> 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.<
That's really what this whole discussion has been about, and I agree with
your statement.
<<But if He used the system in place, then your theory is wrong.>>
Perhaps, but I'm still very interested in what people like Art and
Baumgardner are saying. I'm interested in what YOU are saying, too, which
is why I keep wearing out my fingers on the keyboard.
<<And I don't think the Bible clearly rules out either option.>>
Here is where I disagree. I can see absolutely no support for the "natural"
explanation. Sound hermeneutics rules that option out for me.
<<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. >>
Perhaps you're right. Globalists may have to agree that the data is not
amenable to purely naturalistic interpretation.
<< 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.>>
But the data is not. Many of the mysteries (e.g., the sudden appearance of
the geologic column with fossils) can be thus explained much better than
the naturalists.
<<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. :-)>>
How can you even say this, Glenn, since you secretly believe in a global
flood but just won't admit it?
(The above was just sick lawyer humor, and does not reflect the actual
beliefs of Mr. Glenn Morton or the state of Texas).
<<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.>>
Once again, I question your assumptions. If the drying of the earth was
indeed miraculous, even you have admitted that your theory goes out the
window. But it is not a miracle of deception except to those who insist on
using a naturalistic lense.
IOW, it's like you're trying to have it both ways. You'll allow for a
miracle, but only one that is a deliberate deception. That, I think, is
unreasonable.
A question about footprints. Are you saying that preserved prints would
necessarily disappear in a global flood?
Jim