> I'm just saying that anyone claiming geologists haven't wrestled with the
>idea of a global flood is ignorant of the history of geology. Agassiz
>wasn't an atheist, he actually was one of the last prominent scientists
>to reject Darwin's ideas because they conflicted with his religious beliefs
>(S.J. Gould wrote an interesting essay about Agassiz and his opposition to
>Darwinism).
Is it so that the assumption of a global flood has indeed been shown to be
truly wrong? What is the fact that constitutes its death blow? I can
imagine that if you had some nice data indicating that a flood may have
occurred you would have a hard time publishing your findings in a first-rate
geology journal. Am I wrong?
> I am confident that when I die and stand before the judgement seat of
>the Father, He is NOT going to ask me "Son, did you or did you not believe
>in a geologically-recent global flood?" I too take the Bible seriously
>and know the important issue is my acceptance of the Salvation offered by
>the sacrifice on the cross made by Jesus Christ.
I suppose you believe the accounts of the NT but not necessarily those of
the OT?
Moorad