>So, I don't think an appeal to hermeneutical rules is very good because it
is subjective.<
Then why do you cite interpreters, like Arthur Custance, when it suits your
purpose? At least you ought to be consistent. Or do you just rely on the
hermeneutics of others when you like the conclusions?
Heremeneutical rules are there for a purpose.You can't avoid dealing with
them, unless you want to throw out logic (which will be fun, then we can
all believe what we want!). If you want to reject a rule, such as the one I
cited regarding general/specific texts, then you'll have to tell us why you
reject it (not just that you don't like it).
<<Once you go down that road, you can't stop multiplying the miracles.
After a
while, everything is miraculous so why bother with science????>>
You know, God may be asking that very same question. Why are we so
concerned with refuting via natural presuppositions an event that was
supernatural? Doesn't that sound a tad foolish?
<<You phrased that wrong. It is not the sudden appearance of the geologic
column, but the sudden appearance vertically of animals IN the geologic
column. The column did not suddenly appear yesterday afternoon to the
amazement of geologists. :-)>>
You mean you missed it? Don't you read the papers?
<<Now to answer your point, considering that there are some very well
attested
transitional forms, (even Berlinski in the PBS debate admitted over and
over
that the reptile to mammal transition was well documented.) one needs to be
careful of repeating canards. >>
I was actually quoting (badly) Baumgardner: "There's an abrupt beginning to
the portion of the geological record that contains fossils."
You disagree?
<<That is not quite what I said. You keep forgetting the little word
"everything". God could well have used miracle in conjunction with my
views. >>
And very well in conjunction with the globalists!
<<But if EVERYTHING was miraculous, then the my view is wrong.>>
Perhaps what would be miraculous you admitting your view is wrong. ;-)
<<If God makes it look like the naturalistic lens is the correct lens, then
god is deceptive.>>
No, God doesn't make the lenses. We do. That's called presuppositionalism.
And if we make the wrong lenses, we see the wrong things.
<<Global
flood advocates have mankind and other animals surviving throughout the
flood floating on plant matter. They forget that salt water is hard on the
kidneys and leads to death. Without fresh water, the animals would die in
the first 2 weeks of the flood (or the first 392 feet of sediment). They
should not have been there to leave tracks. 5000 feet up the column.
>>
Is this what ALL global flood advocates maintain?
But here's my question. Why are you assuming these tracks had to be left
just before the flood? I assume there was abundant time for the tracks to
be preserved. Now, how did they get where they are? Isn't Baumgardner
suggesting thermal runaway? Why do you think this is such a slam dunk for
your view?
Jim