You have responded exactly as would be predicted but I still wonder what
your response to my direct challenge of last week was. Given this response
I am at a loss to understand this position. What reason have you to accept
fossils as being the remnants of formerly living organisms?
Why not simply answer: Could not God have simply created the things that
appear as fossils JUST as he has created a situation that appears not to
represent God's normal providence (i.e. the sulfuric acid is a direct
prediction of many YEC models that is unaccounted for but God simply did
away with it).
Here is the bottom line:
Wouldn't it seem eminently more plausible and within the nature of God that
he would create the whole geological column and fossils in his creation.
After all there is nothing in Scripture that necessitates fossils being of a
certain origin. Your answers above leave you with absolutely no ability,
that I can see, to choose between any two theories. Basically any theory is
just as valid as long as it doesn't violate Scripture. If this is so then
there why are YECs putting so much effort into a global flood model as an
explanation for nearly all geology? If at some point I feel compelled
though my examination of Scripture to accept a young earth interpretation
why should I opt for the flood geology model. Given your attitude about
science and what it can learn it appears that an appearance of age model is
much more plausible and doesn't strain the Biblical record to any greater
extent.
Regards,
Joel