If it was really a revealed truth as opposed to perceived truth, then young earthers wouldnt have 10 different interpretations of how it happened. Clearly this information about Noahs sons armada and the transport of marsupials during an ice age and the fossil succession being produced by people skinning mole rats for their fur, hasnt been revealed, otherwise young earthers would all be on the same page.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic - it is good to hear a little on others' perspectives who come from a different approach. I think revealed truth in scripture doesn't necessarily preclude the need to develop theories as to what is revealed in scripture, as in the case of Noah's flood, scripture does not provide all the details. We know it happened, why it happened, who was impacted... things like that, because God's word has revealed this, but this should be seen as a great opportunity then for science to discover the details.
I also think the central (core) theories are a little more unified and refined today with filling in some of the major components of the flood event - generally referencing things like catastrophic plate tectonics as playing a major role. We have to keep in mind too that the models around the flood are going to inherently be very difficult - nobody has seen anything on this scale... it doesn't follow uniformitarian assumptions or principles... this was a catastrophic, very volatile, multifaceted event with flooding but also the eruption of the 'fountains of the great deep'. The theories around the core events and mechanisms are more solidified and
@Calminian and I are just hypothesizing around some of the more tertiary effects of the flood. Just as in evolutionary theory where there are always numerous theories to help fill in some of the gaps, the same will be true with Noah's flood. As these ideas are tested, the flood model will continue to be refined as is the nature of scientific research... seems it may have even been you who has told me this at some point in past discussions.
And the testimony (Scripture) doesnt say any of this. If this were a real crime scene investigation, there is no way anyone could derive your proposed ideas, from a testimony of scripture. It would never stand up in court, and by default it would fall to physical evidence to clarify on the dispute between perceived ideas of what the testimony means.
Good, you are affirming that scripture in fact does not give all the details - hence opening the door for the joy of discovery. I don't know about this 'court' scenario - if the judge tells a creationist scientist to tell the truth and place their hand on the Bible, but then the judge doesn't believe what the Bible says anyway, I'd call that judge a hypocrite! The only judge whose opinion I'm concerned with is our Father in Heaven and I think it's safe to say all of us here are forever grateful for His mercy and our Defendant who has paid the price for all of which we are guilty.
Young earthers cant get the story straight because their ideas are not included in the testimony. Not by a long shot, and so its the people with hard evidence that have to come through and have to clean up behind young earthers for the messy interpretations theyve made.
What is more "hard" evidence than the Bible? Is a rock more hard? Maybe granite? Is it isochron dating? We're told in Isaiah 40:8, "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever." Genesis isn't a long run-on parable brother. God has told us our beginning, who we really are and our sinful state, our way to salvation, and even revealed our future. God bless and have a good evening/weekend if I don't get a chance to catch up until next week!
