The Revd Philip Ritchie accuses me of the sin of liberalness for suggesting that the tops of the mountains were not covered by water as part of the Great Flood. Indeed, he accuses me of trusting in Science and not Scripture.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a firm believer in Science and the One that invented it. And I refer not to Richard Dawkins. However, it is clearly the case that, if the results of "science" differ with Scripture, then "science" (ie the results of a fallible scientist) is at odds with Science, the revelation of the mind of the Creator. Therefore, for example, the "science" of Evolution is a devilish deceit, and at odds with the true Science of Creation, which merely awaits acceptance of the evidence (i.e. the Book of Genesis) in the same way that Galileo and Copernicus had to wait for the Catholic church to recognise the truth of their theories.
However. I feel I have to explain my view of the dry-mountain theory of the Flood.
It is a simple calculation to derive that, were Everest to have been covered by the Flood, the amount of water required would have been 1.1bn cubic miles*. It is equally clear that the amount of water on the earth, above the earth and under the earth - is about 332 million cubic miles. So if, as the Good Book has it, the floodgates of heaven were open and the springs of the great deep burst forth, then the maximum depth of all the earth in the world would be far less than the height of Everest. Otherwise God would have created 1.1 bn cubic miles of water ex nihilo - a miracle unknown since the Creation itself.
Now I'm not saying that God could not have created that much water out of nothingness, and then destroy it again afterwards. For nothing is impossible with God. But - to do that, simply to ensure that he drowned all the Bigfeet and Yetis in the world except 2 each (for I presume they are unclean animals, possessing not cloven feet and chewing not the cud) would seem to be grandstanding in a big way. Far more rational to assume that he merely flooded the world to a reasonable depth, and left the Bigfeet and Yetis in peace.
* for those of a scientific bent, I have assumed a height of 5.5 miles for Everest, and that the earth is a sphere of radius of 4,000 miles. This is approximate, but seems good enough for the purposes of this calculation.
Why not assume that the flood was the event that started movements of the continental plates with a jerk?
ReplyDeleteIn relation to this: Do you believe that Jesus turned water into wine? Now, science knows how long it takes to grow the grapevines, grow the grapes, and then make wine and it certainly takes longer than Jesus had.
btw, enjoying y'alls sense of humor.
ReplyDeleteNaturally, I believe that Jesus turned water into "wine" By which I mean unfermented grape juice.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, logically in a place like 1st century Judea and Galilee, grape juice would have laid around for ages without fermenting at all.
Oops! Excuse me. I forgot that Baptists are teetotalers. I used to be a teetotaler, but that was when I was working for a golf course.
ReplyDelete