So How Did He Do That?

 

Having established a little of the nature of the Creator, how did He create everything? This is pure speculation; but then, so is the ‘big bang theory’, so what’s the difference? The big bang theory is unobservable, untestable, unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. It must be believed by faith as there is no physical observation that can prove it. In the publication New Scientist, 30 June 2012, the cover article by New Scientist consultant Amanda Gefter, “What Kind of Bang was the Big Bang?” describes some serious problems with the present theories of the origin of the universe on page 35:

​

“We thought that inflation predicted a smooth, flat universe,” says Paul Steinhardt of Princetown University, a pioneer of inflation who has become a vocal detractor. “Instead it predicts every possibility an infinite number of times. We’re back to square one.” Tegmark agrees: “Inflation has destroyed itself. It logically self-destructed.”

(It can be seen here, although a subscription is required in order to read it. Max Tegmark, cosmologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.)

 

In The New Scientist, May 22, 2004, was published a ‘Cosmology Statement’ complaining that virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies, when the theory only survives through a number of ‘fudge factors’. It then appeared on the Internet and was signed by a large number of scientists across the world. The original page has now disappeared, but at the time of writing this page, the statement can be seen here, and begins:

​

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

​

In a lecture I attended in 2016, given by Valerie Calderbank FRAS, she began, after telling us that the Big Bang Theory was the best explanation of the universe’s origin there is, by saying with reference to what she was about to tell us,

​

"If we get a better theory, then all this will be thrown away,"

​

…which proves that at best it is an unproven hypothesis, based on the belief that no kind of Intelligent Designer exists and therefore there can only be a naturalistic explanation for origins. So it’s foundation is not scientific observation, but the religious belief that God does not exist.

​

Some years ago a Christian creationist was on a radio discussion programme with an atheist. The atheist scornfully said,

​

“He’s a creationist: he believes God made everything in the universe from nothing.”

​

The Christian replied,

​

“He’s an atheist: he believes nothing made everything in the universe from nothing!”

​

The fact is both creation and evolution have very similar requirements. Both need the universe appearing where nothing existed before. Both need inanimate matter turning into living things. The difference is that creationists believe God did it, where the evolutionist believes it happened randomly, and in the case of the big bang, without a prior cause.

​

If a creationist had said that God produced a single atom and from that created the entire universe, evolutionists would say it is ridiculous. Yet some are quite happy to accept the big bang, in which everything that makes up the entire universe suddenly appeared, compressed into the space smaller than a single atom, with nothing to initiate the event.

​

The Bible says

​

‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth’

Genesis 1:1

​

Before that moment nothing existed: no physical dimension, no matter, no space, no time, no vacuum, nothing. In that moment of creation He brought the physical realm into being, along with a huge mass of water, perhaps thousands, millions or even billions of miles in depth. If He is able to create one single atom of hydrogen He is just as capable of creating two and an atom of oxygen at the same time, and is therefore able to create H^2 O: water. If He could create one water molecule, He could just as easily create simultaneously enough molecules for this amount of water.

 

The water was the building block of everything else, and perhaps the central core of it was to become the Earth. If carbon can take the form of graphite - a very soft material, but when under pressure become a diamond, one of the hardest elements known - then under the immense pressure from this mass of water God would have been able to produce all the elements required for the Earth.

 

He then separated the majority of the water away,  leaving the Earth, with its land and seas, floating in space, revolving approximately once every twenty four hours.

​

Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.

Genesis 1:6–7

​

If God could create the Earth like this, then He was equally able to create all planets, sun, moon and stars in the same way. As the vast amount of water was changed into these heavenly bodies, God began to move them away from the Earth at incredible speeds. The Bible indicates this in several verses, in which it says He stretched out the heavens.

​

who alone stretched out the heavens… (RSV)

Job 9:8 

​

He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.

Job 26:7 

​

...Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain.

Psalm 104:2 

​

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Isaiah 40:22 

​

Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it,...

Isaiah 42:5 

​

...I am the LORD, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself.

Isaiah 44:24 

​

I have made the earth, and created man on it. I—My hands—stretched out the heavens, and all their host I have commanded.

Isaiah 45:12 

​

Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand up together.

Isaiah 48:13 

​

And you forget the LORD your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth;

Isaiah 51:13

​

He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, And has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.

Jeremiah 10:12 

​

He has made the earth by His power; He has established the world by His wisdom, and stretched out the heaven by His understanding.

