Post
by TK » Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:43 am
matt-
why do uniformists reject the global flood? simply because they disbelieve the Bible? i am assuming your friend is a catastrophist.
I understand what you are saying entirely about preconceived points of view.
But do you believe that there are no uniformists that have honestly examined the possiblilty of a worldwide flood, and simply found the evidence unconvincing?
I know that it may be unwise to trust pagan scientists and their motives. But I certainly think that some would be honorable enough to admit that there is indeed good evidence for a worldwide flood. Obviously catastrophists might believe this, but are we not possibly jumping to conclusions to state that EVERY uniformist has an ulterior motive?
Further, I am certain that there are true Christian geologists who think the evidence of a wordwide flood is lacking, or that a worldwide flood would not have been possible for other reasons. I am also certain that there are true Chrisitian geologists who believe the earth is billions, as opposed to thousands, or years old.
Now, I admit I am playing something of a devil's advocate here. As I said in my initial post on this topic, I would not be surprised at all if some alien flying by the earth in Noah's day would have observed a planet entirely covered with water.
But I also admit that I really struggle with accepting the idea that a lot of accepted science must simply be dismissed because it doesnt SEEM to square with what the Bible says.
For example, Hugh Ross, who is a Christian astrophysicist, states the evidence for a billions of year old universe is overwhelming. If that is indeed true, then it doesnt mean the Bible is false. It simply means we have not interpreted the Bible correctly. Of course I grant the converse may also be true-- but what if it isn't?
Sorry for the rambling post.
TK