>Let me ask the question that really bothered me as I was leaving the global
>flood viewpoint. The question is: Why did God make it so hard for us to
>clearly see the global flood in the data of geology? Why was it that those
>who didn't hold that view were able easily to come up with hypotheses which
>would explain it all within their paradigm? I could only think of two
reasons:
>
>1. God didn't want us to see it. (which is not a satisfying answer)
>2. We weren't correct in our interpretation that the Bible required a global
>flood.
There is a war going on for this world. Don't expect all the clues to be
easy!
There are 10,000 intelligent, well trained scientists who have adapted the
paradigm of naturalism. There are (by my count, about 6) say, a dozen
scientists in the world who have chosen to approach the problem of origins
from an interventionist paradigm who are actually doing science. What kind
of ratio of outcomes would you expect. Since, as Einstein said "It is the
theory that determines what the data are", you should not be surprised at
the present state of science. What you should judge is the results of the
work of those few who have taken on the goliath. Though the outcome is
small at present, it is significant in that every problem we have
challenged , we have come up with a scientific explanation that fits the
data as well as or better than the explanation within naturalism.
>My understanding of the Coconino tracks is that the stride length is
>constant. (David B. Loope, "Fossil Vertebrate Footprints in the Coconino
>Sandstone (Permian) of Northern Arizona: Subaqueous or Subaerial?"
>Proceedings of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences, 1992, p. 70 )Is that what
>one really expects if the animals are being carried partly by water?
Have you ever watched an amphibian walk? The striding is very deliberate
and even if you remove them from the substrate they continue walking with a
similar gait in air. (Don't try this with a Hellbender! There are
exceptions....)
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu