geocreationism.com

Over the last 2 years of studying and writing Geocreationism, I have slowly come to accept evolution more than before.  Though I still have questions in my mind, I keep finding more reasons to believe that God a created a universe in which life would evolve according to His predetermined plan.

Early on in my blog, I found a post entitled Mass Delusion - 10 Reasons Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution.  I never responded to it, but at the time as I was merely sympathetic to Evolution.  While I am not full-on advocate for Evolution, it is the most logically choice to me, and fits my interpretation of scripture better than anything else I’ve studied.  This …

Based on my latest post, Geocreationism and Concordist Theory (Part 4) - What does “literal” literally mean?, I believe I am headed down what some would consider a dangerous path… concluding that Moses wrote things in the scriptures that were not true.  With most people, I am sure this hits a nerve (hey, it hits a nerve in me!) However, this does not worry me.  The reason is because Moses’s misperceptions are not God’s message.  Moses, as we all do, had an understanding of the world that served as a framework and backdrop for the story that he lived out. Naturally, what God …

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 …

My theory of Geocreationism is that the Days of creation can be mapped to geologic eras, making it similar to (or yet another flavor of) Day Age Theory.  In that vein, Day 1 occurred about 3.9 Ga, around the time of the last large meteor strike against the early earth.  Day 2 was some time between 3.9 Ga and 3.5 Ga, when the oceans had finally reformed from their last meteoric vaporizing 3.9 Ga.  Day 3, the creation of land and plants, occurred approximately 2.4 Ga, when plate tectonics began.  Day 4 was about 1.9 Ga, when Oxygen levels reached high enough levels for the sun, moon, and starts to be visible in the firmament.  This means that Day 3 could …

Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” - Genesis 1:6
At the beginning of Day 2, it was still raining… hard.  An atmosphere was beginning to form, and Jesus had seen to it that no more large meteors would decimate it.  It was sometime after 3.9 Ga, though probably before 3.85Ga, when the first signs of life would be fossilized.

The rain was like a sheet of water connecting the clouds to the oceans, until God said to Jesus to let a firmament form.  Eventually, the rain let up.  There were still clouds, but there was now a space between them and ocean.
Thus God made the …

Day 2 is the day when God separated the waters above from the waters below.  The implication is that there was a time when the waters in the sky were connected to the ocean.  God then removed that connection, creating a discernable space where there wasn’t one.  The question is whether there ever was such a time that can be established scientifcally.  The answer is yes.

It is generally believed among the scientific community that the oceans were first created when the clouds became overly saturated with water that had outgassed from a combination of meteor strikes and volcanic activity during the formation of the earth’s crust.  Combined with the cooling effects of the atmospheric moisture, there ensued …