The Origins debate is about how the things we see today came about. It involves combining scientific observations (we observe things through telescopes and microscopes) and the telling of historical stories about how the things we observe got here. Evolutionists typically talk about their origins story as if that is the only way to explain the things we observe. In addition, in doing so, in that way, it sounds like they are talking about their story as history as it were fact. If that is all you hear, then you begin to believe that maybe it is true. However, deep down you have to think there must be dozens of explanations for what really happened in the past- since nobody was there to actually document it as it happened.
The scientific revolution of the Earth sciences that developed during the 1960s established the plate tectonics paradigm as the reigning framework for explaining not only present day geophysical processes, but also the large-scale geological change in the past. This scientific information has correctly recognized many important aspects of our Earth’s dynamics and how near surface processes are linked to a variety of phenomena deep in the Earth’s interior. This prevailing uniformitarian point of view has, however, prevented secular scientists from reaching a final logical conclusion. Their perspective cannot explain why and how Earth has experienced a major tectonic catastrophe in its recent past according to their own data and computer modeling – which we all know are extremely inaccurate anyway.
I have become persuaded after a great deal of research and analysis of scientific data -mainly from secular scientists who can not explain vast gaps in their theories – that the Genesis Flood was primarily a tectonic catastrophe. It effectively resurfaced the planet in a few months’ time, destroyed all the non-marine air-breathing life except that saved by God on the Ark with Moses, and left a powerful testimony of that cataclysm in the rocks (otherwise known as the ‘geological column’) all around us.
I am still not 100% convinced due to some 55 years of indoctrination into the evolutionists point of view. An earth that is only 10,00 to 6,000 years old just seems incredibly dumb to believe if you have fallen hook, line and sinker for the prevalent mode being taught daily to the students in our schools.
Any serious model for the Genesis Flood must account for the massive tectonic changes evident in the geological record, since the point in that record where metazoan fossils first appear (otherwise it would be unduly criticized by the secularists). These tectonic changes include the complete replacement of the world’s ocean lithosphere, lateral displacements of continents by thousands of miles, significant vertical motions of the continental surfaces to allow the deposit of thick and laterally extensive sediment, and large local increases in the earth’s crustal thickness to generate today’s high mountain ranges. Without a mechanism that can account for these major tectonic changes in a logical and consistent manner, any claims about understanding, much less modeling the Flood cataclysm are useless. The correct model, on the other hand, will provide a framework into which the vast accumulation of detailed geological observations that have been made can be understood in a unified, coherent, and comprehensive manner.
The mechanism of catastrophic plate tectonics, enabled by runaway subduction of negatively buoyant ocean lithosphere into the Earth’s mantle, appears to account for the main tectonic changes associated with the Flood and provides, I believe, the best framework available for integrating and understanding the vast store of geological observational data.
In order to offer any kind of reasonable alternative theory to the current theory of evolution, there are some items that must be covered completely by both the secular concept and Biblical concept. I will maintain that the Biblical theory satisfies all the requirements better, covers the inevitable ‘exceptions to the rules’ better, and predicts future events more accurately and has the fewer number of inconsistencies involved with it.
Some of the problems that any theory of creation (secular or biblical) must deal with are the following:
The creation of the universe – ‘In the beginning’ or the ‘Big Bang’
How did everything come from nothing? When did time start? Will everything end someday? Do we exist here and someplace else at the same time? How do we really know what time is? How are we sure that we weigh what the scales say we do when none of the particles in an atom themselves have a detectable weight?
The formation of land masses and water areas
How and what created the land masses and the mountains and the deep valleys and canyons and the flat areas and the beaches and the underwater canyons and volcanoes and all the other mysteries of the earth.
The pre-biotic soup
What kind of chemicals was floating in the ocean? Was their really an ocean? What was the atmosphere supposedly like? How was it possible for these few elements to combine into all the other chemical compounds and elements we now know exist.
The spontaneous development of self-replicating molecules
After thousands of experiments and even more lofty discussions among the elite of the secular molecular biologists, the only thing that has been confirmed is it is highly improbable.
The development of you and me from primordial goo
So then if the basic constituents of life can not create themselves how did they create us?
The existence of similar species on various land masses.
Why are some of the same species of plants and animals appear in various continents when there appears to be no possible correlations.
The ideas above will be covered in greater detail in separate articles. Right now we will be dealing with the idea of The formation of land masses and water areas.
Because we have been indoctrinated for so many years into believing what the secular scientists have told us about the geology of the world, we have blindly accepted this information as the truth. It is far from the truth and I will detail this in the following article and sub-articles related to it. I will provide a detailed and, in some places, technical critique of their hypothesis. To assist nontechnical readers, I have placed some of the details of this critique in notes for the more scientifically minded. I would ask technically minded readers to read these notes in full. In some cases they provide important additional support for, or qualifications to, my arguments. Each element of this critique stands mostly on its own (there is some overlap but no where as much as in the secular viewpoint) and all the parts combine to form a complete and total overview.
Now we will get fairly deep into the science of all of this. If I am not able to write in such a way that you are able to understand me, then I am failing as a teacher. Please email so I may correct the part that you are not understanding so that we can help others to understand. Thank you. Please read with an open mind, you will learn some things and hopefully at least have a question or two about your preconceived notions.
The next sections are: