geocreationism.com

My theory of Geocreationism is that the Days of creation can be mapped to geologic eras, making it similar to (or yet another flavor of) Day Age Theory.  In that vein, Day 1 occurred about 3.9 Ga, around the time of the last large meteor strike against the early earth.  Day 2 was some time between 3.9 Ga and 3.5 Ga, when the oceans had finally reformed from their last meteoric vaporizing 3.9 Ga.  Day 3, the creation of land and plants, occurred approximately 2.4 Ga, when plate tectonics began.  Day 4 was about 1.9 Ga, when Oxygen levels reached high enough levels for the sun, moon, and starts to be visible in the firmament.  This means that Day 3 could have continued until 1.9 Ga, but no later.  This is important, because plants mentioned in Genesis didn’t actually exist until after 500 million years ago.

To reconcile this, consider that Geocreationism theory already proposes that the creative pronouncements were from God the Father, and they resulted in creative actions by Jesus.  Therefore, the Father’s pronouncement of seeded land plants, and Jesus’ response both took place between 2.4 and 1.9 Ga.  Any plant development after 1.9 Ga was therefore a result of Jesus’ actions on Day 3, but were not required to materialize yet for Day 3 to end.  Besides what many will consider a contrived dating of scripture to the fossil record, are there other aspects of the fossil record that in fact support this **method** of dating the creation Days… in particular Day 3?

To investigate this, I will review the “Plant Evolution Tour” by Adam Dimech.  The tour begins with the very beginning of life, which occurred between 3.85 and 3.5 Ga.  The theory is that for life to occur, organic cells would have to occur first.  The main theory for how this happened was suggested by Miller:

[Miller] found under laboratory conditions that hydrogen, carbon dioxide, ammonia and methane gases, when heated with water and charged with electricity for 24 hours converted much of the carbon into other organic compounds such as sugars, amino acids, purines, and pyrimidines - compounds which are all essential building blocks of life. It was hypothesised that these conditions replicated the earth’s environment at the time, and if organic molecules could be formed in 24 hours, then it was probable that over a much longer period the first cells developed in similar conditions. 

Similar in what way?  And to what extent?  It turns out that there are more organic compounds than this that needed to form.  But, it also turns out that there are experiments showing their derivation from base chemicals as well.  On the other hand, the conditions of these various experiments could never have occurred in combination, meaning we have no idea what combination of conditions (other than a living breathing organism) could have possibly allowed all of the required organic compounds to form together, and at the same time.

I remember when this first occurred to me that each different experiment producing a different building block of life, meant that they would not occur together in either time or space. I then realised that this alone kills off the entire chemical evolution paradigm. And yet this was the preferred materialistic paradigm, because then only time and chance would spontaneously produce life, with no implausibly special conditions (which could require an Intelligent Designer) required.  — Stephen E. Jones, writing on Chemical Evolution

While Stephen Jones hits the nail on the head with this one, I still believe that atheistic scientists are in fact onto something.  But, I also believe it would dismay them to realize what it is.  As rational as it is to see gaps in ones knowledge as mere discoveries waiting to happen, a purely materialistic view will prevent those gaps containing God from being bridged.

Don’t misunderstand. There are surely aspects of what God designed at the chemical stages of life’s predevelopment that will eventually be understood in the future, but such discoveries only serve to further close in on a gap that will never be filled by the materialistic approach to science, because it’s a gap that was bridged by God.  Alas, such future discoveries give the illusion that the final gap is only getting smaller, but they have no idea how immense it really is!  After all, how big is God?

To be fair, the advantage of the materialistic approach is the possibility of understanding things that really are natural.  The disadvantage is that where God really is the explanation, He is overlooked.  It seems that the closer materialism brings one to God, the harder it is to see Him.  He is obscured, much like ones inability to perceive a painting when you study its canvas.

So, how close must we get to God before we stop seeing Him?  Better question: how far must one retreat from the legitimate discoveries of science before one does see Him?  For many, such as myself, not that far, because I see God everywhere.  The more I understand what God did, the more I marvel.  The more scientists can explain, the more of God’s design I can see, and the more in awe I am.  However, this is not the case with all Christians.

Some Christians must retreat from the idea that life formed by a process, even a God-powered one.  They resist seeing God in a scientific manner because it seems faithless to them, but they actually see God more clearly because they are no longer distracted by the needless details they are not required to know, such as the age and imperfections in a painting’s canvas.  Some back up so far that do not see how an old earth reconciles with scripture.  Well God bless them!  They may well see God more clearly than I do, though I believe I understand His creation better than they.  It’s a trade-off, but that’s how faith works… the less you know, the bigger your faith.  Their ignorance will bring them eternal bliss… and my scientific enquiries will be bring me… not as much.

This is the reason Jesus tells us to have the faith of a child.  Children aren’t distracted with the real details of the world and how it works. They just love God.  However, we grow up, and we start to understand that our childlike view of God’s creation was incorrect.  Too bad, because when we get too close to a painting, we stop thinking about the painter.  So then, why should I spend my time on this website?  Why risk losing site of God?

The reason for this site is to help those who are lost in the wonderful patterns and discoveries to be found in the canvas.  I am looking for those whose faith has faltered or is about to, because the smaller their knowledge gap appears to be, the more likely they are to think that gap has disappeared, without the need for the painter, God.  The challenge for me is that for them, the bell has already been rung.  I cannot undo what they know; I cannot undo their realization of what can be known without invoking God; I cannot undo the temptation that comes from thinking that if this much of their knowledge gap can be bridged by science, then perhaps science can bridge the whole thing.  However, there is something they have going for them… they are in fact building the very bridge to God.  They are in fact decreasing the size of the gap, and need only look to God to bridge the rest of it.  This reassurance however is a warning as well… you can get infinitely close through your own power, but without God bridging that final section, the tiny gap may as well be an abyss!

It is my prayer that as you read through this website, you will see God on the other side of the gap, and will allow Him to bridge it for you.  I exhort you to enjoy the science all you want, but to not lose sight of God.

This entry was posted on Friday, February 16th, 2007 at 1:00 am and is filed under Creation Week, Day 1, The Science, Creationism, Day 2, Evolution, Day 3. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.