Evolution Message Board - Msg: 27180240

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Greg or e who wrote (13754)	2/18/2011 8:52:19 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) of 69300

It is an assertion of my philosophic naturalism that I require the physical universe to make sense. Internal consistency is a maxim to which I subscribe, like Occam's Razor. Floating axe heads do not fit into my concept of the universe. Nor does a planetwide flood or (...). When I am faced with the choice of trying to contort my understanding of nature into a book that I'm told is the baseline of all truth ... or deciding that the book got some things wrong, I strongly gravitate toward option B. Is any of this a proof? Obviously not. There is a huge difference between asserting and teaching. To assert means "I submit the following for discussion." To teach means "Listen to the truth as I know it." The planetwide flood didn't happen. That is something I can safely present as fact. Genesis speaks of it as historical fact. How then am I to still accept the text as inerrant? It's like a crossword puzzle with a mistake in it. There is no way to square it except to move the mistake around the board. Fact: Inerrancy requires contortion of reason. Subjective response: I cannot in good conscience subscribe to it.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next