To everybody:
Even I don't like some of the things that the data has forced me to conclude,
but we must make a decision whether we will or won't explain the data. I do
not like having to place the flood as long ago as I do. I knew it would be
problematical for some.But I haven't seen anyone challenge my handling of the
allele data. If it is wrong, it is time for a biologist to speak up! I
haven't heard anyone suggest another place which allows the event to actually
look like what is described. In 25 years of studying this area I have yet to
hear of a time frame for the event which fit the anthropological and
archaeological data as well as mine.
When I wrote the book, I sent it to three ardent and vociferous
anti-creationists. I wanted their opinion. You know what? While they were
not converted to Christianity nor accept these views, they didn't
howl in protest as usually happens. They agreed that my data was correct in
most cases. They actually sent me suggestions to improve the work or to
strengthen certain arguments. These guys who do not believe the Bible were
helping me make a defence of a historical Bible! Can you imagine this
happening prior to an ICR flood book?
What do we want? Do we ignore what that passage
says and hope our critics don't notice? Do we keep any explanation nebulous
enough so that no one can criticise it? Or do we attempt to give that passage
some historical meat to fit around its bones? Currently the widely accepted vi
ew of the flood is so flawed geologically, so flawed physically, so flawed
historically that is truly is an object of scorn. While I would not ever rule
out that the same fate may await me and my view, but I know this: This is the
first flood theory, which fits the biblical description that you can hand to a
geologist and not have him puke! I know, I have had a couple read it. Can
that be said about ICR's view?
glenn