tarting a new post means losing the prie position for the previous post and I want that post to continue to be seen so this is a reminder that it's there. The nation is under god's judgment. That was true at Nine Eleven and nothihg has happened to change that status. We are no doubt accumulating judgment and all the noise and tumulet going on with the protests against ICE among a million other versiosns of the same mentality I regard as expressions of that judgmetn. We need to pray against it by confessing the sins of the nations for starters. The post I'm talking about is titled They WWho Hate You Ashall Rreing OVer YOu.
********************
I must be awfully naive. I jist dn't expect to be ridiculed for mentioning tht God answered my prayers with information that I asked Him for. Not by Christians anyway. The more I think about it though, the more I see ow they might very well ridiculoe me. Think I'm making myself out to be some kind of prophet maybe. To my mind all I'm doing is giving God the fglrowy for what seems to be a very good helpful idea rather than igoring Him and taking the credit myself. And I assume other Christians live the sme way and hear from God the same way when Tthey ask Him for this kind of help.
Paul Garner and Todd Wood went back to their topic about the aftermathj of the Flood, on their podcast Let's talk Creation. Episode 129. I know the number because it's one of my favorite topics and I'll want to listen to ait again, no doubt a few times.
They are answering some critics of a three part series they did a while back on this topic and I have to say I am not impressed with the critics at all. In fact overall I'm getting frustratied with the Christian creationist camp. I have so wanted to find people to discuss some ideas with but I keep finding how far away from my way of thinking about these things other creationists are. Even when we're sort of in the same ballpartk they are pursuing differing angles on the question. I've often tried to anser to myself why I didn't spend more time learning about the creationist views. There are a few websites out there where I could have spent a lot more time than I ever did. I got some ideas from them but surprisingly little in the end. I've thought part of it was that they get too technical for me and I think tht's true, but it's more than that. I like thinking things through on my own an that's true too but that's not it either. I think closer to the truth about it all is that I got started in a debate format where I did my own reearch and came up with my own ideas and when I hewcked out the creationist sites they weren't pursuing the same ideas i the same mway I was and I juist kept going back to working through my own. SOmetimes I recognized that we were on the same page and sometimes I got some good leads from them but on the biggest issues for my purposes I worked it all out myself and ended up in some other place than the creationists did. And I've been learning that is the case from this podcast by Wood and Garner. I enjoy their discusseions but I don't see things the wa they do and I have the gall to think I could be right and they wrong.
To really spell out my point of view would take a lot of work and I suually just ive a post or two on a particular topic. But I can see now that unless I do that work of producing all the evidence and the line of reasoning that got me where I ended up creationists just aremtn' going to take me seriously at all. Theuy might not takeme seriously anyway of cours. I get my evidence from some rather odd places and I certainly have no field experience in iether geology or biology so it's all reading and thinking which doesn't get many points in the sciences.
Oh good grief, I'm suddenly so tired I can't keep sitting here. I'll have to come back to this later. Sorry.
Paul had some good answers to the criticism that they were trying to cram too many post Flood events into too little time, pointing out thta many of those events would have been simultaneous offor one thingl. That's one I don't want to get into here more than that excpet to say that my own model, and yes I think I can claim to hae a creationist model, has a LOT of those events all happening simultaneously. The three hundred years from the Flood to Abraham as given by the Msasoretic text of the Bible is plenty oftime for what I have in mind.
I also still object to the idea they have that there was a great deal of tectonic upheaval during the Flood and I have eveidence for my point of view on that one I hope I have the energy to spell out some time sooh.
Same with their idea that the Flood ended around the end of the Cretaceous period. I thik all the sediemntary strata through the Cenozoic were laid down by the Flood and I think I can produce evidence for that too. Some time.
Some of the evidnece I have in mind could take hundreds of pages to spell out because some of it needs to be argued against conventional interpretations That I think are wrong, but there's quite a bit that can just simply be demonstrated with out all that argument.
I'm not familiar with he Columbia River Basalt but found the discussion ineresting and Paul's answer to the critic very good.
The idea of the floating debris raft as the vehicle for transporting the aimals dispersiong from the Ark into the rest of the world came up again. I thijk Todd's way of talking about it is a lot better than the critics' but I don't think the raft idea is at all necessary because in my scenario the continents haven't been separating for enough time for them to have a whole ocean between them needing the secure cort of conveyanfdce they have in mind. But I don't want to get into that one right now either. All these things take a lot of discussion and too much space on a blog post.
The one I tought I might give a more careful answer to is the one about the rapitidity of diversitfication of the animals as they spread out from the Ark to their eventual preferred haitats.
But again I'm tired and going to take a break. Back soon I hope.
