it is so uninformed by evidence, much of which you probably already knew, so it makes no sense that you even said this.Yes but over 200 million years I would expect all erodable material
to have ended up on the ocean floor.
Its changes in shape of the coatline that erosion causes and my point was that the shapes of the continents havent altered that much.
I cannot think of anywhere in the world where the sea is building up vast tracts of dry land consisting of sediments. Can you?And what causes these little land masses to congregate after formation mainly on one side of the globe only?The mainstream science model for formation of continents, its mechanism for movement and its timing of the movement are all seeped
in assumptions that I do not find reasonable. Hence my preference for a simple yet scientific one. A case for Occams razor if ever there was one.

I will avoid all the quotes since it can get quite confusing as to who said what.My constraints are 1. My belief in the Bible as the true word of God
2. Common sense science cannot be ignoredYou have much more flexibility~you are probably not governed in your thinking on what the Bible says and you are also free to accept any theory that you find reasonable.The problem I have had over the last few years is to get across the message that one theory cannot be used to prove or disprove another theory. So the mainstream science theories of uniformitarianism or evolution are just that -theories. Biblical interpretations are also theories. So it would be quite wrong for me to say that my biblical interpretation disproves the theory of say uniformitarianism.We are both governed by what we feel is logical.
It is therfore logical for me to look for a scientific explanation
for our origins which is compatible with what I perceive to be biblical truths. And having thought about this for several years I have found the harmony I knew that had to exist.The problem of sharing my findings is quite daunting. But I feel I have done what I can and published it in a book and made my views known openly (to the detriment of my career but thats another story)So anyone is perfectly entitled to demolish my theory on the basis of incontrovertible scientific facts alone or to demolish my interpretation of the scriptures on biblical grounds alone.
So far I have no takers on either challenge.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Sir, your book om science and Christianity left something to be desired. I am not a Christian; I am a Muslim. As I see it, linking science to any religion would only destroy the credibility of both. The science becomes exclusive (your interpretations on Genesis is irrelevant to me) and the religion becomes vulnerable (if your theory is proven wrong then your theology, which stood on it, would also be shattered).

---

This is fair comment but the science/religion issue is important especially to those who know something about science and about scriptures. I believe the God who created the Universe is the same God who authored the scriptures. So there has to be a harmony between what both are saying. When there is an apparant disharmony
as is the case with some interpretations of scripture and interpretation of scientific facts it is the duty of those who God has blessed with knowledge of both to do what they can to restore the harmony. I am sure if 'somebody' said to you that a date in the Qur'an was wrong by several thousands of years you would recheck both
dates and if you were sure about the date in the Qur'an you would
seriously doubt the 'somebody' and may feel strongly enough about it to tell him so. I have had some correspondence with someone in Turkey who runs a Turkish Creation or Anti Evolution group based on the Qur'an. So there are people in other religions who also feel strongly about the sacredness of their scriptures. But I do take your point that we must tread very cautiously in sensitive grounds for fear of doing more harm than good if the aim is to get others to take our scriptures seriously.

Quote
------------------------------------------------------------------
Science doesn't work this way. One does not propose a theory according to personal inclination and then hold it until falsified. One instead builds a theory around bodies of evidence. In the case of your theory, it appears to have been constructed in the absence of evidence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------My 'body' of evidence is the same as used by mainstream science. You will have to read my book to see that this is true. There was no need for me to gather further evidence. Its only the interpretation of the evidence that is perhaps different from current mainstream science thinking.Quote
_____________________________________________________________________
I think you just got taken regarding your "continents can only get smaller" theory, you've just chosen to ignore it.
__________________________________________________________________I am not aware of any of the existing continents having become larger in the last 200 million years or new continents (not volcanic tops or islands)having been formed. Perhaps I ought to consult a more modern atlas.

I think we are perhaps making too much about shrinking/growing continents. I know the principles and assumptions of radometric dating but what I do not understand is how this can help to time an event.
Maybe you can explain this to me.Thanks

I have a series of maps showing the evolution of the continents since before Gondawana, and it appears from these maps that there is more continental area now than then.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entirely as expected because in my opinion the continents are simply flattening out as a result of weathering and erosion.---------------------------------------------------------------
Let me get this straight - you understand "the principles and assumptions of radiometric dating," but you want me to explain to you how it works? How does that make any sense? That's like saying, "I know the way to your house, can you tell me how to get there?"
----------------------------------------------------------------No you have not got it straight. I asked you to tell me how it
helps to time an EVENT not give an age of a rock! The event being the drifting apart of the continents.

What you are really saying is that I should only agree with the existing mainstream science theories but am not allowed to fit the same evidence in a different theory. Well I am a free thinker who considers all the evidence and assumptions of all theories and I make up my own mind irrespective of what others may think.You dont really know the start and end of 'my theory' having not read my book.
You also may not be familiar with what the Bible says
probably because you may have not spent much time on trying to understand it. Free thinkers like Isaac Newton knew there was more in the Bible than meets the eye and spent years of his life in trying to break the code. Its only in the last five years or so that with the aid of computers the coded messages in the Bible are becoming crystal clear. Quite independently but at the same time of the publication of the first edition of my book another book came out (not written by creationist or a religious person) on these coded messages. We are in complete agreement with regards to the dangers of extinction by asteroid impact-my book explains the origin of these asteroids.But you have still evaded my question.
The real answer is a circular arguement-I wanted you you show me the way out of that arguement. Until I can get a satisfactory answer from anyone I will stick to what the Bible tells me in very plain
words-the continents moved apart with human life on board.
Give me evidence (not theory) to show this is a lie and I will weigh up that evidence with the same scale I use for any other evidence.The Bible also tells us that 'in the last days there will be scoffers' .... I would hate to think you are one of them (I used to be one myself until by the grace of God alone he opened my eyes)