None of the clues are easy or global flood advocates would have lots of
explanations. Secondly, who is more powerful? I would suggest that it is
God who is more powerful. Also Romans 1 clearly says that God's eternal
power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what
has been made." Why is God's power in the global flood so hard to see in
the geological data? The only out I see is that the Flood was not global.
>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.
In the middle to early part of the 19th century, this was not at all the
case. The percentages were exactly the opposite, yet diluvialists were
unable to account for the geologic data in an interventionist paradigm and
many of the best minds desperately wanted it to be the case. Adam
Sedgewick's recanted the global flood concept in a presidential address to
the Geological Society.
"Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a
propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and
having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now
maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit
this Chair, thus publically to read my recantation. . .
"There is, I think, one great negative conclusion now
incontestably established - that the vast masses of deluvial
gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not
belong to one violent and transitory period. . ."
"We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted
the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel
to the action of the Mosaic Flood. . . . In classing together
distant unknown formations under one name; in giving them a
simultaneous origin, and in deteriming their date, not by the
organic remains we had discovered, but by those we expected
hypothetically hereafter to discover, in them; we have given one
more example of the passion with which the mind fastens upon
general conclusions and of the readiness with which it leaves the
consideration of unconnected truths."~Adam Sedgewick cited by
Stephen J. Gould, The Flamingos Smile, (New York: W. W. Norton &
Co., 1985), p. 125
And I don't think it is an escape to claim "Of course the surficial gravels
are post diluvial. They were driven to that position by the number of
catastrophes required to account for the geologic record.
"In 1829, following a vigorous debate at the Geological Society
over Conybeare's paper on the Thames Valley (William Conybeare
was a prominent member of Buckland's team), Lyell wrote
triumphantly to his supporter Gideon Mantell:
"Murchison and I fought stoutly and Buckland was very piano.
Conybeare's memoir is not strong by any means. He admits three
deluges before the Noachian! and Buckland adds God knows how many
catastrophes besides, so we have driven them out of the Mosaic
record fairly."~Stephen J. Gould, The Flamingos Smile, (New York:
W. W. Norton & Co., 1985), p. 122-123
And Buckland, also gave up the single flood idea,
"Discoveries which have been made, since the publication of htis work
[Reliquiae diluvianae], show that many of the animals therin described,
existed during more than one geological period preceding the catastrophe by
which they were extirpated. hence it seems more probable, that the event in
question, was the last of the many geological revolutions that have been
produced by violent irruptions of water, rather than the comparatively
tranquil inundation described by the Inspired Narrative."~William Buckland,
cited by Stephen J. Gould, The Flamingos Smile, (New York: W. W. Norton &
Co., 1985), p. 124
And Davis Young notes:
"Efforts to find physical evidence outside that part of the
world have completely failed in spite of the application of some
of the most capable, diligent, and devoted Christian minds and
hands in the search. Woodward failed. Buckland failed.
Prestwich failed. Wright failed. It is clear now that the
evidence they were searching for simply does not exist. Those
who believe that extrabiblical information can be helpful in
securing a proper understanding of the biblical message and are
eager to find evidence for the deluge would do well to abandon
efforts to find that evidence in North America or eastern Asia
and focus their efforts on the archeology and anthropology of the
ancient Near East. If the evidence is to be found anywhere, this
is where it will lie."~Davis A. Young, The Biblical Flood, (Grand
Rapids: Eerdman's, 1995), p. 225
>What kind
>of ratio of outcomes would you expect.
So why were they unable to solve the problem when global flood advocates
were the majority? Under your ratio suggestion we would have expected
success at that time.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm