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.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (13829)	2/21/2011 6:17:02 PM
From: average joe	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Noone knows... urbandictionary.com

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (13829)	2/22/2011 2:35:18 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

<<<I wouldn't use it as a foil against inerrancy.>>> "That's OK; I took the job. (grin)" That's good but what I meant was that I don't consider your objections to inerrancy based on your assumptions about Noah's flood to be conclusive. "Using the Biblical scholarly community's own definitions of inerrancy v. infallibility, the flood makes a compelling case imo. Inerrancy requires a global flood." No: Actually you cited only one side of the scholarly argument but there is another. BTW It's not inerrant vs infallible, it's both. ‘Infallible’ signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe and reliable rule and guide in all matters. Similarly, ‘inerrant’ signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions. We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of his penman’s milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise. So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed." 65.175.91.69 "The land, using the elements of geography and geology, excludes such an event." There is no way to know for certain how high the mountains were at the time of the flood. Using extrapolations based on the unproven assumptions of uniformitarianism are a guess at best. Likewise it's difficult to say exactly what results one would expect to see from the relatively short term event as described in the bible. Two thirds of the planet is covered in water NOW, with much more locked in polar ice caps. Melt those and combine that with certain tectonic shifts and there is more than enough water to cover the entire planet. Push the plates around some more, freeze a bunch or water at the poles and you have new continents and new mountain ranges. How long would that take? I don't really know but neither do you