Re: Why the Flood was Global

Dario A Giraldo (giraldo@wln.com)
Mon, 10 Feb 1997 02:02:48 -0800

At 03:26 AM 2/7/97 -0800, David Lee Nidever wrote:

>Dario,
>
snip...

> From reading your letter and having gone through many stages in
>my search to understand the flood I think you're at the second level of
>impression. Because it seems to me that you don't have a good
>understanding of geology, physics, meteorology and other sciences, that
>you haven't read very much about the topic (from both sides), and that
>your arguments are very emotional (that also seems to be a characteristic
>of earlier levels of impressions, because the deep understanding is not
>there).

David:

Thanks for your note.

When the national health care plan debate was going on back in 92 I called
one of my state senators to let her know how I felt on the issue. The
answer given to my position, which was different than hers was: 'You just
don't know what is better for you. Senator X knows better because she has
all of the facts'.

I couldn't help but feel the same way while reading your note. It wasn't
the tone but the content of it that really bothers me. The implication
being that as one becomes 'educated' one agrees with the other 'educated
ones'.

If all of the 'educated ones' agreed on the subject, I will consider
seriously your points. The reality is that in this and other issues you
have people all over the spectrum and no one can claim they have the corner
for sure. I'll be interesting to be a witness to a live debate between Dr.
Morton and Dr. Ross and their respective camps. I think it'll be wonderful
to see how the same data is viewed from both camps. Even better if one was
to bring excellent Biblical interpreters as well such as Kevin Conner
(Portland Bible College), Jewish Rabbis such as Zola Levitt. One can put
them all in one room and see the ideas flow.

Each one interprets the data from their 'biased' point of view. Specially
if one has some economical interest in the subject. Being a data
processing professional who sells knowledge not time, I see this everyday.
Geology, astronomy or physics aren't any different. The one with the hot
theory gets the grants, speaking engagements and book deals. If one takes
a position and that position gets the attention, that person will hold that
position until the end. Whatever this end may be.

> I don't mean to demean you. We are all at certain levels of
>learning and developing, I am too. I'm not perfect. But one thing I've
>learned is that there are people that know more, a lot more, than I do
>and I can't just go around criticizing what they say without really
>knowing what they're talking about.

I have not criticized anyone regarding rocks or bones. I do raise
questions when strange analysis are made of the Biblical text and point
flaws at these. I have my point of view and didn't stumble on it
overnight, in a rush or because a preacher said it.

Just as someone puts his 10 or 15 reasons of why they believe this or that,
I'll publish mine. I don't think this list is a cult following for Mr.
Morton, although appears (for some subscribers) so at times. I don't
question his area of expertise just his Scriptural method (or lack) of
interpretation.

>Glenn Morton knows quite a bit more on this topic than you do and
>probably more than I do. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be asking
>questions, discussing problems, and exclaiming what you think is wrong,
>because that's all a part of discussion and how we learn. Just don't
>start putting down people. That's what started me on this whole I think.

May I ask how did I put down people ? Have I attacked personally someone.
If so please let me know.

> Well, I had good intentions, and I hope I didn't hurt anybody.

For expressing your heart ? Nah. All is OK.

Best Regards,

Dario Giraldo
Lacey, Washington