geocreationism.com

In trying to weigh the evidence for a recent global flood, versus a prehistoric local flood, I recently came across a blog I was unfamiliar with, criticizing Glenn Morton for ignoring YEC evidence for the flood.  It seems that about 10 years ago, Glenn Morton wrote Burrows cause problems for the Flood.  It concluded that the burrows we see fossilized in the earth’s crust could not be explained by the flood.  8 years later, in 2006, John Woodmorappe wrote a paper addressing burrows and the flood, entitled Are soft-sediment trace fossils (ichnofossils) a time problem for the Flood?  So, I decided to review both papers and see what conclusions I could come up with …

In Part 1 of this series, discussing Paul H. Seely’s article, The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context, I confirmed that Geocreationism is a Concordist Theory.  In Part 2, I explained why a significant difference between Geocreationism and other Concordist theories is that Geocreationism does not rewrite scripture to fit the accepted geologic ages.  In Part 3, I explained how Geocreationism uses science to confirm the sequence of events the scriptures record.  In this installment, I discuss Seely’s approach for interpreting Genesis as history.

Recall from Part 2 this quote from the Wikipedia page Interpretations of the Creation Account:
There has been little consistency in the various ways of reconciling Genesis 1 …

In Part 1 of this series, discussing Paul H. Seely’s article, The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context, I confirmed that Geocreationism is a Concordist Theory.  In Part 2, I explained why a significant difference between Geocreationism and other Concordist theories is that Geocreationism does not reinterpret scripture to fit the accepted geologic ages, but uses the sequence and language of the scripture to find when in the geologic record each “day age” took place.  The only scientific assumptions Geocreationism starts with is that the earth is old, and that when we find a sequence of events similar to the scriptures, the finer details may provide further insight into the scriptures… a …

In Geocreationism and Concordist Theory (Part 1) - Is Geocreationism Concordism?, I introduced an article by Paul H. Seely, The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context.  In part one, I concluded that Geocreationism is in fact a Concordist Theory.  I then closed out with the following observation about Concordism, as written of on the Wikipedia page Interpretations of the Creation Account:
There has been little consistency in the various ways of reconciling Genesis 1 with geological history; and concordism still attempts to find scientific data in a passage that is pre-scientific. Critics contend it is still asking the wrong questions, and …

If you haven’t noticed, I took a break from Day 5.  Between long hours, cub scouts, and family, well, something had to give, and it’s usually this blog.  (By the way, my son’s raingutter boat took 3rd place in the races for the cubs, and 3rd place for painting overall.  I am quite the proud papa right now. )

Well, in between the hecticness, I have been writing a review (not posted) of an article by Paul H. Seely on Concordism.  The article can be found here: The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context.  It caught my eye because the summary of the article singled out the first 4 days of Creation, …