Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (41288)	6/21/1999 12:21:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 108807

I did respond to what you said Sorry, but you didn't. For example: Where did I ever talk about Noah and the ark in my post? Nowhere. So why do you charge me with So are you seriously saying that it is scientifically logical that two of every animal was saved from disaster in the Ark, when I never mentioned the Ark? As to the bible, I said that "Genesis is a mythical rendering of this progress, valid in its essential elements but put into mythical terms.." If you wanted to understand instead of challenge, you would have recognized that there is good scientific evidence for a major flooding period back in human history, and that the story of the Ark is a mythological recognition of this. One can hardly expect accurate history to pass down through times when there was no written record. You also charge that and that you don't believe that radio carbon dating is accurate, when I said absolutely no such thing. I said that under evolutionary creationism, as I understand it, the process of evolution as directed by God did indeed take many, many years, which is entirely consistent with carbon dating. You then go on to say These are the things the creationists believe in... Which means you really didn't read my post. Because I made clear that I am not a creationist. (Nor am I an evolutionist, nor am I a evolutionary creationist; I don't know which is accurate, but believe the either one could be.) Indeed, I SPECIFICALLY said "Not that I necessarily agree with them [the evolutionary creationists]." I will repeat my point one more time to see whether you can understand it. There is a theory of evolution, which denies any involvement of God or any other supernatural or mystical being. There are the creationists, who claim that the Bible is the Truth, and that all the theory of evolution is wrong. Then there are the evolutionary creationists, who are happy to accept the scientific findings of evolution, the carbon dating (recognizing its limits), and all, and simply say that this is the way God chose to create the world, and that the Biblical story viewed as myth is as accurate a description of the process as we can expect from a discussion of things that happened long before there was written language. What is of interest to me is that the more scientists study the biblical stories, when they treat them as long-passed-on oral records finally written down, the more truth they find there. Like the apparent discovery of the bones of the Ark. Like the findings of a great flood. The Bible is not history as much as legend, but there can be great truth in legend. (Look at the discovery of Troy.) now I will ignore your posts, Since you threatened that before, but didn't stop posting, I don't take that very seriously this time, either. Though I have my hopes. (Gee, what was that? A flash of a sense of humor? Couldn't be; after all, you charge that You have obviously utterly lost your sense of humor. And since you are perfect in all respects (egad, more humor? Say not so!) obviously I have utterly lost it. Hehehehehe