Search This Blog

Saturday, March 1, 2008

Flood

In Before Darwin, much is said about fossils and the biblical flood.

Most of it is typically question-begging; and amusingly, the question begged is begged in a hollow flourish, as though some evidence is provided. Never the case!

The book's discussion about the flood and fossils is typical.

There's lots of material on the net on these topics, so I won't labour the point.

But I will say this. Both in Before Darwin, and in the older sources cited, there seems to be a concept operating that views the global flood as a relatively calm affair, not the overwhelming catastrophe it was. This is one reason the ark would be designed as it was: best for stability in very rough water (sea state 10...for a year?). The flood would have been of such immense proportions that the tectonic, volcanic and hydraulic dimensions would begger our imaginations.

Look at the tiny volcano at Mt St. Helens in the 80s: canyons carved out in hours, trees flatted over vast areas, etc. Imagine what it would be like with huge vulcanism over the entire earth! Big stuff, indeed.

Then look at the gross geology of the earth, with features than could not be formed by current processes at current rates: hundreds of square miles of lava sheets, sedimentary beds of similar size, fossil beds with millions of creatures jamb-packed together, smashed, bent and twisted.

3 comments:

John said...

Eric, have you ever noticed how the SADists do not have a theology of creation and thus have no explanation of how God created. Their emptying of history from Genesis 1(-11!) means that they are mute before the unbelieving world. This means that Noah's Flood and the creation week are meaningless, myths to affirm or deny as a person so chooses.

And they think they can have something to say to the world next year? What a joke! They take the miraculous out of creation, the parting of the Red Sea, Noah's Flood etc etc, and they expect people to believe in the resurrection!

Eric said...

Interesting that you say this in the light of Mr Baddeley's comment that he is saddened by the lack of theology in the creation movement, then proceeds to give an almost solipsistic theology of the order of 'what's in it for me'. I prefer the theology that springs from God's word and underpins the philosophical realism that gave rise to the modern flowering of science. Jaki has dealt with it, as have a number of articles on 'Living Tradition' (Google it), although I'd disagree with aspects of LTs views.

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,