>2. "Thus I establish my covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be
>cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to
>destroy the earth". Gen 9:11. There have been many floods subsequently
>which have been local. This promise only has meaning if it was global.
I would say that the promise can only have meaning if the flood was
anthropologically universal not global, but in my opinion, that atheist was
essentially correct, that we Christians can't have a scenario be true that
makes God to be a liar. And since anatomically modern men were spread
across the old world by 67,000 years ago, no local river flood could wipe
them all out. And if one believes as I do that the observed activities of
homo erectus (such as making art and apparently making a religious altar)
indicate that he was a spiritual being, then mankind was spread across the
old world by 1.6 million years ago. Once again, no local flood could wipe
out all of humanity. So, did God lie?
By saying that Noah's flood was nothing more than a big local river flood
which only killed a small percentage of humans alive at the time, we make
God break his promise and then we tell people that God is to be trusted and
is truthful. That makes no sense.
I see only two options to solve the problem above, either go with Dick
Fischer's solution and have the flood only wipe out the Adamites, or do
what I do and move the flood way, way back. The alternative to those two
options is to fall onto the sword of making God's promise not to cause
another flood false.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm