767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: + + + + +
no edit summary
I think it would be more accurate to say Geology and Bible-based Geology. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]
I think it would be more accurate to say Geology and Bible-based Geology. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]
:Given that early geologists worked within a Biblical framework and the Non-biblical Geology came later, I think it would be more accurate to say Geology and Non-biblical Geology (or Anti-biblical Geology), but as far as names are concerned, I'll compromise on Auld Nick's suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Given that early geologists worked within a Biblical framework and the Non-biblical Geology came later, I think it would be more accurate to say Geology and Non-biblical Geology (or Anti-biblical Geology), but as far as names are concerned, I'll compromise on Auld Nick's suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::It's scary just how quickly this page has turned into some kind of theological rant. Additionally, the musings under the "How Old is the Earth" are not supported by credible references, and in some cases the references are broken links.
::I would defend any man's right to believe the Earth is any age which might fit his philosophy, but this is like something which would seem familiar to [[Galileo Galilei]]. Galileo doesn't have a page? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)