I am an avid fossil collector and have been investigating the various opinions
regarding the beginning of the world, geologic history, etc. for years. And I
will say from the start that I do not believe anyone has ever come close to
piecing a little bit of it together. I have listened carefully to the claims
of the "PhD in geology" community. I have likewise painstakingly noted the
arguments of the creationist community. It seems they both claim a good (if
not full) understanding of it.
Evolutionary arguments, in spite of all their hopefully sincere attempts, have
yet to show much, if any evidence of the fortress of their theories. Honestly,
no possible categorization of genus and species could ever be performed if the
natural course took evolution through a sequence of continuous (or even
punctuated) change.
Even if they could show some data to back their pseudo-science, it is clear
that none of them were present at the beginning, nor were their forefathers.
No record exists other than that of the testimony of Him who actually performed
it.
Now, having slightly vented my vexation with worldly evolutionist philosophy,
I turn my attention to the religious community. And let me say I believe in
creationism and want to prove it correct; but not necessarily anyone's
particular brand of it. I hope to help rid our side of as many falsehoods in
our own doctrine as possible. So, that when we go discussing our different
opinions on beginnings, we may not be as unscientific as the "other guy".
Hence, I want to criticize some of the many versions of creationist philosophy
that are (at least to me) clearly in error. The first deals with the reference
to the 'vapor canopy' concept. Whether there was a vapor canopy over the earth
or not, I don't know. One thing I do know is that it not scripturally
documented. The Word clearly states that there were waters above and there
were waters below, and that there was separating these two waters a region
called the "expanse" or the "firmament". It was in this firmament which God
placed the sun, moon, and the stars. (Gen.1: 6-8, 14-19) Wherever these waters
above were located, if scripture is to be literally interpreted, they are
somewhere beyond the quasars. If there was a vapor canopy (which I don't
believe), then wonderful, but scripture should not be tagged onto it to try to
propagate its validity.
The second bone I have to pick is with the disbelief in plate tectonics.
It is often said that plate tectonics requires belief in a billion year+
age-of-the-earth. This is not true either logically or scripturally (for
example, Genesis says that in the days of Peleg (one lifetime) the earth was
divided (or rent). Perhaps, there are other possible interpretations of this,
but no, neither you nor I can prove it either way. I have had in depth
discussions on whether the plate tectonics has any mechanism to make it work.
The truth is that there is an indisputable mechanism for it: natural convection
of the earth's interior. There are two and only two things necessary for
natural convection, (see
here.)
1.) a body force, in this case gravity and possibly a magnetic field
interaction; and
2.) a fluid density (and/or magnetic) inversion in that force field, in
this case the result of a thermal gradient (for density - known to exist)
which will cause diminishing density in the direction opposite to the gravity
vector. (The magnetic forces are not spherical as are the gravity forces.
To satisfy the gravity equilibrium would necessitate not satisfying the
heavier metal magnetic equilibrium. Also, it is well known that a large
solid (even at worst the mantle would be a real, not ideal, solid) behaves
exactly as a highly viscous fluid.)
Actually, convection must occur since there are disturbances in the flow field
to trigger motion in an unstable potential energy situation. Such disturbances
in the form of earthquakes, volcanos, meteorites, solar magnetic flares, and
the like occur frequently. There are only two ways to avoid such convection:
not having a density/magnetic inversion or having an infinitely viscous medium.
The second is an impossibility. Nothing known in the universe is infinitely
anything. The first simply doesn't apply either; as mentioned before, even if
the gravity effect was completely satisfied, the magnetic effect would be
necessarily unsatisfied.
During this discussion I had, it was said that tectonic plate entry into the
mantle could not happen because it wouldn't satisfy hydrostatics. Fluids in
motion can never satisfy hydrostatics! Besides, also remember that at least
parts of the earth's crust are heavier than the mantle (for example lead
deposits), and we really aren't sure exactly how heavy the mantle is.
And then there is a vast misunderstanding about the 2nd
law of thermodynamics. It has been used for "proving" everything from
invalidating evolution to describing why we now live in sin. Creationists,
please be careful! Don't use the 2nd law if you don't understand it. You will
not bring glory to God by misrepresenting science. I have heard it said by
many a creationist that the second law of thermodynamics was not in operation
until after the fall of man. To me this would be crazy, the second law is not
some kind of evil curse, but a buffer for preventing all sorts of crazy
phenomena from occurring. Besides, if the second law indeed was not in effect
until after man's fall, then we cannot say that evolution is contrary to it,
since there was no second law in operation to break at the time of the creation!
Maybe a minor point, or maybe not. At any rate, those are my initial criticisms.
I hope it will, if nothing else, stir you to think about your models and subject
them to stringent testing.
Back