To everyone: Thanks for the warm welcome to the list.
I am not saying at all that God could not have performed further "miracles"
to make all the things happen. One can always evoke the God can do anything
argument (and of course he can!).
I am only trying to speak to the physical and scientific impossibility of
what is actually recorded in the Bible as far as a global flood and what we
know from scientific research or natural laws related to that possible
phenomenon.
If we open the discussion to all the things that God "might" have done that
are not recorded in the scriptures about any possible event then anything is
indeed possible.
Marque
>From: Walter Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>To: Victorian Wife <victorianwife@hotmail.com>
>CC: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Noahic Covenant
>Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 21:04:22 -0400
>
>Hi Marque. Nice to see a new spirit on board. (for those of us who believe
>in
>spirits and souls.)
>
>Anyhow, to butt in: --- in the "for what it is worth" category.
>
>I do not think that one can validly argue about the impossibility of what
>God
>can do. I.E. too much water! -- where did it go to? etc.
>
>As scientists we can, however, argue about the residual evidence on the
>earth.
>That is an issue of what God _DID_ do, rather than what He _CAN_ do. That
>has
>been the past focus and I believe that it is the correct focus. God could
>have
>done creation in 6 literal days, for example -- but the physical evidence
>seems
>not to support this. As scientists we need evidence -- not calculations of
>impossibilities. With our God everything is possible -- but not all all
>things
>are refuted by the residual physical evidence.
>
>As I recall, your argument was based solely upon a "physical
>impossibility"
>(miracle) that God would not be able to make happen. If we took that as a
>basis,
>then the entire gospel message would be in question. That would make the
>Spongers very happy.
>
>I think.
>
>Walt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Victorian Wife wrote:
>
> > Hi Vernon,
> >
> > You appear to wish to nit-pik specific words but not to grapple with
>overall
> > concepts when it comes to a global flood. Is there some reason that you
>did
> > not address my scientific considerations when it comes to the
>possibility of
> > a global flood? Scientific inquiry just really does not support the
> > hypothesis.
> >
> > Marque
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
>
>
>--
>===================================
>Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
>In any consistent theory, there must
>exist true but not provable statements.
>(Godel's Theorem)
>
>You can only find the truth with logic
>If you have already found the truth
>without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
>===================================
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 22 2002 - 01:09:45 EDT