Paul wrote: "You are mistaking me for a YEC. I was not attempting to
argue that there must be conclusive evidence against a global flood. I am
just asking for the postivie evidence that it did not happen. What
specifically are you looking at (feel free to refer me to papers) when
you say, "The physics problems associated with a purported global flood
are so overwhelming"
Paul -- I don't think I EVER mistook you for a YEC. Apologies if my
reply sounded that way. In this LISTSERV way of talking, one sometimes
simply wants to see how an argument goes, and I understood that to be
your intention. Honest! < G >
The physics problems I was thinking of are those associated with the
source of the flood waters and what happened to them after the flood
abated. I suppose these could be called geologic problems also -- not
being a geologist I will pass on that part.
I was also thinking (vaguely) of the physical problems involved with (1)
getting all the animals onto the ark in the specified time, (2) the care
& feeding & cleaning up after them, (3) the problems after the flood
abatement of getting them dispersed to their "allotted" geographies, etc.
I admit that all of these are more than "physics" problems, of course.
On my web site is a "letter to Ken Ham" written by someone here a year or
so ago on problems of this sort. It is on page 2.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 09 2002 - 18:18:56 EST