I want to say straight out, that you have the last shot on this. I will be
offline for a week or so (computer problems)
I wrote:
>>Those who believe that the flood was a mesopotamian affair which landed the
>>ark in Ararat must have water flow up hill contrary to the laws of physics.
>
You replied.
>I may have mentioned it, I don't remember, but the phrase "fountains of the
>deep" is replete in one of the flood stories, Atrahasis, which most assuredly
is of Mesopotamian origins.
>
>If the flood lasted for more than one year, it may have spanned two rainy
>seasons. Instead of one year long flood, there may have been two flooding
>episodes with the ark resting in mud or floating on the Euphrates for
> months where they could have punted upstream.
>
>There may be other possibilities, but like a magician's trick, it may
> appear to disobey the laws of physics until we see how it was done.
This is one of the things that frustrates me in the area of
creation/evolution/flood. Last May, I presented a calculation of how much
energy must be output to raise the ark the thousands of feet and move it
hundreds of miles. I also showed that it was impossible for 8 humans to
output that much energy over an extended time.
You agreed at that time with what you are saying now, ON May 12 you wrote:
>So maybe we can't understand the physics of a 2900 BC flood. Remember,
>it was called down by God as a penalty for sin. It was God's decree.
>Do we require that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was by entirely
>natural causes? What is the scientific explanation of Lot's wife turning
>into a pillar of salt? Did Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10) die of
>natural causes?
I agree, that God can produce any miracle He wants to. But if you must
explain everything with miracle, then why do you insist that your explanation
is the correct one? Once you are dealing with the miraculous, there is
absolutely no need for an explanation, either yours or mine. God just did it
and that is the end of the discussion. If you can raise the miraculous as an
explanation for any difficulty your view encounters, then why not just say the
whole event was miraculous. No one can ever prove you wrong.
I wouldn't try to explain how God parted the Red Sea or turned the water to
wine or how Shadrack and company walked in the fire. Those miracles we accept
and do not try to explain. In my view, if we must explain an event in the
Bible as a miracle it is alright. But then we have no right to try to explain
it with add on theories. When you resort to miracle to avoid the problem with
the ark going uphill, there is no need for any addon views.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm