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but a summary of some of the findings can be give hereEx Nihilo instantaneous creation of the Earth is an outdated doctrine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

More plugging.

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.

Did someone really comment: about your book?PE

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

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_

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.

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)

So-~- I guess you would hold Croizat's version on the splitting of the western hemisphere without tectonics doubtfullness as well?

Its for free here? Ill take at look. DO you need an adress? you can address me at bsmcfall@hotmail.com[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-16-2003]

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.

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LRP:
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.

---

What are the consequences for your theory if the scriptures are found to be wrong?PE