geocreationism.com

As discussed, here is a reminder of my ground rules: “Evidence for Creation” (Review) - Ground Rules for the Review
Because I believe DeRosa’s opening paragraphs exclude discussion of any viable form of Theistic Evolution…

I will weigh DeRosa’s anti-Evolution arguments as they pertain to Darwinian Evolution, separately from a (for lack of a better term) Geocreationist Theistic Evolution.
I will be weighing DeRosa’s pro-Creationist arguments as they pertain to Creationist theories in general, and specifically Geocreationist Theistic Evolution.
I am knowingly excluding all other specific Creationist and Evolutionary theories, though I realize there are other theories that are worthy of discussion.

DeRosa begins this chapter with a summary of the …

As discussed, here is a reminder of my ground rules: “Evidence for Creation” (Review) - Ground Rules for the Review
Because I believe DeRosa’s opening paragraphs exclude discussion of any viable form of Theistic Evolution…

I will weigh DeRosa’s anti-Evolution arguments as they pertain to Darwinian Evolution, separately from a (for lack of a better term) Geocreationist Theistic Evolution.
I will be weighing DeRosa’s pro-Creationist arguments as they pertain to Creationist theories in general, and specifically Geocreationist Theistic Evolution.
I am knowingly excluding all other specific Creationist and Evolutionary theories, though I realize there are other theories that are worthy of discussion.

“Why does the Same Evidence Lead to Opposite Conclusions?”

DeRosa’s …

From the first page of Chapter 1, I can see that I might end up repeating myself if I do not set some ground rules for how I review this book.  Consider the second paragraph (emphasis added):
In the origins debate, the evidence leads to one of two conclusions: evolution or creation.  These two basic views are completely at odds and admit no middle ground.  On the one hand, evolution relies on pure random chance as the agent by which matter and energy, over time, are assembled into living systems with all their mind-boggling complexity.  The evolutionary process, we are told, requires billions and billions of years.  Creation, by contrast, relies on the “mechanism” of an outside intelligence which we define …

I received as a Christmas present the book “Evidence for Creation - Intelligent Answers for Open Minds”, by Tom DeRosa.  The gift was from my Pastor who knows that I believe in an Old Earth.  In fact, he let me teach the Creation unit of a multi-week course a few years ago, because I expressed concern that the teaching might alienate people who believe the earth is old.  So, he let me teach it.  For my closing, I said something like the following:
“Now, some of you may be wondering what I believe about Creation.  I am not going to say, though I am sure no one here will guess.  The reason I won’t say is because God’s love for us is …

Gorden J. Glover excellently captures the needless struggle between Theology and Science in his current series Missed Opportunities Part 1 and Missed Opportunities Part 2.  The basic idea is that if all of life did not descend from a common ancestor, then God seems to have missed His opportunity to tell us that in within his blueprints.  In fact, the blueprints appear to be screaming “COMMON DESCENT”.  

Given the purpose of my own blog, to show that science and scripture are really telling the same story, I find Gordon’s posts to be timely and needed.  People need to realize that the conflict between science and theology is artificial, and only due to our stubbornness and ignorance.

Some highlights:

Part 1:
We can …

(Lesson learned if you have a WordPress blog: This is my second writing of this.  First time, I was in the process of posting it.  I interrupted the publish however because I forgot to assign categories.  But, it had published enough already that it was showing up on the blog.  So, I then opened a second window to delete what was posted.  I then came back into my first window, picked my categories, and then published, and then whoosh.  The post was gone, and hitting the back button showed a blank post.  Apparently, I deleted my post out from under myself.  Argh.  I will never do that again.  As embarrassing as that is, I publish my stupidity so that …

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 …

I am about to do something risky.  I am about to evaluate the scientific evidence presented by Glenn Morton for the likelihood of Adam, Noah, and the flood being 5.5 million years ago.  The reason this is risky is because I do not have the scientific background to judge the validity of Morton’s evidence.  Of course, that hasn’t stopped me from evaluating other scientific positions, so why let it stop me here?

In my readings, I have now seen several critiques of his theory.  In my opinion, these critiques fall into two major camps.  Camp #1 is scientifically knowledgeable; often exceptionally knowledgeable.  They do not necessarily refute or misunderstand the existence of Morton’s evidence, but they do not think it proves …

When I first started the Geocreationism blog, I already had a theory for many of the Genesis 1 events… and I have posted on most of it.  Not much of my theory has changed thankfully, though further study has caused some adjusting here and there.  Admittedly, I have never been certain on how to account for the Great Flood, but that hasn’t stopped me from posting through Day 5.  I must say however that Day 6 is another matter, because unlocking the time, place, and scope of the flood can impact the believed time frame of Adam’s existence, not to mention ones understanding of Abram’s genealogy back to Noah and then Adam, as well as other critical events recorded or implied in Genesis.

Now, …

I recently encountered a person, on Steve Martin’s excellent blog An Evangelical Dialog on Evolution, named Herman Cummings.  Cummings espouses his own theory of how to interpret Genesis 1 that he calls the “Observations of Moses”.  To be honest, I thought he was kidding because of his self-declaration:
If you wish to waste your time with those that are not an expert on Genesis (there’s only one), then expect to be given false information.
I wasn’t sure if he was talking about himself or not, so I googled him and found that he was referring to himself, and he is not kidding.  Here is how he introduces himself in a letter connected to a Cobb County lawsuit regarding what …