Re: swallowing mercury

Glenn R. Morton (
Tue, 04 Aug 1998 20:08:23 -0500

Hi Paul,

At 09:17 AM 8/4/98 -0400, Paul Arveson wrote:
>Efforts to refute flood geologists by means of such creative and convoluted
>reasoning are futile, Glenn. You should remember that if one is willing
>to grant one miracle, the timing and prophecy of the flood itself, then
>'patching' its consequences are mere details. If one can swallow a camel,
>then swallowing a gnat, or even a mercurious fish, is no problem at all.
>The same goes for all the other aspects of the story. If one is willing
>to accept the time scale of 6 days as a miracle, then the creation of a
>whole artificial universe with appearance of age is no problem at all.
>It's wonderful how easy it is to solve all kinds of scientific problems
>by a liberal application of miracles.

Here is the thing. I have found some success in getting lots of YECs to
admit that the term 'scientific creationist' is erroneous because they
don't use science. And frankly if a person wants to say that the Flood
occurred totally miraculously with no scientific evidence for it, then
there is nothing wrong with that. But when they do that, they can't then
claim to have an alternative scientific theory.

And believe it or not, I have changed the minds of a number of YECs about
the flood. That is why I keep doing it.

Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information