Glenn,
Be assured that I certainly care about observational data. But, you will
agree, such data has to be interpreted - and it is difficult to do that
with an unbiased mind. Concerning Noah: it was clearly God's intention
to save this man and his family; in that case, why should He allow him
to be gassed? Apart from this - if I read them correctly - the other
evidences you give appear to be supportive of a 'young earth' scenario,
in which case, are not evolutionists threatened by observational data?
>Well this is an argument that goes both ways. Christians were the >ones who killed each other in Northern Ireland. Christians were the >ones who killed people for having a slightly different theological >view. (both Catholic and Protestant killed those they viewed as >heretics) I would think that a better way to view the situation is that >men, all men, including Christians and you and I, are capable of very >evil sin.
I quite agree with your concluding line. However, whilst Christians have
little excuse for departing from the Lord's teachings and carrying out
the horrors you mention, I suggest that evolutionists - if they so
desire - have the backing of a completely different teaching.
> I am a geoscientist. Can you tell me specifically and in detail how >you think geology can be interpreted in other ways? It was geology >that forced me to change from a young-earth, global flood advocate, to >what I now believe.
Before moving into a career in mathematics and computing I was a mining
engineer. I therefore have some knowledge of geology and hydraulics. It
seems to me that the arguments presented by Morris and Whitcomb in 'The
Genesis Flood' cannot be lightly dismissed. Presumably you will agree
that fossilisation is generally to be associated with catastrophic
events, and Noah's flood seems to fit the bill. Clearly, we don't have
all the answers; but isn't that also true of the evolutionist?
> Jesus said NOTHING about evolution.
No. And he did say something about the flood, and about believing the
words of Moses! Are not these very good reasons for adopting a 'young
earth' position.
> Tell me exactly where you thing the Bible clearly states that the >Flood was universal. I would agree that it holds to an >anthropologically universal flood, but not a physically or globally >universal flood.
You split hairs with adverbs like 'anthropologically' and 'globally'.
Why should you assume that man's activities were confined to the Near
East during the Antediluvian Period? The many flood traditions surely
take us much further afield! And why do you choose to interpret the term
'...all flesh...' (Gen.6:13,17) in human terms? Wouldn't you suppose
animal life to have embraced the planet during that time?
In my view, it is difficult to dismiss the flood narrative as allegory,
or as referring to a local inundation. On the contrary, it is real life
drama, and speaks clearly of a world event! Most significantly, the
words of Jesus and of Peter (a close companion for three years) confirm
it as real history.
>...there are no Baal worshippers today.
I wouldn't be too sure about that! Paganism is still very much alive,
and flourishing. However, it was my intention to use the term 'Baal' in
a general sense to describe what man worships when he denies his
Creator. I suppose that 'Mother Nature' - to whom many miracles are
attributed by evolutionists - could have been used instead.
In this connection, Henry Morris has written an informative book, The
Long War Against God. It is well worth reading.
Vernon