Difference between revisions of "Talk:Permian"
From Conservapedia
(→who were they?: Yes, but the question is loaded.) |
(→who were they?) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::::Do you accept that there can be people who accept Jesus Christ as Lord without those people also rejecting every scientific theory that contradicts [[young Earth creation]]? Many of these models help to understand how God's creation works, whether it was actually created yesterday, 6000 Y.A. or millions of years ago. There's apparently a Creation Wiki for people who can't see past that. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 18:50, 31 May 2007 (EDT) | ::::Do you accept that there can be people who accept Jesus Christ as Lord without those people also rejecting every scientific theory that contradicts [[young Earth creation]]? Many of these models help to understand how God's creation works, whether it was actually created yesterday, 6000 Y.A. or millions of years ago. There's apparently a Creation Wiki for people who can't see past that. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 18:50, 31 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
:::::I accept that there are many Christians who believe the atheistic origins myth which is contrary to the Bible. I alluded to that in my previous comment. But if a scientific model helps to understand how God's creation works ''regardless of when it was created'', how does it contradict young-Earth creation? That sounds very close to the anti-creationist lie that creationists reject science. And I've yet to see any ideas that contradict young-Earth creation that can justifiably be called a scientific theory. Generally they are just-so stories about the past. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:31, 31 May 2007 (EDT) | :::::I accept that there are many Christians who believe the atheistic origins myth which is contrary to the Bible. I alluded to that in my previous comment. But if a scientific model helps to understand how God's creation works ''regardless of when it was created'', how does it contradict young-Earth creation? That sounds very close to the anti-creationist lie that creationists reject science. And I've yet to see any ideas that contradict young-Earth creation that can justifiably be called a scientific theory. Generally they are just-so stories about the past. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:31, 31 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::::::The article as it stands appears to divide the world (or at least scientists) into "secular" and "Young Earth creationist", then document the tension between them. "Conservative" is not the same as "Young Earth Creationist", neither is "Christian". The title is "Permian", so that should be the focus of the article. The lead section should describe Permian without reference to any "side" of an argument. I think the first two paragraphs are neutral and accepted by all parties. The rest appears to be rather partisan. I think I'll have a go at cleaning it up. Please check that I don't misrepresent either side, but please try to avoid reinserting any bias or division I manage to reduce. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:39, 1 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 14:39, June 1, 2007
who were they?
The article says that the uniformitarian dates were assigned by secular geologists. Since we know their religious position, could they please be named and linked so we can go and read more about these people? --Scott 10:54, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
- The dates have changed considerably over the last couple of centuries, so there are a number of different people involved. "Secular" may not be the ideal word, but assigning these dates indicates that they have ignored if not rejected the Biblical timescale, which makes "secular" pretty close to the mark. Philip J. Rayment 11:07, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
- What about dropping the adjective completely? Surely there are Christian geologists who use the dates, even if they didn't invent them. --Scott 11:09, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
- Even though there are Christian geologists who use the dates (contradicting the book they profess to believe), the point is that the dates are based on a secular ideology rather than being simple, observable, facts. Philip J. Rayment 11:15, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
- Do you accept that there can be people who accept Jesus Christ as Lord without those people also rejecting every scientific theory that contradicts young Earth creation? Many of these models help to understand how God's creation works, whether it was actually created yesterday, 6000 Y.A. or millions of years ago. There's apparently a Creation Wiki for people who can't see past that. --Scott 18:50, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
- I accept that there are many Christians who believe the atheistic origins myth which is contrary to the Bible. I alluded to that in my previous comment. But if a scientific model helps to understand how God's creation works regardless of when it was created, how does it contradict young-Earth creation? That sounds very close to the anti-creationist lie that creationists reject science. And I've yet to see any ideas that contradict young-Earth creation that can justifiably be called a scientific theory. Generally they are just-so stories about the past. Philip J. Rayment 22:31, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
- The article as it stands appears to divide the world (or at least scientists) into "secular" and "Young Earth creationist", then document the tension between them. "Conservative" is not the same as "Young Earth Creationist", neither is "Christian". The title is "Permian", so that should be the focus of the article. The lead section should describe Permian without reference to any "side" of an argument. I think the first two paragraphs are neutral and accepted by all parties. The rest appears to be rather partisan. I think I'll have a go at cleaning it up. Please check that I don't misrepresent either side, but please try to avoid reinserting any bias or division I manage to reduce. --Scott 10:39, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
- I accept that there are many Christians who believe the atheistic origins myth which is contrary to the Bible. I alluded to that in my previous comment. But if a scientific model helps to understand how God's creation works regardless of when it was created, how does it contradict young-Earth creation? That sounds very close to the anti-creationist lie that creationists reject science. And I've yet to see any ideas that contradict young-Earth creation that can justifiably be called a scientific theory. Generally they are just-so stories about the past. Philip J. Rayment 22:31, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
- Do you accept that there can be people who accept Jesus Christ as Lord without those people also rejecting every scientific theory that contradicts young Earth creation? Many of these models help to understand how God's creation works, whether it was actually created yesterday, 6000 Y.A. or millions of years ago. There's apparently a Creation Wiki for people who can't see past that. --Scott 18:50, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
- Even though there are Christian geologists who use the dates (contradicting the book they profess to believe), the point is that the dates are based on a secular ideology rather than being simple, observable, facts. Philip J. Rayment 11:15, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
- What about dropping the adjective completely? Surely there are Christian geologists who use the dates, even if they didn't invent them. --Scott 11:09, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
