My first post for this blog is for my Sunday School class that has the creation story for their assignment this next Sunday. They are beginning a study of the entire Bible. This blog is being created to let me express my observations on the evolution/creation controversy. After 50 years of looking at the controversy I have arrived at what I call the Rodenberger theory of creation.
Why did God create light first? My answer is this was the building block for the created universe. N. S. Japolsky in the 1930s proposed that all matter is composed of rotating electromagnetic energy and used this hypothesis to formulate the Table of Elements. He hypothesized that all matter is the interaction of such energy. The best way for the author of Genesis to express this concept was that God said let there be light. From that beginning all matter was created.
This concept of matter makes more sense to me than Bohr's billiard ball model of the atom with electrons orbiting a nucleus. This is a dreamed up concept that has been useful to help understand how atoms form molecules and helped us understand crystal structure. I have always wondered about the concept of the electron that is so imbedded in our thinking but can't be seen and only measured by deflection of a needle on magnetic coil.
I had bought into the myth of evolution until I began to read criticisms and now find no reason to not believe that God created the universe as we know it in six days and rested on the seventh. In 1958 I asked my old Air Force boss who had gone back to college to get his degree in Civil Engineering to come to work with me at General Dynamics. He brought a book written by the head of his department, Henry M. Morris, called THE BIBLE AND MODERN SCIENCE in which he questioned evolution and I said he was nutty as a fruit cake, but I then said that I had never ever really looked at the theory and went to the Fort Worth public library and got some journals on anthropology, biology and palenotology. This was just after the Piltdown man had been declared a hoax. I was amazed at the rancour and meanness in the journal articles. I was only familiar with engineering papers and had never seen someone attack someone else. They were bitter about their theory being questioned.
I then began reading the creation science literature and agree that the laws of physics and chemistry state without any doubt that evolution where random inorganic atoms collide with others to form organic and living organisms is impossible. But scientists who can not accept the concept of a creator God insist that evolution is the only way it could have happened.
In the Rodenberger theory God created the earth as one large land mass surrounded by seas, with the sky covered by a canopy of water vapor creating a tropical environment over the whole earth. It was watered by a vapor coming up like dew creating creeks and rivers. The atmosphere was composed of 30% oxygen and solar radiation was filtered by the water canopy resulting in an environment that kept people living for 800 years. Living in a hyperbaric chamber as vegetarians resulted in long life for man and animal. Men who live that long became worse and worse until God decided to try it again by saving eight people in an ark and removing the canopy, changing the oxygen content and leting solar radiation all shorten the life span.
I believe that the earth was without a lot of mountains that were formed some at the flood when volcanic activity released a lot of juvenile water in the earth. I believe that the earth was later, after mankind was distributed in many language tribes around the earth, divided into the continents that we know today with a lot of shaking going on. Mountains were formed with seas, lakes and cracks like the Grand Canyon being formed not too long ago. When the canopy was removed the poles were suddenly dropped in temperature to drown and freeze mammoths and other animals that are being dug up in Siberia and Alaska.
When I first questioned Morris' book I was working on a Master's degree in Nuclear Engineering and said that radiocarbon dating could determine the dates of the earth without question. So I got that literature and immediately saw the problem. Assumptions have to be made about what the previous conditions are. In radiocarbon dating it is assumed that the nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere are converted to carbon 14 by high energy solar radiation changing the protons. It was assumed that the radiation was constant for over 100,000 years. I saw a problem because if my model was correct then there would be a different amount of C14. I would expect a glitch in the predicted dating as time went back and although you won't see many reports the data does have an inflection point as you get back about 4000 years. Recently C14 testing of gas wells in New Mexico has found C14 that should not be there if it is millions of years old. The same thing has happened in coal that should not have C14 if it is as old as geology says. So I contend that all data needs to be examined with different assumptions on what has happened in the past.
When I first read that there were creation scientists who were finding different results from their data but were not allowed to publish their findings in academic publications I said that they need to have their own journal. So they formed the Creation Research Society under Henry M. Morris and started publication of a quarterly Creation Research Society Quarterly and have published for 45 years.