Jeremiah 51:15 

​

Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him

Zechariah 12:1 

​

There are serious problems with the Big Bang Theory, as can be seen from the objections of evolutionists here and a summary of the difficulties here. Equally there are problems with alternative ideas, such as the steady state of the universe. One counter the creationist is presented with when pointing this out, is the problem of light reaching the Earth from billions of light years away, when the universe is only a few thousand years old. However in recent years physicists have produced some interesting theories regarding how this could have been achieved. Dr Russell Humphreys in various studies (see here), and Dr John Hartnett in his book Starlight, Time and the New Physics, (here is a 2.25 hours YouTube presentation by him) have both presented possible solutions to the conundrum.

​

We know from Einstein’s work that time is not fixed, but relative and variable, dependant on such elements as gravity and speed. Put simply, both Humphreys and Hartnett take this into account, pointing out that the result of the expansion of the universe, as indicated by the Bible verses quoted above, would be an enormous difference in time on the Earth compared to that in the rest of the universe. Billions of years could have passed in the expanding universe in the time of one twenty-four hour day on the Earth. So by the time Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day, the stars we can see today by the naked eye would have been visible to them.

​

Indeed, Hartnett points out that the universe may not be expanding today as is usually thought. We could still be seeing light from the stars that was emitted during the stretching of the universe in the creation week, which would therefore be altered by the Doppler effect. However, the point must be made that if an Intelligent Designer - God - was responsible for creating the universe, then it is bound to be the case that the processes we can observe today are not the ones He used in the act of creation. So it would be ludicrous to use what we can see now (the speed of light, for example) and expect to be able to shoehorn the act of creation into the limitations of such observations.

​

Evolutionists are very keen to point out that the Earth is probably one of billions of such planets, is not at the centre of our galaxy and is certainly not at the centre of the universe. However, observations from satellite telescopes show we can see stars about 13 billion light years away in every direction. We may not be at the centre of our galaxy - and I would suggest we would not expect to be: the physical domain referred to in the Bible as Heaven would probably take that position - but observation indicates our galaxy is probably at the centre of the universe!

​

There is one badly misused passage of scripture often quoted in support of the creation week being made up of ‘long’ days, each lasting thousands or millions of years. 2 Peter 3:8 says,

​

“But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

​

Therefore it is claimed that the days of creation could actually be many years, based on this scripture. However, there are serious problems with this.

​

Firstly, the obvious problem is that only half of the verse is quoted: one day is as a thousand years. Let us assume we are supposed to apply this verse to Genesis chapter one. Now we have six periods of one thousand years. But it would be highly inconsistent to apply the first half of the verse and not apply the second half. That tells us that a thousand years is as a day. So each of those six periods of one thousand years actually lasts one day. So we are back where we started from! Each of the creation days lasted for one rotation of the Earth.

​

It could be argued that the second half of the verse does not apply to Genesis chapter one. So where does it apply then? There is nowhere else in the Bible where one could find a period of one thousand years that logically needs to be referring to a period of one day - one rotation of the Earth. So if the second half of the verse does not relate to anything in the Bible, then neither does the first part.

​

In fact it is obvious what 2 Peter 3:8 means: God sits outside of time as we observe it, and to Him the passing of one day or one thousand years is the same. However, there is another way of interpreting this verse, which is consistent within itself as well as with Bible teaching and scientific observation. Before looking at it we need to remember that:

​

• God is everywhere, both in the physical realm and in the spiritual one.
   

• The numerical unit ‘thousand’ is the largest found in the Bible (i.e. We don’t find ‘million’, ‘billion’, etc.), so this is the greatest measurement of time available to the writers.
   

With this in mind, we could say therefore, that in some places where God is present (and of course, there is nowhere where God is not present!) a large amount of time passes, while in other places, a small amount of time passes. In other words, it is a description of relativity and an explanation of how light from distant stars could reach the earth, when the latter is only a few thousand years old. So during creation week billions of years were passing in the universe as it expanded at a massive rate, while on the earth only six days came and went.

​

Secondly, the obvious use of grammar, whether of the original Hebrew or the languages into which it has been translated, proves that the creation week is made up of twenty-four hour days. Phrases such as ‘evening and morning’, and second, third, fourth, etc., clearly demonstrate this fact: these words are never linked with the word ‘day’ anywhere else in the Bible without them meaning a twenty-four hour period.

