>This, then, is my question: Could not the miraculous wind God used to dry
>the Earth make the Earth, many thousands of years later, look exactly
>like it does today?
And Bill Hamilton replied:
<<Yes, it could. However, miracles in Scripture are usually intended in
part
to teach God's sovereignty. In view of this it would seem strange that God
would perform a great miracle (the flood) and then destroy the evidence of
it.>>
I think the sovereignty point here was the destruction of humanity, not
destroying evidence. My query says that God's miraculous "clean up" is what
it was, a miracle, and didn't destroy evidence. Indeed, God was not
interested in the after effects, especially where it concerns those who
"demand" certain answers.
If God is truly sovereign, why aren't we allow him his miracles? Isn't this
highly presumptuous?
<<The beauty of Glenn's scenario is that it shows that there is at least
one place and time in earth's history where a flood consistent with the
Biblical description occurred.>>
I don't discern the beauty because the standard set is arbitrary. Why is it
so difficult to believe that God's miracle (the "wind" he sent to assuage
the flood waters) might have an effect that cannot be "seen" in
uniformitarian doctrine?
Jim