From: Jay Willingham (jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com)
Date: Wed Oct 08 2003 - 21:58:11 EDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "Walter Hicks" <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>; "Ted Davis"
<TDavis@messiah.edu>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>; <hvantill@chartermi.net>; <jbembe@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 7:12 PM
Subject: RE: RATE
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> >Behalf Of Walter Hicks
> >Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 1:46 PM
> >
> >I think that a greater concern for a world wide flood is not as
> >much the fossil
> >record as is the living record in Australia. There are animals
> >there that are
> >not found anywhere else in the world. How can this be explained by
> >a universal
> >flood around 5000 years ago? Did the kangaroos hop & swim from Ararat to
> >Australia. Also there are marsupial fossils in Australia and
> >nowhere else. What
> >sort of coherent story can be generated for all of this?
>
>
> There are so many things wrong with the global flood idea one hardly knows
> where to start. But the simple fact that if the global flood is true,
modern
> animals had to live in the preflood world and some of them should have
been
> fossilized. But we find NO modern animals as fossils prior to the
uppermost
> Miocene, which barely scratches the geologic column (i.e. the uppermost 1%
> of the column.) Below that level all animal life was different.
> >
>
Not if the basic forms in the ark evolved relatively quickly, as some
theorize. I do not ascribe to the 5,000 years as definitive due to
genealogical telescoping.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 08 2003 - 21:56:49 EDT