 

Obviously the rotation of the Earth is not exactly 24 hours, so calling it that is simply a ‘short-cut’ to mean ‘the time it takes for the Earth to complete one rotation’.

​

Thirdly, Genesis 1:5 defines what is meant by the word ‘day’: evening and morning = one day. Note: in the RSV translation this first day is not called ‘first day’ but ‘one day’, which is a legitimate way of translating the Hebrew in this passage. In other words we are given the definition: one period of darkness followed by one period of light = one day. It could not be clearer.

​

God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Genesis 1:5  (RSV)

​

Fourthly, Jonathan Sarfati, in his excellent book ‘Refuting Compromise’ proves with many quotes from Hebrew scholars and key Christian figures throughout the history of the Church, that it is only in the last two centuries or so when the idea of millions of years, to accommodate the time required by evolution, began to be popularised that the idea of creation taking millions of years rather than six days has been taken seriously. Indeed, to prove the point Sarfati gives quotes from the writings of Flavius Josephus, Ambrose of Milan, Lactantius, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Origen, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, the Haak Bible with commentary from Netherland theologians of the 17th century, The Westminster Confession of Faith, James Ussher, John Wesley, Young’s Concordance, George Young, George Fairholme, ‘New and Conclusive Physical Demonstration of the Mosaic Deluge (1837)’, John Murray, William Rhind, Leupoid, Nigel Cameron, Doug Kelly, Marcus Dods, James Barr, and the Interpreters Bible (pages 110-138).

​

Sarfati also points out that the gap theory (the idea that millions or billions of years come between verses one and two of Genesis chapter one) only made its appearance when Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), founder of the Free Church of Scotland, started promoting it. See here for a free 60 minute on-line video presentation by Jonathan Sarfati.

​

The only reason for the existence of the theories that Genesis chapter one must be interpreted to accommodate millions, or billions of years, is to try to harmonise it with the theories of evolutionary scientists. But as we have shown throughout this site, it is completely unnecessary, since the science they promote is faulty at all the key points: it is not science ‘fact’, but an atheistic interpretation of scientific facts that has hijacked the scientific world, and there is no point in twisting the Bible to agree with such ungodly and unscientific ideas.

 

There is one other aspect we should consider at this point. In creationist circles, there has been some discussion regarding the laws of thermodynamics, particularly in relation to the conservation of energy (COE) and entropy. By observation we know that the law of COE means nothing is ever gained or lost: it is simply changed. So the sun, every day, loses tons of material through nuclear reaction changing it into various forms of radiation including heat, light, x-rays, etc. This is called entropy: the deterioration of everything that takes place over time. The matter lost to the sun still exists, but is radiated into space in a different form. So eventually the sun will no longer be able to exist in its present form once the loss of matter reaches the critical point.

 

Some creationists have discussed this point, wondering if in fact before the fall of Adam the laws of thermodynamics worked differently from the way we see today, so the sun would never die: after all, had Adam and Eve not sinned, they would have lived forever, and if the sun has a finite life, then they would be left with no source of heat necessary for life.

 

On the other hand it has been pointed out that without the laws of thermodynamics working as we presently see them, then other aspects of life would be impossible; and in any case it is difficult to see how such fundamental laws could be changed in this way. I suggest something rather different, with the laws of thermodynamics remaining as they are at present, and yet an absence of entropy.

 

In the Bible we see several occasions where this took place. The classic one is when the Israelites, under Moses’s leadership, were travelling for 40 years in the wilderness. Neither their shoes nor their clothes wore out during this time.

​

And I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandals have not worn out on your feet.

Deuteronomy 29:5

​

Another example is in Moses himself, who, even at the advanced age of 120 years, still had his full strength and eyesight: there was no deterioration in his body through aging.

​

Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died. His eyes were not dim nor his natural vigour diminished.

Deuteronomy 34:7

​

The third example I shall give again involves Moses: the burning bush he saw, which burned with fire and yet was not consumed.

​

And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed.

Exodus 3:2

​

What was taking place here? How could a bush burn and yet not be consumed? For fire to exist it must be getting its heat and light source from somewhere, and in this case one would expect it to be material from the bush. How could shoes not wear out? One way would be for them to have no friction: but then the person wearing them would be unable to stand up or walk.

