At 06:53 PM 2/21/98 -0500, Jim Bell wrote:
>Thanks, Glenn, for a lengthy and thoughtful reply. Though we disagree on
>many things, I do admire your willingness to address all issues when asked.
>
>It think there is one issue we should clear up immediately. I have asserted
>that the origin of the flood was the hand of God (a miracle), and not
>simply an accident of timing and a result of a system "in place." I think
>the Bible is clear on that, and I've posted the Scirtpures. I think you
>agree, too:
>
><<No, I have not stated unequivocally that God did not produce the flood
>miraculously.>>
But what I said is not the same as what you say above. I think God is
perfectly capable of creating a flood, not by an accident of timing, but by
controlling the timing. And also that God did not necessarily have to pull
the physics out of the hat and He could have used the system in place to
obtain His ends. I don't think the Bible rules this out. I will always say
that God can do what he wants which means that if God decided to produce the
entire flood by pure non-physical miracle, then He certainly could have. In
that event, my theory is wrong. But if He used the system in place, then
your theory is wrong.
And I don't think the Bible clearly rules out either option.
>
>Yes, this is a TRIPLE negative (or should I have said, No, this is not an
>un-triple negative?) but I think the meaning is evident. Then you say:
>
><<I said that if the flood was global it HAD to be miraculous.>>
>
>And I would agree.
So if a global flood requires miracles to produce it, then science can say
absolutely nothing about the flood. And if it can say nothing about the
flood, then why do global flood advocates continue to try to uses scientific
evidence in support of what must be a miracle. I don't try to analyze HOW
Jesus turned the water into wine, nor HOW Jesus raised Lazarus from the
grave, nor HOW the fishes and loaves could spread so far nor HOW the axehead
floated in the water. I don't see other Christians producing books
explaining how axes float or water turns to wine. They simply accept that
it is a miracle and go on about their business. But when it comes to the
global flood, everybody wants to avoid the miraculous because they are
always trying to say that the scientific data supports the global flood. So
if you agree that the global flood must be miraculous, you should never
again cite science as a support for the Global flood. Science is IRRELEVANT
to a miracle.
>
>Now, I am assuming a global flood for purposes of this argument. So while I
>don't necessarily disagree with your riff on "eretz," it's really not
>relevant to this discussion.
It is relevant because you cite Biblical support for the global flood and
the Biblical support MUST come from the choice of words used to translate
'eretz'.
>And I agree with Ramm (with whom I corresponded), but this doesn't address
>my issue. Ramm did not deny the divine origin of the flood, and I am NOT
>debating "local v. global." I'm ASSUMING global for the theological
>discussion. In fact, Ramm agrees with me on my point, as the quote itself
>shows.
OK, but throughout the rest of our discussion behave yourself. This is YOUR
assumption not mine. I do not believe in a global flood and don't want to
suddenly have something I said thrust back at me as if it were a
contradiction when all I am doing is playing by YOUR assumption. In other
words, no lawyer tricks. :-)
>
>Now, I want to get back to the REAL issue for me, and that is NOT with the
>origin of the flood per se, but the assuaging of the waters, as detailed in
>Gen. 8:1. You almost agree with the abundantly clear teaching:
>
><<Maybe, but once again, a miraculous end of the flood does not necessitate
>a
>miraculous origin.>>
God brought the wind. I really don't know if it was an extra-physical
phenomenon or not. I can see where God could miraculously change the air
pressure at two points on the earth's surface. The pressure change caused
the wind. In this case God would have miraculously created the wind
indirectly. I can also see that God could push a cold front a bit faster
and cause the wind to arrive at the appropriate time. God could create
molecules of O2 N2 etc in one spot on the earth's surface, thus creating a
wind. God could have created a giant bellows and used it to create the wind.
I don't know what mechanism God might have used and neither do you. So we
can't really say that the miraculous wind was one of timing or one of
creation of molecules one of compression of the atmosphere at just the right
spot or the subtle speeding up of a cold front. So while the wind most
certainly was caused by God, it is not entirely clear whether or not it was
a miracle. It might have been.
>
>Again, let's forget the origin part for now. Assuming a global flood
>(admittedly, a miracle) and assuming this miraculous "wind," (which is
>"spirit"), we cannot rule out the possibility that the EFFECTS are also
>going to be non-natural. That's a huge presumption on our part, but we seem
>to be clinging to it only because we don't want to admit our assumptions
>may be in error, or because we've published books, or some such. Is that
>ever a good reason? Yes, it's expensive to publish, but hey, cash or
>candor?
Cash every time. That is what I see. Ask yourself how long ICR would last
if they suddenly changed and said that the earth was old? I would bet that
the giving would dry up.
>
>Now, you bring up footprints and clams and the like. I'd like to explore
>this more with you. For instance, you write:
>
><<Since the clams couldn't swim, all preflood clams should be buried at the
>
>bottom of the geologic column, yet they are found throughout the column and
>
>one is crushed by a bronto.>>
>
>Once again, this is a uniformitarian assumption. If the waters were
>assuaged by the spirit of God, and actually "returned" from whence they
>came, would that turn your assumption, literally, on its head?
I don't think this is quite correct because of the positions that the clams
are found. Since they are found in the middle of the geologic column it
means that they were covered long before the assuaging and were eroded out
by later events.
>
>You see, that's my big issue. You are saying we've got this here, and that
>there, and clams can't swim, and on and on. But you're assuming they would
>HAVE to swim. I can see all sorts of things happening by a tremendous,
>reverse hydrodynamism. Can't you?
No. There is no such thing as reverse hydrodynamism except by miracle. And
if it was miraculous, then God was at the helm of the miracle. If God was
at the helm, deciding what would happen, then God decided to make the clam
look like it had lived in the mud, crushed the clam along with the grasses
and He crushed the clam with something that looks every bit like a dinosaur
track. But this was in the very middle of the flood which presents problems.
The global flood advocate and creationist, Leonard Brand honestly discusses
this problem:
"An examination of paleogeographic maps indicates that, by the end of
the Paleozoic, nearly all of North America was covered by marine sediments.
Where were the terrestrial vertebrates and plants currently found as
Mesozoic [this is in the middle of the flood--grm] fossils in North America
living while those marine deposits were being laid down? They couldn't have
been living in the central part of North America unless some mechanism could
lift them up in the air while the Paleozoic marine sediments were being
deposited under them, and then bring them down in sequence to be buried in
later sediments. They must have been living somewhere else and transported
to their burial sites in North America. One implicaiton of this concept is
that many marine orgainisms were buried more or less in the area where they
lived, but the terrestrial organisms were transported, dead or alive, long
distances before burial. Another possibility is that both groups were
transported some distance, but from different source areas.
"The above test seems conclusive but some critics argue that it may
use a database that is not sufficiently precise. They suggest that a more
refined analysis may indicate that local higher-elevation areas were
available where some animals could have taken refuge for a time. Another
criticism is the difficulty of imagining dinosaurs and other animals being
transported that far in a flood and still be alive long enough to make
footprints in the sediment. The answer to this debate awaits more
research."~Leonard Brand,
Faith, Reason, and Earth History, (Berrien Springs: Andrews
University Press, 1997), p. 275-276
If all this was a miracle, then God controlled the miracle and thus He made
it look like the dinosaurs lived where they left footprints, which I call a
deception. It is God producing something that never happened. And I would
remind you of Hebrews 6:18 "...it is impossible for God to lie,..."
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm