This theory about runaway subduction is not new. I think it has been
proposed many times and in various forms. I believe it is a highly
improbable hypothesis because of the amount of tectonic resonance that
would have resulted and that would still be measureable today--sort of
like the faint glow of electromagnetic energy from the big bang that is
still visible in the cosmos today. Moreover, I think there would be
other evidence that was otherwise inexplicable such as massive undersea
fissuring--perhaps like a huge network of crustal stretch marks.
Aside from these things, I think there would be much more traumatic
results on the earth than its just getting wet, and I cannot imagine a
recovery from its effect in as short a time as is described concerning
the Biblical Flood. I believe there remains a very substantial burden
of proof resting on the shoulders of Baumgardner, and as I like to say
to my evolutionist friends, the proposal of a theory does not constitute
the discovery of evidence.
Concerning the many miracles that you mentioned--those attested to by
scripture as well as those witnessed by yourself--I would say that they
do tell us something about how G-d works, but they make no assertion
that He *always* works this way. G-d frequently heals by supernatural
means--perhaps more so than many people realize, but this does not mean
that he *never* heals through the hands of a skilled surgeon. Just
because G-d did use supernatural mechanisms in creation does not mean He
*always* used supernatural mechanisms.
In a sense, the natural laws--their processes, sequence, and order--are
a sort of supernatural mechanism. By this I mean that if G-d created
the universe from nothing by some supernatural mechanism, his subsequent
manipulation of that universe regardless of the means would be part
of--or better, an extension of--that original supernatural act.
About John Queen's reply to Glenn Morton's response to Dario's post: I
rather like Glenn's method better than yours. In his approach--which is
used by most people on this reflector--only the portions of the original
messages that are being replied to are quoted thus reducing the size of
the replies. Moreover, by replying point-by-point--as he does--I can be
sure as to exactly what part of the message his statements apply. Your
method generates replies that are too large even when your response is
relatively brief, and it is difficult to tell what your are specifically
replying to. It would be nice if everyone would quote only those parts
of a message that are required to make some point clear. It is not
necessary to repeat the full text of every message you are replying to.
People who do that are more likely to get automatically filtered so that
their messages are never read.
May the L-rd richly bless and keep you.
Russ
Russell T. Cannon
rcannon@usa.net