GeoCreationism.com

In Jesus, the Father’s Proxy on Earth and Jesus on Mount Sinai, I establish the idea of Christophanies in the Old Testament, essentially making the case that where we see God on earth, it is Jesus.  In Genesis 6 - Who Regretted Creating Mankind?, I use the same principals to suggest there was interplay between Jesus and God the Father in the Flood narrative.  It resolves a key problem skeptics point out, where God does not appear omniscient when He speaks (emphasis mine)…
 5 The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that …

I heard a talk on this a few months ago, and had no response.  Today, I found one: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html.  It passes my test of dualing experts, whereby the winning expert is the one who can clearly explain the opposition’s argument best.

Here are my two favorite quotes from the article (toward the end):
This, however, is not what is meant by “intelligent design” in the parlance of the new anti-evolutionists. Their views demand not a universe in which the beauty and harmony of natural law has brought a world of vibrant and fruitful life into existence, but rather a universe in which the emergence and evolution of life is made expressly impossible by the very same rules. Their view requires that …

 1 The LORD then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.
Apparently God is not referring to Noah’s extended family or relatives.  He is only referring to Noah’s wife, sons, and their wives.  It would seem he had no other children, and no grandchildren yet.
2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
As I wrote in …

A primary obstacle to discussing The Flood with a Young Earther has to do with how you read the scripture.  Many will say that you have to read it literally.  Personally, I find that quite appealing.  However, as you read through The Flood’s account, you immediately find yourself having to relax that rule when God says he is going to wipe out “all” of mankind… but is going to save Noah and his family.  Clearly, Noah is a man, yet God clearly separated him from the “all” that he was referring to.  Apparently, even when the word “all” is used by God, God still reserves the right to list exceptions. 

So, backing off the strictly literal method of interpretation, one can still insist that …

13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.
As I wrote in Genesis 6:9-12 - Destroying All Mankind… Adam’s descendants that is… except the righteous ones, all refers to all the evil descendants of Adam.  The reason for using “all”, when God clearly did not mean Noah and his family, is that God separated them from those to whom God referred.  The statement must have been a shock to Noah, having been a …

 9 This is the account of Noah.
      Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God. 10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

 11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 …

So far, I have laid down the following guidelines for interpreting The Flood in scripture:

Problems with Interpreting the Flood - Part 2 - Evidence for Global Catastrophe - All evidence for global catastrophe (that I have found) was created by the KT impact or the ancient ocean of 4.5 billion years ago.  This leaves no evidence for a recent global flood.  Therefore, the Bible is documenting a regional flood.

Problems with Interpreting the Flood - Part 3 - Evidence of Mankind - Scripture and mankind appear to agree …

One of the problems with biblical interpretation is the apparent assumption that what the Bible says is all there is to know.  “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.” is a common mantra… and I agree with it, as far as it goes.  The problem is that we do not always realize what is with which we agree.  The Bible makes it seem like the Earth is at the center of the universe.  Well, it isn’t.  However, it is at the center of God’s plan for the universe.  So, Christians then and now still believe the Bible, and yet believe different things.  It makes arguing against unbeliever rather difficult, but that aside, we need only acknowledge that …

As I wrote in Problems with Interpreting the Flood - Part 2 - Evidence for Global Catastrophe, any physical evidence for The Flood used by Creation Scientists generally points at the KT Impact 65 million years ago, or at the global ocean that first formed on the earth around 4.5 billion years ago.  Furthermore, these two global events are strong evidence for God’s sequence of Creation recorded in Genesis 1.  This tells us that whatever else is true, The Flood was not a global event.  Otherwise, there would be evidence of it, and there is not.  However, this also tells us something else: …

In Problems with Interpreting the Flood, I discussed some of the problems with Creation Science’s approach to interpreting scripture and scientific evidence, as they apply to The Flood.  As I discussed, when I encounter a battle between experts, I will compare their arguments, and compare their descriptions of each others’ arguments.  What I have found is that Creation Scientists cannot explain all of the evidence brought forth by old earth proponents; old earth proponents however can address all of the evidence brought forth by Creation Scientists.  Old earth proponents can also accurately describe the concerns and approach of Creation Scientists; the opposite I am afraid does not appear to be true.

However, …