From: Paul Greaves (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Sep 14 2003 - 16:51:13 EDT
Despite having been involved in examining geologic evidences for old earth / young earth for the last 25 years or more, I always have to take the philosophy of being open to new evidence and ways of interpreting it (a personal decision to be open minded, I guess). Philosophically speaking, I really couldn't care less about whether the earth is "young" or "old"... but over the years I've come to the conclusion that the evidence for age greatly outweighs the arguments for young earth / flood model.
Now, as for coal being formed by floods or in swamps, the evidence is kind of interesting (geologically speaking), but I'm not sure how constructive it is at addressing this issue. The point I was trying to make is that whether the answer is floods or swamps isn't really important in the long run, as either is consistent with an old earth.
If you'd like to pursue this issue further, I'm open to discussion... especially if you have evidence that is inconsistent with an old earth. Either on list or off list is fine with me... I'm just not sure how interested everyone else would be on this issue... (I haven't been a part of this group that long).
----- Original Message -----
From what I've presented here, Paul, you wouldn't know this, but I have much more than "a couple details that might be inconsistent with the conventional 'swamp model' of coal formation"...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 14 2003 - 16:50:37 EDT