>So the question is which methods God used in the past, and how do
>we determine them. That comes to basic hermeneutics again,
>how we relate extra-Biblical information to the Bible.
Agreed. Let me ask you about what for me is a pivotal verse, How do you
read Jude 14 ("Enoch, the seventh from Adam")? As I recall, we've had
two divergent responses: one agreed, or seemed to agree, with me that it
implies a literal Adam who lived in the not too distant past; the other
said that Jude quoted the Book of Enoch which was not inspired and
therefore was not true in what Jude said about Enoch's distance from
Adam. I would disagree with the latter on the basis that I believe the
Bible from Genesis to Revelation to all be scripture, and II Timothy
3:16: "All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching,
for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness." This is
not to say that there are not mistakes in the Bible as we know it, and
this is not to say that it is all to be taken literally. But Jude 14
does not appear to me to be a mistake or an allegory. What is your sense
of this verse?
>I presume you were only joking about no wear before the fall!
I wasn't, but maybe I should have been? Why?
>I notice you have not answered my question that if Gosse is right, who
>flood geology? Gosse himself rejected the flood as an explanation for
>because the geological record did not support it.
In my open mind :-) the jury is still out on that one. I didn't mean to
avoid your question. If the geological record does indeed support a
global flood, who needs a local flood? Gosse may have jumped the gun by
assuming the geological record does not support it.
>His prochronism (so he
>thought) eliminated the need for both flood and uniformitarian geology.
>Perhaps there is an apologetic reason here. Flood geologists may hope
>by pointing to the geological record as the result of the flood, they
>offering a proof of Scripture.
That would be a nice benefit, yes. But more fundamental is an accurate
interpretation and assimilation of the data. I am trying to see if I can
find a relaxed fit of coal and an allochthonous (transported) origin.
There may be a fatal block to this line of reasoning, but I am unaware of
any at this point. If you would strap me to the underside of one of your
low ponies, maybe I will be able to continue my conversation with Keith
>I assume that those flood geologists who seek "natural" explanations for
>global flood do not see it any less an act of God because of that.
I certainly don't.
>> >How do these factors work out as you approach an outcrop?
>> I look for evidence supporting the YEC model.
>The is interesting. I go about things the other way round, and don't
>approach an outcrop looking for any YEC or OEC model. I start by
>the rock type and trying to discover its relationship with other rock
>I then look for the key features that will give me the information I am
>after, depositional environment, weathering history, hydrothermal
>etc. It is only then that I compare the ensemble of features against a
>of possible process models which you would call "OEC".
Ummmm, you eliminate the "YEC" models? :-)
>> >In the reports you
>> >write for work?
>> I look for the naturalistic explanations. :-) You knew that didn't
>You have said that you lean towards YEC and flood geology. Does this
>mean you see the flood as a naturalistic event?
Maybe, maybe not. I just believe that there was a global flood, and I
look for evidence to support that belief. I was unclear above in
responding to your questions. Whether I am approaching an outcrop or
writing a report for work, I am attempting to supply rational support for
my conclusions. The question of the causative agent is quite separate
from whether geologic data support or contradict a given conclusion.
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]