157
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 70:
Line 70: + +
→Reason for rollback
I rolled back the edit of the correct statement that supporters of evolution and an old earth were the first to propose a (massive) Ice Age. That is factually true and should not be deleted. I'll find a reference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
I rolled back the edit of the correct statement that supporters of evolution and an old earth were the first to propose a (massive) Ice Age. That is factually true and should not be deleted. I'll find a reference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: Andy, I'm a geologist and don't consider evolution to be linked to geology. I can see that someone trying to espouse a particular doctrine might try and link the two but scientifically they should remain separate. [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 18:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: Andy, I'm a geologist and don't consider evolution to be linked to geology. I can see that someone trying to espouse a particular doctrine might try and link the two but scientifically they should remain separate. [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 18:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:I see you posted a reference to Charles Lyell as support of the evolutionist support for an Ice Age. Yet [[Louis Agassiz]] was the main proponent and he was firmly anti-evolution. Lyell was a reluctant convert to evolution as he was a steady-statist and he was also a late convert to glaciation as it went against his steady state hypothesis. So to use Lyell as the sole justification for stating that ice-ages are related to evolution when there are creationists who believe in an ice age after the flood seems disingenuous. [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)