I don't have a problem with anyone saying that the Flood was miraculous.
Where I have problems is when someone says that science supports the global
flood. If the flood is miraculous, produced by 'magic', then don't cite
any scientific data in favor of the flood. Just believe. It is better
that way.
>
>The Flood was an act of God, not an act of nature. It is just as
>unscientific as someone who chooses to believe in a natural
>explanation for the world just because he dismisses acts of God
>out of hand.
As I noted in an earlier post today, I don't dismiss the acts of God. God
raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. Those are
miraculous acts of God. I don't and you don't try to explain how those
miracles were carried out, but 'scientific creationists' try to explain how
the flood occurred in spite of it being 'miraculous' produced by Godmagic.
It isn't apologetically helpful to mix things up like you are.
>
>The burden of proof isn't on free-speech-loving Creationists of
>faith, but on fascist censors who claim scientific authority.
Who exactly are these censors? I haven't noticed anyone censoring you. And
calling people names is not what a loving Christian is supposed to do.
Shame on you. We are supposed to bless those that curse us. Or do you not
believe in what Christ told us to do in the Beatitudes?
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm