At 11:34 AM 2/12/98 -0800, Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:
>At 04:43 PM 2/11/98 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
>>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.
This looks suspiciously like "heads you win, tails I lose". I have not said
it was impossible. But I haven't yet seen anything that gets close to
explaining the large number of questions I have. That bothered me and maybe
I gave up too soon. I have a deep respect for your knowledge of geology and
your dedication to a paradigm. And I would say that it is often
discouraging to the prospects of having an coherent explanation when even
you, one of the most knowlegdeable global flood advocates often say that you
can't explain x,y or z. Earlier today I wrote:
>80 million cubic kilometers of basalt must have come out of the earth in the
>basaltic traps during the flood. The falling rain water when it condenses
>from water vapor to liquid gives off about 600 calories per gram which all
>by itself is enough to fry Noah et al.
You replied
>This clearly didn't happen, so the scenario must be different than you
>depict, although at this point, I am not prepared to say how!
Exactly when will we be able to hear the explanation? How many generations
must pass by? Isn't it time to admit that maybe NO ONE's imagination is up
to the task of explaining the geological data within a global flood scenario?
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm