>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of george murphy
>Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 6:01 AM
>bivalve wrote:
>
>> The Westminster Confession of Faith appeals to the "light of nature"
>> (as well as many arguments from Scripture) to support the contention
>> that transubstantiation is incorrect. This use of physical evidence
>> to support a less literalistic interpretation seems like a good
>> parallel for the appeal to physical evidence in interpreting Genesis
>> 1. My only attempt so far at applying this reasoning had an already
>> unreceptive audience, so I cannot tell if it is likely to sway others.
>
> This is an interesting analogy. I had not thought of this before
>but there is some similarity between transsubstantiation and "apparent
>age" arguments for YEC. In fact it might be possible to cast the latter
>in Aristotelian form by saying that the substance of creation is ~6000
>years old but that its accidents give the appearance of billions of years
>of age.
George, isn't this just a gussied up version of the appearance of age
argument? What is the difference between that and what Henry Morris says?
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 09 2002 - 15:01:28 EDT