At 09:03 PM 2/25/97 -0600, you wrote:
>This was what drove me from being a YEC. I kept devising these tests for
>the geological data I worked with every dat. I finally had to admit to
>myself that nothing was turning up roses for the global flood concept.
>
>I agree with you. That is the challenge we face today. It is our task to
>work together to test different ideas until we can understand what we see.
>This is the essence of science. This does not require that we change our
>understanding of cosmological questions, only that our understandings from
>the two different realms, science and cosmology, converge to an ultimate truth.
>
>Good to hear from you, Glenn. Keep in touch.
Thanks for the info on the mosaic nature of Archae. As I have told both you
and Art, if I could think of, or someone could offer an account of the
global flood which could answer the geological criticisms I have, I would
have to seriously re-consider my position. Until such a time, I will
continue doing what I am because I think I have the geologically best
harmonization out there.
As a point of proof (not humility) I am going to brag a bit. I occasionally
get messages like this from people who spend their lives fighting Christianity.
This fellow sent this a couple of days ago about my book:
>I am not Christian, and I think that the hoops you have jumped through in
>order to harmonise Genesis with the results of science are a bit
>reminiscent of the harmonies of the Gospels that attempt to make each book
>say the same thing. However, despite this quibble, can I say that if one
>must do this, then yours is the best and most informed attempt I have seen
>so far. It is accurate and plausible. Congratulations.
>
This from a nonchristian. If we ever have dinner at Panda's again, I will
show you who wrote the note if you want to confirm this.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm