>Evening Bill (at least it is evening here)
Evening back at cha, Jonathan.
>> >I presume you were only joking about no wear before the fall!
>
>Where is the evidence for such an extraordinary statement in scripture?
>Forget about the scientific problems raised by not having wear! All
this
>about no thermodynamics or friction, or animal death, what ever before
the
>fall is something which some read into the next. It is not actually
there in
>the text. Augustine for one certainly would not have held such an
opinion,
>and he lived long before any controversy over the age of the earth.
"Your clothes did not wear out, nor did your feet swell during these
forty years." (Deu. 8:4) "In the beginning you laid the foundations of
the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish,
but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you
will change them and they will be discarded." (Ps 102:25-26)
So we see that in spite of "the scientific problems raised by not having
wear," the Israelites' clothes _did not_ wear out for forty years. The
present earth and heavens are under the curse, and consequently "they
will all wear out like a garment," but God will replace them with the new
heavens and new earth which will be restored to the perfection of the
pre-curse cosmos - which will be eternal, i.e., never wear out.
>Why do you say that Gosse may have jumped the gun? Remember that flood
>geology was the dominant paradigm in geology for 150-200 years but had
been
>in eclipse 100 years before Gosse published "Omphalos" in 1857, and had
been
>generally falsified for at least 60 years.
My goodness, you have a great grasp of the history of these things!
"Dominant paradigm" and "generally falsified" are the opinions of men.
As you know, I don't accept those opinions just because (most) everybody
else does.
>
>With respect to Gosse vs flood geology, if you vacillate between them
you are
>in danger of trying to have your cake and eat it as well. You have to
decide
>either that we can decipher the past from geology, or that we cannot.
You
>can't flip between the two as it suits your argument. They are two
utterly
>and fundamentally different ways of interpreting the world and cannot be
both
>correct.
I'm a little wary of your either-or choice. I think God is quite able to
intervene as He will in the natural flow of events, and it may be
impossible for us to unravel which is which. If you were to examine the
40-year old clothes of the Israelites and find that they had no wear,
given your either-or choice, you would have to conclude that they were
new. Well, nearly new, they might be a little smelly! :-)
>You have lost me with your allusions to low ponies! This is the second
time
>you have mentioned these poor beasties. Are we divided by a common
language
>again?
Sorry. I apologized for some display of arrogance on my high horse, and
I thought it was you who said maybe we should all stick to low ponies.
>I would agree with you that the fundamental issue is the correct
assimilation
>and interpretation of data. However the impression I have is in most
cases
>that a commitment to a young earth came first, and the data is then fit
into
>that. I have only met one geologically literate flood geologist who
claims
>that they were led there by the data.
So? The architectural drawings usually come before the building. We
need a blueprint to enable us to fit the details into the overall
structure. I don't think any of us finish school with a blank slate, and
if we receive a public education it will be almost certainly within the
"old earth" paradigm.
>So in your work causative agents are irrelevant to conclusions? That is
very
>different from the sort of geology I do now and have done in the past.
For
>example,as an exploration geologist different causative processes for a
>geochemical anomaly will have led me to very different conclusions about
how
>to read that anomaly and where I would have told the company where to
spend
>the next $500,000!
Good point. But the causative agent for wine-from-water doesn't affect
the wine. It was still good (the Cana miracle) regardless. More
specifically, with reference to my work, the causative agent for the
flood is irrelevant to whether coal is from swamps or floating mats. I'm
looking at the coal data, without necessary reference to the causative
agent, but that would need to be addressed someday. I think we're in
sync on this one!
Have a blessed day,
Bill
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]