Wednesday, February 27, 2013

U.S. Creationists Not Happy With AMAIC'S Genesis Model

A colleague from Missouri wrote:

Hi, Damien -

Not all your readers find very persuasive your case against a global Flood.


Here are a few thoughts from two American Catholic creationists.



Here's my take:
RS: The Greek of Acts 2:5 means, of the nations that had Jews living in them, all of them were gathered in Jerusalem. It is not including any region of Earth that did not contain Jews. So this context is not the same as Genesis 6-9.
Mackey will need to prove that the expression “all the earth” cannot apply to the whole earth. He will not be able to do so since the Bible uses such expressions in both local and global ways.
More significant is 2 Peter 3:5, which compares the earth completely covered by water at the creation in Genesis 1:1-2 with the flood of Noah’s day that will once again cover the Earth completely with water. The Greek di means “between,” and thus tells us that the Earth was surrounded by water (i.e., water covered the entire spherical circumference). Since creation is global, so is the flood.
It then compares the judgment by fire of the whole earth with the judgment of the whole earth in Noah’s day. Since the fire is global, so is the flood
There is no suggestion that an of these three events: (1) creation water over the earth, (2) judgment fire on the earth at the last day, (3) Noah’s flood, are merely local events.
Genesis 7:19-20 says that the water rose 15 cubits higher than the highest mountain, which is about 300 feet. Whatever the height of the highest mountain, the laws of physics say that water seeks the lowest point and assumes the shape of its container. Water could never reach a height of 300 feet over a mountain locally, since the water would always seek a lower point somewhere on the earth, no matter how far it extended. The only way Genesis 7:19-20 could be accomplished is by a worldwide deluge, not to mention that the same fossils that are found in the Mesopotamian region are found in the Americas, Australia and the Far East.
The proposition that the Garden of Eden was sitting on sedimentary rocks has no evidence to support it. Genesis doesn’t hint to such a circumstance. The only mention of rare earths or elements is Gen 2:12 (gold, bdellium, onyx stone), but these are speaking of what is there as of the writing of Genesis by Moses, not necessarily what was there in the time of the Garden of Eden. Even if they were existing during the time of Eden, gold is a naturally occurring element, not a sediment. Bdellium is the product of tree. The only possibility of something built by layers is the onyx, but that is a quick crystallization process, not a sedimentary process.
The other instance is the use of bronze and iron at the time of Gen 4:22, but these are either naturally occurring elements or forged mixtures of elements, not sediments.
As for the four rivers, flood waters would not necessarily erase the elongated earthen cavity that holds river water. In fact, the exceeding pressure from water that is a mile or two high (as in our oceans) preserves rather than destroys. Once the mile or two of water is removed, the cavity that held the river remains. The only way the cavity would not be present after a flood is if the flood waters were in great turbulence and literally broke up the cavity, but that requires proof of some great turbulence, not assumption.

In a message dated 2/23/2013 8:45:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time .... :



I don't know how Damien can argue that he is able to interpret Genesis better than ALL of the Fathers of the Church, especially since the geological evidence fits perfectly well with a global Flood and a post-Flood Ice Age. It seems extremely arrogant to think that the Fathers were incapable of interpreting the Scriptures that refer to the Flood correctly and that we needed the speculations of anti-Catholic scientists like Darwin and Lyell to interpret them aright!


No comments:

Post a Comment