Hi Marque. Nice to see a new spirit on board. (for those of us who believe in
spirits and souls.)
Anyhow, to butt in: --- in the "for what it is worth" category.
I do not think that one can validly argue about the impossibility of what God
can do. I.E. too much water! -- where did it go to? etc.
As scientists we can, however, argue about the residual evidence on the earth.
That is an issue of what God _DID_ do, rather than what He _CAN_ do. That has
been the past focus and I believe that it is the correct focus. God could have
done creation in 6 literal days, for example -- but the physical evidence seems
not to support this. As scientists we need evidence -- not calculations of
impossibilities. With our God everything is possible -- but not all all things
are refuted by the residual physical evidence.
As I recall, your argument was based solely upon a "physical impossibility"
(miracle) that God would not be able to make happen. If we took that
as a basis,
then the entire gospel message would be in question. That would make the
Spongers very happy.
Victorian Wife wrote:
> Hi Vernon,
> You appear to wish to nit-pik specific words but not to grapple with overall
> concepts when it comes to a global flood. Is there some reason that you did
> not address my scientific considerations when it comes to the possibility of
> a global flood? Scientific inquiry just really does not support the
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 21 2002 - 21:06:13 EDT