Thank you Jesus,
We have certainly activated peoples imagination and proved that where there is life there is hope. Some have a bad picture of their father and see him as bad. Some know their father and know he is good. Are you in the proactive camp or do you react.
If God is big enough to create the word through His spoken word he is certainly big enough to defend it.
Been catching Barra in the Gulf for a few days with my family. A good break in the sun and the warmth. My children are a real blessing because I love them in thought and deed not only with empty words. Faith without works is dead. 65 years ago my grandmother taught me that the only thing you carry through life is your name and it is not your own but comes from your father and I am responsible for the name in my generation. All make mistakes and miss the mark but I would rather live under grace than under the law. I accept Gods forgiveness and help in my weekness for my earthly journey is still not over, thanks be to God my provider.

Bugsy, that’s not what I said. I said most of the fossils give testimony to the flood, not that most fossils are the remains of air breathing animals.

CJ, thanks for your considered words minus the profanities.

I don’t really desire to get into a full on creation / evolution debate, mostly because that was not essentially the topic of the article, even if Glen did mention the subject. His topic was to do with the teaching of ethics in preference to any type of religious education. But to establish his humanistic ethic, he must first undermine the Christian ethic, which means that he must challenge the Christian worldview and the authority of Scripture.

Glen appears to want to appeal to a more neutral kind of ethic, independent of religious teaching. However, I suspect he is not so neutral in his attempts to undermine Christian teaching, starting with Genesis.

In creationist thought, much of the geological strata with the fossils they contain do not represent time epochs but are rather the result of the action of currents of water within the tumult of the catastrophic flood.

Dan,

global flood? what?

You poor twit. get help.

Rusty

"In creationist thought, much of the geological strata with the fossils they contain do not represent time epochs but are rather the result of the action of currents of water within the tumult of the catastrophic flood".
Dan,
How does your mythical flood cope with the geology of the Sydney basis multiple coal seams? One seam has a band of volcanic dust about 1.5m thick before it was compressed over 280m years and the seam has another even greater layer of volcanic dust immediately above it. Another seam is immediately below a thick layer conglomerate in which are embedded water flow eroded stones. Surely if a flood had had any influence the layers would be in a logical (sedimentary determined) order. They are not.
Vegetation for one seam accumulated,a volcanic eruption deposited ash, more vegetation then accumulated follow by another eruption and so on. Your flood concept is bunk.

Dan,

<<Bugsy, that’s not what I said. I said most of the fossils give testimony to the flood, not that most fossils are the remains of air breathing animals.>>

So the majority of the creatures that died in the flood were water-breathing then?

How’s that? They drown, did they?

It’s like I’ve (repeatedly) said before though, floods - no matter how big - don’t lay down neat layers of sediment containing fossils that become more and more simple the deeper you go down, and date back further and further - in the order of millions of years - with multiple dating methods that work on different clocks and different principals.

Face it Dan, once again you’ve been thoroughly defeated. Time to walk off with your tail between your legs.

Foyle,
Thanks for your detailed question. You must have given some thought and consideration to how the evidences should appear if there was an enormous flood in ancient times.

As I said, I don’t intend here to get into a full debate on creation and evolution. It’s easily a big topic on its own. And I’m not really the one qualified to answer technical questions on the geological subtleties of the Sydney Basin. My first issue was to relate it back to Glen’s article on ethics, and to see why he felt to raise the issue of creation. Do the rocks in the Sydney basin relate to the issue of whether our new PM should give way to gay marriages? It’s about looking at the larger picture of whether the Christian view point is still relevant. If the story of the global flood can give some insight to coal deposits, then maybe we should take some notice about what Genesis says about the Christian concept of marriage.

“At the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' Jesus said (quoting Genesis), 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one.”

I know it sounds like a long bow to string. But I see the reaction I get from atheists when we start talking about the real world of rocks and stone.

If there is no God, then Glen is correct and we need to base our ethics on a humanist logic and nothing else. If there is a God, and his word can be trusted, then our ethics should be based on these. It’s a matter of which worldview is correct. And the Christian worldview still holds some sway in our community.

I don’t have all the answers on Australian geology. But Tas Walker is not a bad place to start for a creationist point of view. Tas has worked with coal in the electricity industry, and this is his website: http://biblicalgeology.net/