But if we think there would be observational evidence resulting from such a flood, then we can't call upon miracle everytime observation fails to support our view of how the flood happens. To do that is to make up miracles for God to perform in the past in order to support our strange ideas in the present. In other words, to make God perform miracles when we lack observational support for our pet flood theory, we are in effect making God dance to our tune.
Making God do our bidding is a bad thing.
Right.
Yes. Along those same lines, I’ve been thinking for a while (when my life calms down in about a month) of writing a short essay and probably starting a thread here asking why Creationists bother. Specifically, with all the supernatural things already admittedly in the story (Such as the YEC’s saying that Noah got divine blueprints & a divine weather forecast, that the animals came at God’s call, that the weather/atmosphere was controlled by God to do his immediate bidding, etc . .), then why do creationist bother to try to cook up physical evidence where there is none? Why not attribute it all - including the present lack of evidence, to a divine miracle? Why bother with all the lying and mental contortionism when the YEC’s have already resorted to the miracle card elsewhere in the story? Perhaps because doing so means that physical measurement of anything then becomes irrelevant, since, as you mentioned, we are making miracles for any observation we don't like, and then science is tossed out the window.
Thanks for your reply. It looks like good stuff for a future thread.
Also, mpb1 - I checked out your website - good stuff. I’ve told many creationists that creationism is the single biggest threat to Christianity, and that it hurts Christianity more than it hurts science education. Maybe, as a fellow Christian, you’ll get more traction with them than I did.
™ Version 4.2