​

There was one key factor in all of these events: God’s presence was there in a way not usually seen on Earth. The fire denoted His presence in the bush, during the 40 years in the wilderness His special presence was made evident by the pillar of cloud by day and fire by night, and Moses face shone through being in God’s presence. Therefore I would suggest that although the laws of thermodynamics were still operating, God was replacing the atoms of matter at the same rate as they were being depleted. So, for example, as atoms were transferred from the shoes to the surroundings, He was creating new ones to replace them.

​

We see this process taking place in other Old Testament events:

​

The miraculous provision of meal and oil for a widow in the ministry of Elijah.

​

For thus says the LORD God of Israel: 'The bin of flour shall not be used up, nor shall the jar of oil run dry, until the day the LORD sends rain on the earth.' " So she went away and did according to the word of Elijah; and she and he and her household ate for many days. The bin of flour was not used up, nor did the jar of oil run dry, according to the word of the LORD which He spoke by Elijah.

1 Kings 17:14–16

​

Oil for another widow in the ministry of Elisha.

​

So Elisha said to her, "What shall I do for you? Tell me, what do you have in the house?" And she said, "Your maidservant has nothing in the house but a jar of oil." Then he said, "Go, borrow vessels from everywhere, from all your neighbours—empty vessels; do not gather just a few. And when you have come in, you shall shut the door behind you and your sons; then pour it into all those vessels, and set aside the full ones." So she went from him and shut the door behind her and her sons, who brought the vessels to her; and she poured it out. Now it came to pass, when the vessels were full, that she said to her son, "Bring me another vessel." And he said to her, "There is not another vessel." So the oil ceased.

2 Kings 4:2–6

​

In the feeding of more than five thousand by Jesus (plus another occasion when He fed four thousand!).

​

And they said to Him, "We have here only five loaves and two fish." He said, "Bring them here to Me."  Then He commanded the multitudes to sit down on the grass. And He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, He blessed and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples; and the disciples gave to the multitudes. So they all ate and were filled, and they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments that remained.  Now those who had eaten were about five thousand men, besides women and children.

Matthew 14:17–21

​

In order for these events to take place the matter that was being ‘lost’ in using meal, pouring out oil and distributing loaves and fishes, was instantly being replaced.

​

This is perhaps a good moment to mention miracles, since opponents of Christianity would claim a God producing them would be contradicting His own laws. I would suggest this is a misunderstanding. If at the time of Stevenson’s Rocket someone suggested that a machine of equal or greater weight, carrying as many passengers could float in the air at much greater speeds, they would have said it was impossible: it would be a miracle. In fact in 1899 scientist Lord Kelvin said,

​

“Heavier than air flying machines are impossible.”

​

Today, 1,000's of planes perform this miracle around the world, every day. The laws of aerodynamics were not understood in Stevenson’s day; but they operate under a law that is ‘greater’ than the law of gravity. In other words, when they are operating, the law of gravity is overcome. Likewise, there could easily be laws of physics of which we are totally unaware. God, on the other hand, having created the universe, knows every function possible, and it may well be that when He multiplies oil, meal and fish, prevents entropy, enables a man to walk on water, etc., He is simply invoking these laws that, like aerodynamics bypassing the law of gravity, bypass the laws we do know about.

​

On the other hand it could simply be that, just as He produced the universe and everything in it by the creative power of His word, He simply has to speak in order to bring about an object or event that otherwise would not be there. After all, if man can collect materials from elsewhere, bring them together, and by knowledge and skill produce a skyscraper, for example, which otherwise would not exist, why cannot God, who is infinity greater in power and knowledge, do the same and more beside?

​

To return to the point being made. Before the moment Adam and Eve disobeyed God, He was maintaining every aspect of the universe and all things on the Earth. The sun, therefore, could have continued for ever, since the matter being used up was being replaced at the same rate. However, after the fall, because of the presence of sin, He partially withdrew His presence and the process of replenishment ended. (Had He withdrawn totally, then the universe would have ceased to exist.) Thereafter, everything began to run down in the way we presently see.

​

This would also explain the detrimental effect of mutation, seen in all living things. Contrary to the requirements of the theory of evolution, mutation does not produce greater specified complexity in the genome, but damage to the sophisticated DNA coding, sometimes resulting in disease and/or disability. This is because we were not designed to be independent of God, who before the fall would have been controlling all cell duplication in every living thing, ensuring mistakes would not take place. That He was able to do this demonstrates just how big He is!

​

His plan for the future is for a universe designed and functioning after His original intention, and when the way of this world has run its course we will see once again a world without mutation or deterioration.

​

INDEX

​