Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
1,036 bytes added ,  21:05, October 24, 2011
Line 55: Line 55:  
::::::Passing scientific fads? The basis of scientific thought today, outside of creation science, is that the Earth is older than 4 billion years. So dismissing them is either a willful dismissal for several of the key theories that make up our understanding of the universe, how it works, and how it came into being out of hand; or simply a dismissal of these as contrary to what the author wishes to believe. It seems Conservative is saying it is the latter, as they are wrong simply because they are secular. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 12:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
 
::::::Passing scientific fads? The basis of scientific thought today, outside of creation science, is that the Earth is older than 4 billion years. So dismissing them is either a willful dismissal for several of the key theories that make up our understanding of the universe, how it works, and how it came into being out of hand; or simply a dismissal of these as contrary to what the author wishes to believe. It seems Conservative is saying it is the latter, as they are wrong simply because they are secular. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 12:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
 
:::::::So you're saying the author should not believe in God at all?  We have to believe in these scientific theories without question or criticism?  We have to accept them as fact, regardless of conflicting evidence?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
 
:::::::So you're saying the author should not believe in God at all?  We have to believe in these scientific theories without question or criticism?  We have to accept them as fact, regardless of conflicting evidence?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
 +
JohnPaul, you wrote: "The basis of scientific thought today, outside of creation science, is that the Earth is older than 4 billion years."  You are either not being truthful or you are seriously deceived. Any cursory review of the history of science shows the scientific opinion about the age of the earth has changed multiple times and all the while this was occurring there was plenty of scientific progress which was going on. Plus, there is plenty of science that occurs where the age of the earth is irrelevant to the investigation at hand. Plus, you seriously need a better understanding between mere opinion and fact. For example, it is fact that scientific opinion has changed multiple times about the age of the earth. Now you may say that now it is "near fact" about the age of the earth being whatever age is fashionable now among some scientific circle, but given your previously illogical attitude please don't expect people to kowtow to your pronouncement. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:05, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,650

edits

Navigation menu