I think you understand my position well and you have laid out the logic
fairly well.
STephen wrote:
>>The problem is in the first premises of the above. Glenn does not
know that all floods leave sediment. Firstly, geology only knows the
sediment it finds. It has no way of knowing if there were floods in
the ancient past that did not leave sediment. Secondly, Noah's Flood
was no ordinary Flood. It was a flood in which God was directly
involved supernaturally. If there is no geological evidence for the
Flood, then, to the theist it is at least possible that God has
arranged that there is no sediment remaining from Noah's Flood.<<
Let's look at this in another light. When Jesus turned the water to wine,
there is no current evidence for which we can point. But if you had been
there at the wedding 20 minutes after the wine was produced, would there
have been evidence in the form of drunk people? Could you have taken a
sample of the wine and tested it for alcohol content? Or did God ensure that
the alcohol would have no effect on the human physiology and that no modern
test would have detected it? If God ensured that there was no evidence of
the miracle occurring, on what evidential basis did the guy comment about the
quality of the wine? If there was no evidence of a good wine having been
made, why did that guy make that comment?
In the case of the flood, the product (sedimentary layers) is much more
durable than wine and should be expected to exist today.
Stephen gives me 3 choices:
>>1. Afirm that it is at least possible that God has ensured there is no
sediment from Noah's Flood.
2. Deny that it is at least possible that God has ensured there is no
sediment from Noah's Flood.
3. Neither affirm or deny that it is at least possible that God has
ensured there is no sediment from Noah's Flood.<<
I chose 1 but deny your conclusion that I must allow your view of the flood.
God gives evidence many times in the Bible that he wants historical markers
supporting the events listed in the Scripture.
Joshua 4:5-7 [Joshua} said to them, 'Go over before the ark of the LORD your
God into the middle of the Jordan. Each of you is to take up a stone on his
shoulder, according to the number of the tribes of the Israelites, to serve
as a sign among you. In the future, when your children ask you, 'What do
these stones mean?' tell them that the flow of the Jordan was cut off before
the ark of the covenant of the Lord."
If God likes to hide miracles, why this?
Genesis 28:18 Early the next morning Jacob took the stone he had placed under
his head and set it up as a pillar and poured oil on top of it.
Once again, why leave a historical marker? My point is that God seems to
encourage such things. Why would he change when we come to issues for which
the answers are not easy? Thus I agree that God can do what He pleases, what
you suggest seems against what He has done elsewhere.
glenn