Thanks for responding to my queries re your page 'Fish to Amphibian'.
I'm sure you will agree that an understanding of the true nature of the
Noahic Flood is crucial to the current debate, and that no stone be left
unturned in our efforts to clarify the matter. For an evolutionist like
yourself this, clearly, is no longer an issue: the inundation must have
been 'local'. However, as one who takes the Bible - and its warnings -
seriously, ...<<<
First off I would like to object to the egocentric assertion that only
those who agree with you 'take the Bible--and its warnings-
seriously...." There are lots of evolutionists who do and I believe in
the 6 days, a miraculous creation of Adam, Eve taken from the rib, a
talking snake, a real/historical flood. What in the world can you find
in that to indicate that I dont' take the bible seriously. I don't agree
with you, but that is not the same as taking the Bible seriously, unless
you think your views are the ONLY views that are compatible with the
Bible. But that means then, that you think you are an infallible
interpreter of the Bible. You aren't.
>>>I have a problem with this view, for it flies in the face (a)
of the powerful narrative of Genesis 6-9, (b) of statements made by our
Lord and Peter (Mt.24:37-39, Lk.17:26-27, 1Pe.3:20), and (c) of common
sense.<<<
As has been pointed out numerous times, the terms like 'under the whole
heavens' are used in local sences in Job and in Deuteronomy. As to
common sense, that is such a relative term and usually is defined as
"those views that agree with mine have common sense and those that
don't, don't.."
>>>For example, in the evolutionary scenario life would have extended
far
beyond any site proposed for the alleged 'local' flood. Yet we read 'All
flesh that moved on the earth perished...', ie God sent the Flood to
destroy both both man and animal because both were corrupt.<<
The word translated 'earth' is 'eretz' and means 'land' or 'country'.
One can't assume that 'eretz' means 'planet earth' unless one assumes
that the Hebrews had a modern astronomical language.
>>How could
this be accomplished other than by submerging the whole earth in
water?<<<
By paying attention to the actual Hebrew word and realizing that the
LAND not the earth was covered with water. The Hebrew actually says
that the LAND was covered. It doesn't say planet earth. And if you want
to say that 1 Pet 3:20 indicates a global flood, you must realize that
the word translated as world is 'cosmos'. Literally, that means that
the cosmos--the entire univese must have been covered. Is that what you
want to beleive?
>>>God's Covenant was with the entire globe (Gn.9:9-10). Does this make
any
sense if the Flood were local? >>>>>
God's covenant was with all MANKIND, not the globe. How do you have a
covenant with the globe, bunny rabbits and mushrooms?
>>>>For these reasons I believe Christians need to ask more questions
about
the methods used in reading the 'record of the rocks'. Let me begin with
a few of my own:
(1) Glenn, you give size and specific gravity as the only factors which
determine the sedimentation rates of water-borne objects. But surface
features and shape must also play a part, wouldn't you agree? >>>>
No I do not agree entirely.. Stokes law which is the physical law that
defines how rapidly something falls in a viscous fluid shows that an
objects rate of fall is predominatly determined by density and size.
Shape plays a minor, I repeat MINOR role. Surface features play NO role
whatsoever.
>>>(2) Do I gather from your illustration re conodonts that exactly the
same sequence is found in every site worldwide, without exception?<<<
YES. Among the index conodonts.
>>>>(3) You mention volcanic ash and lava flows as providing
opportunities
for applying radiometric techniques to fix absolute dates for these
sediments. What particular methods are eligible for this purpose? On
what basis is it reasonable to assume that the 'clock' is properly reset
at the time such deposits are laid?<<
K-AR, Uranium dating, Rubidium strontium, Isochron dating.
The setting of the clock to zero or to a near zero level is a long and
invovled question. In the case of Rb-Sr the chemistry of the two
elements is different enough so that no Strontium can occupy the place
it is found in the mineeral unless it was first Rubidium. I would
suggest that you go read an expert on these issues. If you really want
to know you will do a bit of work yourself.