GeoCreationism.com

In Genesis 7:18-20 - Where was the ark? (Part 4) - Dressing the Mountains of Ararat, we examined the word for “covered”.  What we found is that in Hebrew, the word for covered has the connotation of being dressed, or covered enough so that your “hollows” are not showing.  However, looking back, I see that I left something unaddressed.  Look back at Genesis 8, which I quoted…
3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the …

In Genesis 7:6-17 - Where was the ark? (Part 1) — The Earth and the Springs, we saw that Noah did not board the ark for the last time until after the rains began and the springs of the great deep had burst forth.  In my mind this suggests that Noah actually saw the springs, and was able to get in the ark without being swept away by the water.  In fact, according to scripture, **everyone** had the time they needed to board (key portions highlighted)…
 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day …

Genesis 7:6…
 6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth.
This is an interesting verse.  It doesn’t say much, but it says a lot.  Floodwaters came on the earth.  What does this mean?  Well to get a feel, let us go back to God’s warning to Noah of what was to come, in Genesis 6:13,17…
 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.”

- - -

 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the …

According to Genesis 7… 
 6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth.
I find it amazing how many theories exist on where the flood took place.  For Christians who believe in a local flood, there appear to be numerous possibilities.

The primary roadblock to figuring out where the flood took place has to do with where the ark landed.  According to Genesis 8:4, the ark landed on the mountains of Ararat.  Most people take that to mean Mount Ararat.  However, that mountain was named later, after Genesis was written.  The mountains of Ararat actually refers to the mountains of Urartu, which are further south.

View this map here: http://www.genesisfiles.com/Images/UrartuSearch.jpg.  Notice that Mount Ararat …

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 …

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 …

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, …

While posting on the 7 Days of Creation and Righteousness for the last several years, I have been researching various theories on The Great Flood.  However, I have wanted to avoid posting any actual theory on The Flood until my analysis of Genesis 1-6 had played itself out, and I could see exactly how my theories of Geocreationism would weigh in to the argument.

Generally speaking, I never accepted The Flood as a global flood since I was a child.  I always knew the scripture was true, and assumed I would eventually understand the evidence for it.  I have studied the Creation Science for a recent global flood, and the secular science arguing against no flood at all.  Of particular interest to …