Stephen Jones replied:
>>Proving it does not fit the Bible or the scientific evidence. For
example, if it is exegetically untenable that Gn 1 "man" is not the
same as Gn 2 "Adam", then the "two-Adam model" is falsified. Or if
Jesus in quoting from both Gn 1:27 and Gn 2:24 in Mt 19:4-5 is
asserting that the "male and female" of Gn 1 is the same as the "man"
and "wife" of Gn 2, then the model is falsified.<<
In this regard, Dave Probert raised an interesting point that I never saw you
respond to. Why, if the man of Genesis 1 is not the Adam of Genesis 2, does
the Bible interchange the use of Adam and man? (If I understood Dave
correctly.) That spurred me to do a little research. According to Strongs,
the same hebrew word Adam is used in Genesis 1:27 as is used throughout
chapter 2. I think I would feel better about your view if it were supported
by a different word for man in Genesis 1 than in Genesis 2 and 3.
I wrote:
>>
Stephen wrote:
>>GM>I am not trying to belittle what Jesus believed or what you
>believe, but I am merely trying to point out that there is no reason
>for believing one statement over the other. If you can show me
>evidence for your flood, then I have a reason to believe your
>statement and you can then point out that my statement has no
>observational evidence to support it. In that case the Biblical
>record is correct and my leprechauns are not.<<
Stephen replied:
>>Glenn claims that he is not "trying to belittle" what I believe, but
unfortunately his use of "leprechauns" as an analogy of my belief that
the Flood was a literal event that may have been clothed in symbolism,
*does* belittle what I believe. :-(<<
No, Stephen my use of the leprechauns is to illustrate that if you can not
point to physical effects of a physical event, then there are no controls on
what can be proposed. Once we remove ourselves from any need to accomodate
observation, the leprechauns become possible. I too believe in a flood, but
if that belief is to be anything more than a belief, then we need physical
evidence.
Stephen wrote:
>>I have already posted "evidence" for my view of the Flood. I do not
judge its success by whether Glenn believes it or not. Some believers
might agree with my view, but I doubt if anyone, skeptic or otherwise,
is going to believe Glenn's alternative of a 5.5 MY Homo habilis Noah.<<
Oh, here I think I probably agree with you. Few want what I am offering.
But I know I have the only thing in town that matches both the biblical data
AND can offer the possiblity of scientific verification. I also know of no
other way to incorporate geology into the scriptural record. Like you I do
not judge my success by whether anyone accepts it or not. My success is
judged as far as I am concerned, by how much data I match.
I wrote:
GM>No, the rain comes from the FLOODING basin. Once the basin is
>filled, the rain stops.<<
Stephen replied:
>>Glenn confirms what I said! On his scenario the basin was already
flooded *before* the rain started. Noah's contemporaries would
already be dead. Any rain therefore was a side-effect and makes no
real difference.<<
No, this does not confirm what you said. The rain would start long before
the basin was filled. It would start raining shortly after it began to
fill. A "flooding" basin is not the same thing as a "flooded" basin, at
least not in the American form of English.
I wrote:
GM>Real floods, like the 1993 Mississippi River Floods leave many feet
>of sediment as a testimony to their occurence. Fables do not leave
>such evidence.<<
Stephen replied:
>>Again, Glenn calls my view a "fable". I have never used that term. I
believe the Flood was as real as "the 1993 Mississippi River Floods",
and I don't rule out that it may have left "many feet of sediment".
OTOH the Missisippi and most other Floods are caused by rapidly
flowing river water collecting silt and later depositing it. In
the Biblical Flood there is no mention of rivers. The Flood was
general. While rivers no doubt did fill up and overflow, this would
later be diluted by the flooding of the whole area. There may have
been no concentration of silt left behind as in river floods.<<
No this does not call your view a fable. Many geologists I work with believe
that the flood was a fable. They point to the fact that there is no evidence
for the flood. Fables do not leave evidence. Real floods do leave evidence.
Stephen, don't be so quick to think my remark attacked your view. There
will be no doubt when I do that. There is no evidence of the hydra Jason (or
hercules) fought. It was a fable. If there was a flood, there should have
been evidence.
glenn