----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Payne" <bpayne15@juno.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: Flood
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 03:07:05 EDT PHSEELY@aol.com writes:
>
> >If Gen 6-9 is taken as a VCR account, you are right. It cannot be
> harmonized
> >with a local flood---or a global flood either. Both camps have to
> >ignore/bend Scripture and scientific data to make their theory fit.
>
> What does the global flood camp have to ignorebend?
>
> Bill
>
After spending a few years researching the physical geology aspects of this
topic rather carefully I would say about 90% of the sedimentological data,
most of the paleontological sequence data, most of the paleoenvironmental
data, and > 90% of the radiometric age data (if you throw in a young earth
along with a universal flood) and a still significant amount of the
radiometric data if you only insist on a universal flood but do not insist
on a young earth. How you would do that or whether anyone does is not a
question I have addressed or even care to address. But hey, everyone has to
fudge (i.e. ignore or bend from previous posts) a bit here or there. And
as long as we are all friends and can accept the following: most of us do a
bit of fuding to neaten up the story; a bit of fudging almost always has to
happen to make a reasonbly complete and coherent story about complex issues
such as earth history; and that we are not all willing to fudge in the same
place, it's ok that no one has a story that is a perfect fit with the data.
No one ever said science would be easy or neat and complet. But it is a lot
of fun.
Darryl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 25 2000 - 16:20:59 EDT