In the Beginning, Did the Earth Have Cloud Covering?

The Bible says that God created the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day of creation. Ross says that the sun and stars, resulting from the big bang, were there from earth's day one but couldn't be seen from the earth because of cloud cover. According to him, the fourth day began when this covering was removed. This is an assumption for which there is no evidence. If this assumption is true, it means the earth was shrouded in opaque water vapor and/or other gases for millions of years until the fourth creation day/age. I suspect that God, in His wisdom, formed the universe in the order given in Genesis because there is no way that the wisdom of men could explain it naturally. They would be forced to either acknowledge the existence of a Creator or to deny God and call His Word a lie.

Without any proof it is easy to suggest that the earth was thus enshrouded, but with what was it enveloped and what is the evidence? Scientists involved in the origin of life research have made many speculations about the composition of the alleged primordial atmosphere. I hope Dave Matson is taking note since he made mention that there might have been a heavy overcast for millions of years to protect evolving biochemical molecules and other precursors for life from destructive ultraviolet radiation in the absence ozone. For sake of clarity and brevity, let's look at what Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen have to say about what would have happened to the constituents of the primordial atmosphere of earth which have been suggested by the evolutionary origin-of-life experimenters:

"Concentrations of some of the most important early atmosphere components would have been diminished by short wavelength, i.e., <2000 Å, ultraviolet photodissociation. Atmospheric methane would have polymerized and fallen into the ocean as more complicated hydrocarbons, perhaps forming an oil slick 1-10m deep over the surface of the earth. If this occurred, very small concentrations of methane would predictably have remained in the atmosphere. About 99% of the atmospheric formaldehyde would have been quickly degraded to carbon monoxide and hydrogen by photolysis [destruction by light energy]. Carbon monoxide concentrations in the atmosphere would have been small, however. Carbon monoxide would have been quickly and irreversibly converted to formate in an alkaline ocean. Ammonia photolysis to nitrogen and hydrogen would have occurred very quickly, reducing its atmospheric concentration to so small a value that it could have played no important role in chemical evolution. If all the nitrogen in the contemporary atmosphere had existed in the form of ammonia in the early atmosphere it would have been degraded by ultraviolet light in 30,000 years [later revised by J.P. Ferris and D.E. Nicodem to 10⁵-10⁶ years]. If the ammonia surface mixing ratio were on the order of 10^-5 as Sagan has estimated, then the atmospheric lifetime of ammonia would have been a mere 10 years. It would also have been difficult to maintain substantial levels of hydrogen sulfide in the atmosphere. Hydrogen sulfide would have been photolyzed to free sulfur and hydrogen in no more than 10,000 years. The concentration of hydrogen sulfide in the ocean would have been further attenuated by the formation of metal sulfides with their notoriously low solubilities. The same photodissociation process would have applied to water to yield hydrogen and oxygen. Some recent studies suggest that, through ultraviolet photolysis of water vapor, atmospheric oxygen did reach an appreciable fraction of today's concentration in early earth times." [1]

Photodissociation would have raised the oxygen content to about 1%, enough to produce an ozone layer and shield the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, but the presence of that much oxygen would have made any spontaneous chemical evolution impossible. Matson also speculated that life might have evolved in hydrothermal vents, and "would not a relatively thin layer of sand, porous rock, a moderate layer of unclear water or some crevice provide the necessary protection?" Perhaps so, but in this case, we must bring up the problem of thermal decay in such situations. Miller and Orgel showed that chemical evolution could not occur if the ocean (or some concentrating pool or absorbing clay) were warmer that 2° C (77° F). All those biotic precursors would have decayed in those warm, primordial soups. Although astronomers believe that the early earth would have been cooler, let's not forget how the earth is supposed to have formed and how hot it would have been. Miller and Orgel pointed out that although 0° C (32° F) would have given life's origin a better chance, -21° C (5.8° F) would have been ideal. [2] Of course, one can speculate endlessly about what might have been and possibilities, and not come within a megaparsec of the truth. The trouble with many evolutionists, such as Matson, is that they believe their speculations are the truth or are so close to the truth that, for all practical purposes, they are the truth. I don't find such speculation the least bit convincing.

I also have trouble with someone who wants to reconcile the Bible with present day science because the scientific method hasn't the slightest ability to address origin issues. Circumstantial evidence, extrapolations, and philosophically colored inferences about the past based on facts in the present are not science. Origins are completely outside the realm of science, so why do some scientists insist that evolution is fact when they cannot observe it? That is not science. In order for something to qualify as science, it must be observable, we must be able to perform tests, collect data, confirm or deny hypotheses made, and make predictions. The things that we do know are clear: stars cannot form from an extremely thin gas without outside help. Self-gravitational formation of stars also runs against the law of entropy (see Star Formation by Jon Covey). Although gravitational formation of stars is conceivable, it is not possible. It is also conceptually feasible to make a perpetual motion machine or to build the perfectly efficient machine, but entropy will not allow them.

Finally, I have trouble with someone who denies that the Genesis Flood was a global flood. Ross and many other Christians claim that it was a local flood. They are sitting ducks for skeptics like Dave Matson and Steven Morris. When God made His rainbow covenant He said,

"Now behold, I Myself do establish My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you [that's us]; and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. And I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth....Never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh." [3]

If the flood had been only a local flood, then God's promise has failed. There have been many local floods upon the earth, destroying many people and much livestock. Only if the flood had been global in extent would God's promise still hold.

1. Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 43-44. Available from the Foundation of Thought and Ethics, PO Box 830721, Richardson, TX 75083-0721 or Master Books (800) 999-3777. This book should especially be on the reading list of those who confidently think life arose by random processes over millions of years. It is well written, and the layman could also learn from it.