Re: Glenn and John finish

Glenn Morton (
Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:30:44 -0500

At 08:06 PM 9/14/97 -0500, John P. McKiness wrote:
>This will be my last post on this issue, I will leave the last word to you.
>I have enjoyed the discussion but it is time to go on to other things.

I too have enjoyed the joust.

>I pray that when you find that you cannot make science and faith meld you
>will be ready to make the leap also so that your faith may grow in spite of
>the lack of "supporting" evidence.

As you noted earlier, I have the science correct in my view of Genesis. As
far as I am concerned I have been able to meld what people said was
unmeldable--Geolgoy and Genesis. Is my view true? I don't know.

>Sorry about that, I glad we agree that we can not prove revelation.
>But, from my reading of your posts for the last 1.75 years I believe your
>"support" equals most people's prove. I better make it clear that I see no
>scientific evidence which would support the Genesis flood or any of God's
>activity, but instead the entire known record appears to deny it.

Well, it is a fact that the Mediterranean filled up after being desciccated.
It would fit the description of the Genesis account of creation quite
nicely. High mountains would be covered. It occurred just at the time the
first hominids were found on earth. Was it Noah's flood. Of course I don't
have any confirming data yet. But I have the only view that makes testable
predictions and fits the science.

>> It is doubt about our correctness
>>which spurs us on to solve the problems.
>Sorry Glenn, but I do not see how doubt helps one grow in faith. I am at
>the point where I doubt that there has been any value in my post high school
>education, I am preparing to dropping the pursuit for a degree that has put
>me deeply into debt after 29 years and, at the age of 47, I am now trying to
>figure out what my calling is if it is not teaching geology.
>I really don't see how doubt is very helpful to faith, trusting in Christ is
>what builds faith not physical evidence and reason. After all, physical
>evidence and reason lead Job's wife to say "Curse God and die!" In moments
>of depression and despair, only faith in my Fathers Love is important to me.
I have never learned any lesson with the Lord without some serious doubting.
That includes when I was laid-off for having been a YEC.

>But who is it that pays attention to evidence and then bends the science to
>"support" his faith, I sorry to say it is you and the YEC's (I am also sorry
>to say that I see very little faith expressed by that group as a whole, and
>I see no reason to believe in Christ from their work). Glenn, I'm sorry to
>say as a geologist, your model of a restricted flood in the Med. Sea basins
>(a flood that in the eastern basin most mammals of the time could have
>walked away from) without evidence of any organism we could call man at the
>time (5.5 m.y.) is about as farfetched as any wildly speculative "flood
>geology" "theory" I've seen.

Speculative? Sure. Bending facts? NO!!! Are you aware that the filling of
the Mediterranean was 5.5 MYR ago and the first appearance of a bipedal
hominid was also 5.5 million years ago at Lothagam Kenya? Are you aware
that the hands of some of these Australopithecines were anatomically capable
of making tools, and there IS evendence that Australopithecus robustus DID
make stone tools at Swartzkrans, SA? No. Until you can specify what facts
I am bending or am erroneously using, I will reject this charge. Now back to

Every theory, prior to confirmation is speculative. Go back in the
geological literature and see what was said about Wegener and continental
drift in the 20s. Take an especial look at H. Jeffreys work. The AAPG had a
symposium in 1928, I believe, at which they called Wegener every name in the
book. Wegener was a weatherman for goodness sake. What did he know about
geology? If it weren't for confirming evidence he would still be called
wildly speculative. At this point in my view, I am in the wildly
speculative phase. I think I can live with that. :-) This is a stage that
every hypothesis MUST go through. At least I have something that hasn't
already been falsified, which is the case of the YEC global flood and the
Mesopotamian flood views. I just don't see any good coming out of doing what
you do, removing all religious statements from verification. The only
advantage is that one need never fear falsification. But that seems to me to
be of trivial comfort. One also never has the chance to feel the thrill of
verification either.

>I gave up on creationists of all strips, and their literature, years ago as
>well as any attempt to reconcile faith statements and human reason. I
>learned that as Christians we must learn to live in the dichotomy, very
>little in our faith is supportable by physical evidence. Think about it, is
>there any convincing, supporting evidence for us in the late 20th century
>that God exists?

Yes. The Big Bang. If the universe were eternally past, then God would be
useless. Since the Big Bang requires a vacuum fluctuation, someone needed to
created the vacuum. A vacuum is not 'nothing', it is something.

> If not, how can you believe what you read in the Bible?
>why do you even waste time reading it? Why are you on a crusade to support
>your idea of where and when Noah's flood occurred especially when it doesn't
>agree with either Scripture or valid scientific interpretation of the
>observational evidence?

What scientific evidence are you saying I my view misses? I would be very
interested in that. You yourself stated that I had the science correct.

>Glenn somewhere along the line you have missed what I have been saying. I
>agree that in order to do science I have to have faith in the authors of the
>papers I read, but I am also obligated to read through the procedures and
>results to see if I accept that the author's interpretation of his data is
>reasonable. I also have to have faith in the orderliness of the universe
>and that God (if He exists) isn't going to arbitrarily change the rules
>every 10 minutes and leave the evidence of the past rules. If I don't make
>those assumption I cannot do science.
>But in accepting what other scientist say in their articles I accept their
>statements by the evidence they present _not the original objective,
>observational evidence_ that they had available to them. The authors of
>those articles probably had to chuck much of the data and observations they
>gathered because they assumed it was irrelevant to their study (In other
>words they had to confine their study and cull all available data in some
>way). Remember in science the information we gather is determined by the
>questions we ask and the data we believe addresses the questions.
> I pray that in the end we
>will agree in faith on our Redeemer.

We do. And we will have eternity to enjoy His and each others company (and
one of us will get to say "I told you so." :-)


Foundation, Fall and Flood