> I believe there is no doubt that Scripture does mention a real, actual
> flood. Thus, in geology, paleontology, etc. the existing data ought to also
> be analyzed on the assumption that a (global) flood did indeed take place.
> Such an assumption should be treated just like any other hypotheses usually
> made in those fields. That is good science.
The problem is you're 150-200 years too late. The flood hypothesis was
considered early on in geology and found sorely lacking. For example,
read any introductory geology textbook to learn about the work of Louis
Agassiz in the Alps. He showed the material being called "drift" and
thought to originate during Noah's flood was, in actuality, material
deposited by glaciers. This was around 1836. I could cite numerous other
examples from the history of geology. That's why modern geology rejects the
idea of a global flood.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich KB9LCG firstname.lastname@example.org Department of Physical Sciences Kutztown University 217 Grim Science Building, Kutztown, PA 19530 (610) 683-4437 http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/s-schim Fides quaerens intellectum