>Glenn Morton wrote:
>>If you say that Noah was a true, historical person,then I
>>want to ask of you again, "Where is the evidence of the
>>events of his life?" What geological formation represents
>>the event known as the Flood? How does it fit the
>>account? Does the account derived from the Bible fit the
>>facts derived from geology?
>
>These are all legitimate questions. However, especially
>in your flood scenario you have to recognize that the
>events described were remote in time (therefore more
>opportunity for evidence to become corrupted), were
>local (therefore more opportunity to be looking at the
> wrong site), and (in your scenario) occurred in a
>locality (the > Mediterranean) where the evidence that
>remains may lie under thousands of feet of
>water. There is also the possibility of course that you
>are correct that the flood was a real event in history,
>but that it occurred at a time and location and in a
>way you have not considered.
I fully agree with all of what you say here.That is why I
said to Fred Phelps that I would kiss someone's feet if
they could explain the flood in some other way. There is
always the possibility of other explanation. But if the
other explanations are so easy to think of, why has no one
done it?
But my point with those questions was that we Christians
have so abstracted Adam and Noah, that they have no flesh
and bone. By having this abstraction, we don't have to deal
with the anthro issues. Since we have no details in our
conceptions of Adam or Noah, then nothing the
anthropologists can throw at us will harm us. It is a
perfectly comfortable position. We can say that Adam was
real but then have no responsibility for explaining where
he was in history. And the conceptions the YEC's have place
Adam square in the middle of the neolithic revolution.
With Adam, no one will commit to him being an H.erectus or
a H.habilis or even A. Afarensis or what ever. The ones
who commit say he must have been H. sapiens and have been
created a few thousand years ago. But this violates
anthropological data.
> I know you've been very
>thorough about eliminating quite a number of alternatives,
but it's very difficult to know you've eliminated _all_
possible alternatives. The Lord may also have His
>own reasons for withholding the key to looking in the
> right place until the time is right.
There is no way I could have eliminated all possible
currently unthought of alternatives. (But then I don't
consider it my responsibility to deal with the science an
concepts of the 22nd century. God placed me in the late
20th century to deal with the problems we have). I have
done my best to eliminate all theories I have come across
as viable explanations. There is always the possibility of
a different viewpoint arising or new data being found. But
any new viewpoint will have to deal with all the geology,
astronomy, anthropology etc. So far I don't see any of the
currently held views coming close to doing that. They tend
to want to avoid the really tough data-related type
questions. The devil is in the details and our theories
avoid details.
The only think I retain from my philosophy of science grad
school education is that for any given set of facts, there
are an infinite number of theories to account for them.
The problem is that there may only be a few families of
theories. There are an infinite number of YEC creation
theories. The world was created 4004 bc 9:00; 9:01;
9:02;... These are all different theories but of the same
family. The old earth creation theories may be placed into
progressive creation or theistic evolution. But the
progressive creationists differ on an infinity of points
concerning which animals could evolve and which needed
special creation. The theistic evolutionist positions
differ on how God controls the process.
In some respect, I am offering a new option in this debate.
> None of this means you shouldn't be looking. And I like
>the scenario you've identified better than the
>alternatives. But it could be incorrect and the flood
>account still true.
You are absolutely correct. My view could easily be
incorrect for the simple reason that God didn't do it that
way. I will guarantee you that I will be as harsh on my own
view as I would be on any other view. If certain
predictions do not happen, then my view is WRONG. But
currently I am aware of only one piece of scientific data
that is incompatible with what I am espousing. Terry Gray
knows what it is because we have discussed it. But this
data point is bad for everyone. There is only one way I
can think to solve that problem and even I don't like it.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm