> A point of correction. While it is true that I think that the Flood can be
> explained naturalistically, I do agree that God could produce a totally
> miraculous flood. But if he did, then you can't cite any scientific
> evidence in favor of it. Yet you and other young-earth creationists want to
> cite scientific evidence for what is a miraculous event. That is what I
> disagree with most strongly.
Sorry Glenn, but I don't follow your logic. You seem to want to have
the flood be either totally naturalistic or 100% "totally miraculous".
And if it was "a totally miraculous flood", "then you can't cite any
scientific evidence in favor of it."
Only you are saying that the flood had to be totally one way or the
other, which I believe is unwarranted. When Jesus raised Lazarus from
the dead, He told the people to do what they were capable of doing:
"Take away the stone", and "Take off the grave clothes and let him go."
Jesus did only what the people were unable to do - call Lazarus back to
life from the dead. (John 11:38-45)
So with Lazarus we see an intergration of natural and miraculous forces
working in concert. I believe that this same principle of intergration
can also be applied to a global flood, and I believe there may be a
seamless confluence of naturalistic and miraculous processes which
destroyed all of the air-breathing life except that which was on the
Ark.
For you to eliminate the possibility of miracles in association with the
flood is to make assumptions solely to further your own paradigm, which
does cause problems. For example, were the mountains of Ararat (Genesis
8:4) where they are today, or were they in the Mediterranean Basin where
they were covered by your local flood?
> Let me ask something. Is it correct to teach the flood in public schools
> if you are claiming that it is miraculous and not scientific? And if so, do
> other religions get to teach their miracles in public school?
Gotcha now, buddy. :-) You are asking the wrong questions. If the
past was laced with the miraculous intervention of God, then past events
would defy scientific confirmation to the extent that supernatural
control overrode naturalistic processes. If there really was a global
flood, and if science really is unable to confirm it, then what should
we teach in public schools: the truth which includes the miraculous
action of God, or should we teach a lie because only the lie meets our
definition of *science*?
You can't have your cake and eat it too; which gets precedence - the
Bible or science?
Bill