> At 11:01 AM 10/23/97 -0400, Steven Schimmrich wrote:
>> I'm just saying that anyone claiming geologists haven't wrestled with the
>> idea of a global flood is ignorant of the history of geology. Agassiz
>> wasn't an atheist, he actually was one of the last prominent scientists
>> to reject Darwin's ideas because they conflicted with his religious
>> beliefs (S.J. Gould wrote an interesting essay about Agassiz and his
>> opposition to >> Darwinism).
> Is it so that the assumption of a global flood has indeed been shown to be
> truly wrong? What is the fact that constitutes its death blow? I can
> imagine that if you had some nice data indicating that a flood may have
> occurred you would have a hard time publishing your findings in a first-rate
> geology journal. Am I wrong?
Not one fact, but virtually all of geology has shown it to be untenable.
I'm not going to start writing all about geology here, I would refer you
to some basic undergraduate geology textbooks.
You can imagine all you want but it's all hypothetical unless you can
tell me "Here is some data inidicating a flood occurred and I wrote it up
for the Geological Society of America Bulletin and it was rejected."
Show me that first and then we'll talk.
>> I am confident that when I die and stand before the judgement seat of
>> the Father, He is NOT going to ask me "Son, did you or did you not
>> believe in a geologically-recent global flood?" I too take the Bible
>> seriously and know the important issue is my acceptance of the Salvation
>> offered by the sacrifice on the cross made by Jesus Christ.
> I suppose you believe the accounts of the NT but not necessarily those of
> the OT?
Who said I didn't "believe" the Old Testament? We just differ on our
interpretations of a handful of verses.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich KB9LCG email@example.com 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