geocreationism.com

(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, …

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 …

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, …

 20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. — Genesis 1:20-23
In …

 20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. — Genesis 1:20-23
Day 5 was not straightforward to date.  As described …

One of the main criticisms that Young Earth Creationists (YECs) lobby against Old Earth Creationists (OECs) is that scientific methods of aging ancient rocks and fossils are unreliable.  Therefore, the reasoning goes, don’t rely on it.  In fact, if you are trying to age anything you think is older than 10,000 years old, don’t even try.  After all, according to scripture, nothing was around back then.  If you try using methods that suggest ages older than 10,000 years old, your findings will be filled with contradictions and inconsistencies, so do not be surprised when you find them.  You can try reconciling them, but don’t bother.  After all, if you already know the earth is younger than 10,000 years old, then what do you gain trying explain why …

One of the difficulties with discussing an old earth is that people tend to think that it requires placing science over scripture.  In discussing Day 4 for example, a familiar argument is that scripture clearly records the creation of the sun, moon, and stars occurring on Day 4.  Therefore, as the argument goes, any theory to the contrary, using science to back it up, is setting aside the plain meaning of the scripture in favor of man’s “scientific” wisdom.  I would like to convince you otherwise. 

As explained in my post “http://geocreationism.com/2007/08/24/biblical-difficulties-for-a-young-earth-part-3-the-sun-is-not-in-the-sky/“, there is no requirement in the text that requires creation of the celestial bodies to occur on Day 4, though I admit a plain reading appears otherwise.  To be specific, …