geocreationism.com

One of the difficulties with discussing an old earth is that people tend to think that it requires placing science over scripture.  In discussing Day 4 for example, a familiar argument is that scripture clearly records the creation of the sun, moon, and stars occurring on Day 4.  Therefore, as the argument goes, any theory to the contrary, using science to back it up, is setting aside the plain meaning of the scripture in favor of man’s “scientific” wisdom.  I would like to convince you otherwise. 

As explained in my post “http://geocreationism.com/2007/08/24/biblical-difficulties-for-a-young-earth-part-3-the-sun-is-not-in-the-sky/“, there is no requirement in the text that requires creation of the celestial bodies to occur on Day 4, though I admit a plain reading appears otherwise.  To be specific, …

Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light …

In “Biblical Difficulties for a Young Earth - Part 2: Not so easy for a child to understand“, I showed how the word Elohim communicated more than what the Children of Israel (or a child in general) would see in the scripture.  It takes the perspective of a Christian to realize that Moses was referring to the Trinity in the word Elohim.  Similarly, other aspects of Genesis 1 can only be understood when you have the correct perspective.  Once such example is Day 4 of the Creation Account.  The difference between Day 4 and Genesis 1:1 however, is that Genesis …

One of the cornerstones of Young Earth Theology is that Genesis 1 is written in simple language that anyone can understand.  This argument comes in several different forms:
“Genesis 1 is written so simply, that even a child can understand.”

“God made sure Moses wrote Genesis 1 so that the Children of Israel would understand it.”

“God wants us to come to Him ourselves (without a moderator), and so He made Genesis 1 easy to understand.”
…therefore, the world was created in 24-hour days, because its simple language makes that fact clear.  Well, the fact is that it only seems clear because it’s what the church by and large already believes.  If the church believed the world was old, and were well-versed in the geological evidence for the Genesis 1 …

Before I made up my mind that the earth must be old, there were still several difficulties I had with believing the earth was young.  These difficulties were not proofs against a young earth necessarily.  After all, I knew God was not forced to create the earth within any particular time frame; if He could do it one way, He can it another.  It was really just a question of what God did in fact do, and how Moses recorded it.  So, while — similar to a Young Earth Creationist — I did (and do) accept Genesis 1 as a literal history of God’s work, I also saw holes in the account that needed to be filled in for the …

I notice several other blogs picking up on this significant evolutionary discovery, so I feel obligated to comment on it.  As stated in the article:
The old theory is that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became human, Homo sapiens. But Leakey’s find suggests those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years.
As stated in EvolutionBlog however:
The fact that erectus and habilis coexisted for a substantial period of time hardly implies that the former could not have evolved from the latter. It is certainly possible that both evolved from a common ancestor, but these two …

Just a quick question.

If the earth were capable of passively producing complex life forms, with no involvement from God, then why isn’t that evidence for Intelligent Design?

Just wondering.