A scientific theory for creation

I've had a look at your website and one thing struck me as an obvious problem." A global flood about 4,400 years ago wiped out the entire population of the Earth apart from Noahs family."This casts very serious doubts on your knowledge of the relevant science and that you genuinely follow your maxim "Scriptures and science must be treated with equal respect in our search for truth."The scientific evidence is quite clear that this claim is false. The archaological record does not show the clean break that would necessarily follow. For example "From about 12500 to 300 BC Japan enjoyed a continuous and stable culture known as Jomon" (leaflet published to accompany the British Musuem Shinto exhibit).The genetic evidence is also very much against it - we should see a major genetic bottleneck in the human population if the population were reduced to 4 couples.If you are serious about checking your facts then some research is obviously in order - for a start on what genetics shows try Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's _Genes, Peoples and Languages_

quote:

---

Originally posted by LRP:
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 why you can't at least look at the findings of scientific investigation, as I suggested. The book I named is a popular science book (there is a Penguin edition), not a heavy textbook.THe datign of the Jomon culture is form archaeology. But 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.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.
(http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)

quote:

---

Originally posted by LRP:

(PK) 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.

​

[LRP]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.

​

(PK2) Then you have even bigger problems with archaeology. The Jomon civilisation would have to be well after the Flood - which in your dating means that it cannot begin until around 2000 BC or later. And if you put the start of the human species at around 4000 BC then you have even greater problems with both archaeology and genetic data.

​

[PK]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.

​

[LRP]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.

---

It is not the breakup of the supercontinent that is the problem - it is the date you give for it. I very much doubt that Wegener proposed a date so recent, nor would any sensible scientist.
I would also point out that your reference to AiG's beliefs regarding scriptural interpretation (on the question of ex nihilo creation) seem to have no bearing on this issue. This interpretation stands on its own and you have given no scriptural reason to dispute it - and certainly you can give no valid scientific reasons to put the breakup of a supercontinent at so recent a date. So it seems here that you are putting a questionable interpretation of scripture ahead of science - is that really giving science and scripture equal respect ? If it is, it can only be in the sense of showing each an equal lack of respect in favour of your own views.

I looked up Wegener and he proposed that the supercontinent broke up 200 million years ago. Since you claim to be following Wegeer do you intend to revise your theory to take that into account?If not then how do you propose to explain the geological and biogeographical evidence that indicates that the event did occur long ago ?Really I don't see how you can claim that your ideas are scientific when it is so easy to find evidence contradicting them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 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.

---

By which you mean that a *VERY* questionable reading of the Bible suggests that. In short you are relying here on your own ideas rather than scripture.

quote:

---

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.

---

Wegener is described as basing his dating on the rock formations shared between continents. Naturally this means that your theory would have to explain why these do not point to the very recent date that you claim.

quote:

---

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.

---

Scale does matter here. As well as the fact that this erosion is not constant.

quote:

---

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.

---

If this is how you do science then you have just presented adequate grounds for rejecting any claim that your book is scientific. Rejecting large amounts of data out of hand in favour of your own intuitive - and untested - ideas is not a scientific way to support a conclusion.[Fixed quoting. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 01-18-2003]