My concern is the way 'science' is woven together with 'miracle'. It seems
that everytime a science problem comes up for the global flood, you say it
was miraculous, but if you can explain it naturalistically, then you use
science. The reason this is a wrong approach is that it is ad hoc. There
is no way to falsify the flood, because every falsification is explained by
a miracle which then can't be falsified.
>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?
I spent some time on an atheist board last month and we dug into that
issue. The 'Mountains of Ararat' extend to the west to the current
Mediterranean Sea coast near Adana Turkey (Just where the coastline changes
from E-W to NS along the Lebanese coast). If one wishes he can travel a
path from sealevel to Ararat and always go up hill. I would say that the
'mountains of Ararat' extend that distance. And indeed the Ancients had
the mountains in all sorts of different localities and they seeemed to
understand the term more broadly than do the modern YECs.
>
>> 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*?
>
It would appear that you have a bad case of Fideism, the belief that all it
takes for something to be true is to believe it. Did Jesus leave Thomas
with no evidence for his resurrection?
>You can't have your cake and eat it too; which gets precedence - the
>Bible or science?
So, to be fair you would then argue that those who believe in the
'miracles' surrounding the Bahai faith who also have no scientific evidence
should be able to teach that also?
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm