Re: [asa] ICR Acts & Facts Feb 2007

Are these two very different?

Michael

First from ICR
> IMPACT No. 404 - Water Activity on Mars: Landscapes and Sedimentary
> Strata
>
> Despite 30 years of accumulating increasingly abundant and unequivocal
> geomorphological evidence, the case for past catastrophic water-related
> activity on Mars has remained controversial until very recently.
>
> Read it at: http://www.icr.org/article/3151/
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Second from a dubious British source

This is not necessarily the case. There is a new theory (in Brit Journal for
creation science 2007 vol 1 , pp 36-57) which argues that the excess water
of the Flood was sucked off by a passing comet which then struck Mars and
the resulting melt on impact caused the rivers but that has now been
evaporated off. That gives the essence of the argument

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Feb 1 18:34:18 2007