>Count me among those with short vision. But I would say that it is not
>difficult to imagine things outside of our experience. We envision aliens
>from E.T to the one Sigourney Weaver tusseled with 3 times to date. I have
>never had the experience of murdering someone, but I can imagine that also.
>I have never seen a meteor strike the earth and form a crater, but once
>again I can envision what all that entails.
>
>I most certainly don't mean this example to be insulting, but read what you
>say above with UFO's in mind. "Suffice to say that any attempt to
>discredti, UFOs, a thing about which we have so littel data, would be
>shortsighted and premature at least..."
>
>Under this standard, is there anything we can say with certainty can be
>ruled out of consideration?
Why then do so many of us have difficulty reconstructing the preflood world
and the scenario of a global flood without having to resort to the
explanations of conventional (boring) science? Where is the imagination
when it comes to the hard stuff? Let's hear a model that explains much of
the features of the geological column and the condition of the preflood
world within the context of a few thousand years. If you say that is
impossible, I rest my case.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu