No Stephen I did not accept the 2-adam model as a possible explanation. I
find only one piece of evidence in its favor and much against it. The Golan
Venus was found under a tuff deposit which was dated at 230,000 years old and
above one that appears to date at 400,000 years old. This implies that the
Venus is between 230 and 330,000 years old. That does not fit in your model.
Stepeh wrote:
>>SJ>Glenn says that "real floods do leave evidence" but seems not to
>believe that a real God can ensure there is no evidence. I have given
>good reasons why there was no sedimentary evidence for Noah's Flood:
>(1) The parallel between the wind that caused the waters to abate in
>Gn 8:1 and the Spirit of God in Gn 1:2. (2) The total lack of *any*
>continuing physical evidence for *any* Biblical miracle. (3) The fact
>that: (a) our geological sediment today would have been Noah's metres
>thick carpet of stinking disease-carrying mud, covering the bodies of
>Noah's former countrymen and their animals, and making life impossible
>for most of the animals; and (b) there is no mention of that carpet of
>mud in the Biblical account.<<
Reason 1. " The parallel between the wind that caused the waters to abate in
Gn 8:1 and the Spirit of God in Gn 1:2"
I see no reason that the supposed parallel requires no evidence to be left.
Romans 1 says that the creation is evidence of God. Thus the Spirit's
involvement in Genesis 1:2 left the creation as evidence of God's creative
power. Thus by parallel, the Spirit's involvement in Gen 8:1 should be
expected to leave evidence. I see no other way unless you think that the
creation does not point to evidence of God as Romans 1 clearly states.
Reason 2:" (2) The total lack of *any* continuing physical evidence for *any*
Biblical miracle. "
Not true. What about Sodom and Gomorrah? Two cities have been found at the
south end of the Dead Sea named currently Bab el Dra and Numeira dated at
2350 B.C. Bab el Dra[sic?] was found in 1965. Numeira was discovered by
Walter E. Rast and Thomas Schaub in 1973. There was deep burn debris at
Numeira. The tower at the eastern end of the city had fallen and crushed 3
individuals. No one ever came back to the city to retrieve those bodies.
Major excavations were carried out between 1975-1981. If Numeira is one of
the cities of the Plain, then you have your physical evidence. Apparently
Rast and Schaub think these cities are the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Reason 3:"(3) The fact that: (a) our geological sediment today would have
been Noah's metres thick carpet of stinking disease-carrying mud, covering
the bodies of Noah's former countrymen and their animals, and making life
impossible for most of the animals; and (b) there is no mention of that
carpet of mud in the Biblical account."
This can only be true if your conception of the flood is correct. Thus this
objection is circular.
Stephen wrote:
>SJ>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.<<
>
>
This is the biggest reason I had to give up on the traditional approach
Christians make to explain science and the Bible. Whenever we get in trouble
and the evidence is against us, we decide that we don't have to have any
evidence. But when the evidence supports our view, we crow from the main
mast of our ship. This is a bankrupt approach to apologetics. If I have
problems, God did it miraculously, If I don't have problems God did it and
left evidence.
Stephen wrote:
>>I am not saying that miracles in general don't leave evidence. I am
not even saying that *Noah's Flood* did not leave evidence. There is
evidence for the Flood in the various Mesoptamian Flood traditions.
What I am saying is that Noah's Flood did not leave *sediment*. I
have given good reasons for this above.<<
Other than the fact that you say God didn't leave any evidence from the
Flood, what is your support for this? What is your authority that God chose
this particular miracle for not leaving any evidence?
stephen wrote:
>>GM>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.
I am pleased that Glenn admits that "it is at least possible that God
has ensured there is no sediment from Noah's Flood." :-)<<
I certainly don't see how my statement supports your contention. You better
re-read what I said.
Stephen wrote:
>>I do not claim that "God likes to hide miracles", in general. I am
arguing only for the lack of sediment *from Noah's Flood*. I have
given good reasons for this and Glenn has not challenged these
reasons.<<
I haven't seen any reason for God wanting to hide the flood's evidence. All
I have seen is your statements to that effect. What verse in the Bible do I
find this statement that God didn't want us to find any evidence of the
flood?
Stephen wrote:
>>(3) The fact
>that: (a) our geological sediment today would have been Noah's metres
>thick carpet of stinking disease-carrying mud, covering the bodies of
>Noah's former countrymen and their animals, and making life impossible
>for most of the animals; and (b) there is no mention of that carpet of
>mud in the Biblical account.<<
Bodies rot in a few weeks. If they are covered by sediment, the germs can
not escape and life is not impossible. As to determining what we should
believe by what is not mentioned in the Bible, maybe you should reconsider.
The word 'Trinity' does not occur in the Bible either. Should we not
believe in the Trinity?
glenn