<<Jim, God could do anything He wants miraculously. But Flood afficionados
don't want to rely on miracle. They try to use science to explain the
Flood. If they said it was a miracle, I would have no problem and no
response to them. What they do is try to say that science supports their
position. It doesn't.>>
All right, but I don't want to leave this subject yet. You have always
taken a high view of Scripture, especially vis-a-vis early Genesis. So how
do you deal with what I posted? Genesis 8 points to a miraculous abatement
of the flood waters. That, ipso facto, would make uniformitarianism useless
as a window to the past. That can't be ignored by you if you want to remain
consistent. I can see it the other way, too; catastrophists might have to
revise their assumptions as well.
That would leave both sides having to place faith in God, without
"demanding" certain types of evidence. I can see God planning it just that
way (a frustrating-the-proud kind of thing).
So help me out here. If Scripture says both the Flood and the drying of the
Earth were miraculous events, why are we applying an arguably irrelevant
model to the this enterprise?
And maybe you or Art can answer this question, too: Has this particular
Scriptural issue been discussed in the Flood literature? I'd like to follow
up on it.
<<I have a question. Have you been visited by two clothing salesmen who
have
a special fabric that only fools can't see? :-)>>
Yes I was. They were trying to sell me on the idea that biblical humanity
evolved over a period of millions of years. I sent them to Texas.
Jim