RE: Ramm's flood

Glenn Morton (
Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:43:58

George Fisher writes:
> I think we'd have to admit that the fossil hominid record
contains no evidence of technology capable of bulding an
>ark 5.5 my ago, so that many details of the OT version
>must have been added later.

I agree. But two things. Are you ruling out revelation to
Moses? That certainly seems to be a possibility. Secondly,
the evidence of technology is one of the predictions of my
view. The other prediction of my view is that some form of
Homo will be found early in the record. The other day I
cited the humerus found in 4 Myr old strata (I erred
yesterday in saying 5 Myr) that is nearly identical to a
modern humerus. (see J.W.K. Harris, "Early Man," in Andrew
Sherratt, editor, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of
Archaeology, 1980), p. 64)

Surely one is not against predictions in christian attempts
at harmonization. What would continental drift have been
without predictions? What would the Milankovitch theory be
without predictions? It has always appeared to me that
Christians always seem to run from any predictions. This
is why Ramm says of his view of the flood,

"...we would not expect to find any specific evidence of
it..." Ramm, The Christian View of Science and
Scripture, p. 163.

In this way he is protected from any contradictory
observations; he will always be right. I do not want to be
protected in that fashion. It is not courageous! If I am
wrong, I will forever be known as the idiot who suggested
that stupid idea of a Mediterranean Flood! So be it.


Foundation,Fall and Flood