>From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
>Behalf Of george murphy
>Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 6:01 AM
>> 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
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?
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 09 2002 - 15:01:28 EDT