From: Glenn Morton <glenn.morton@btinternet.com>
> But creationists use naturalism when it suits them. They almost always come
> up with some naturalistic mechanism for a global flood--i.e. a vapor canopy,
> continents sinking, runaway continental drift, meteor impact, the collapse
> of an ice canopy. They never, ever simply say, "God produced a miraculous
> flood".
>
> They always allow that t the laws of physics would be the same during the
> flood, with water pushing big blocks of rock around and eroding things as
> normal floods do. They assume that the laws of bouyancy were in place
> allowing the ark to float. They assume that the laws of life applied in that
> if terrestrial animals are covered with water they will drown. They assume
> that there was a naturalistic reason for the lack of a rainbow before the
> flood--i.e. it never rained. They assume
One does not have to accept the philosophy of naturalism to accept the constancy of the laws of physics. God invented, design and made the universe and all it's laws. And while God may, if he wished to, do things outside of the laws which he originally set up, Creationists do not believe that the Flood was something which would need to be outside the ordinary way of things. There is no reason to make recourse to "miraculous" events. Creationists do not reject or accept naturalism if ever they wish. Creationists accept the laws of Creation which God invented -- the physical laws and such -- and completely reject the philosophy of naturalism. Looking for mechanisms to cause a flood is not tantamount to looking to the philosophy of naturalism for answers. It is looking for explanations within the way of things as designed by God.
Allen
Member MENSA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 06 2001 - 19:54:54 EST