Re: Flood Deposits in Mesopotamia [Was: Special Creation]

 
>>>> Glenn wrote: So, when people start throwing out those inconvenient parts, why stop with one or two facts? Go whole hog and get rid of all the nonsense and fix that early genesis account.
 
Now, to me, throwing things out is really just an ad hoc solution. It works, no doubt, but it is a wee bit inelegant. <<<<
 
PTM: Hi Glenn. I have to respectfully disagree. If it is motivated by the fact that Urarutu didn't exist when Moses wrote the text then this suggestion certainly cannot be called ad hoc.
 
Also, if the explanation is an apparent edit of just one single word, and that word was not in the original text, and the text in question (a place name) is the type of thing that an editor would reasonably not understand at a later date, and if this one edit provides vast explanatory power for a number of otherwise unexplainable phenomena, then I'd say the explanation is quite elegant.
 
>>>> Glenn wrote: I would say if a document purportedly by GW mentions Disney World, you could reasonably say it is a fake. It isn't true. One wouldn't wax eloquent about how it teaches the true theology and how the errors are an accommodation to the knowledge of Washington's day. <<<<
 
 PTM: This is a recurring theme in your posts. You say that without scientifically explaining Genesis 1-11 we should give up our faith and become atheists. But there are many reasons to trust in Jesus (and the Scriptures that He quoted) beyond scientific explanation of the early chapters. Consider the poor unscientific peoples raised in the jungles. It seems that God considers their basis for faith to be just as valid as ours. If so, then we can share in that valid faith the same way that they do without having to understand science in Genesis 1-11. Then, explaining Genesis 1-11 would merely be a bonus and not mandatory to our faith. I don't accept the epistemology of unbelievers.
 
>>>> Glenn wrote:
Now, as to exposed sediments, there is a problem with this. The flood was quite recent. More recent than most of the other deposits. And when a geologist makes a map, he doesn't map the soil which covers the bed rock. The maps are usually of the bed rock. And, I would still contend that even if there were buried fluival sediments beneath the aeolian, they would have been found and talked about in geology circles because so many people believe the flood of NOah was in Mesopotamia. The fact that there are no such discussions in the professional literature says loads about their non-existance. <<<<
 
PTM: I suspect this is all a misunderstanding of scales. If the flood was smaller scale than you or others in your profession believe, then when you saw the localized deposits you would believe it was no big deal and of no consequence to Noah. Hence, it would not be discussed as a big deal. Also, the flood wasn't recent enough for its deposits to escape being covered by eaolian sand.
 
Phil
 
 
 
Received on Wed Mar 8 01:22:35 2006