Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
3 bytes added ,  23:53, November 28, 2007
m
Line 401: Line 401:  
::::: The real question, therefore, is essentially what He ''did'' do, or more specifically, can the evidence be understood as Him creating everything (including time) billions of years ago.  The biblical answer is a definite "no", and the true scientific answer is "this is beyond the realm of science, because it's history and not observable, testable, nor repeatable".  So with one answer "no" and the other a non-answer, there's no "yes" there at all.
 
::::: The real question, therefore, is essentially what He ''did'' do, or more specifically, can the evidence be understood as Him creating everything (including time) billions of years ago.  The biblical answer is a definite "no", and the true scientific answer is "this is beyond the realm of science, because it's history and not observable, testable, nor repeatable".  So with one answer "no" and the other a non-answer, there's no "yes" there at all.
 
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 28 November 2007 (EST)
−
::::::First, history is a science, and just because something is in the past, doesn't mean that it beyond the realm of science. All observable facts are in the past, and it hasn't stopped science. The biblical answer depends on your interpretation, and with you interpretation the answer is "no". But, it happens to be the case that at least 60% of Americans do not share you interpretation. And this regardless of whether any of these interpretation is true.  
+
::::::First, history is a science, and just because something is in the past, doesn't mean that it beyond the realm of science. All observable facts are in the past, and it hasn't stopped science. The biblical answer depends on your interpretation, and with your interpretation the answer is "no". But, it happens to be the case that at least 60% of Americans do not share your interpretation. And this regardless of whether any of these interpretations is true.  
 
::::::Anyway the real question was how strong the correlation between atheism and an old view. And a secondary question was is an old earth view implies atheism. And the correlation isn't that big, and you can combine an old world view with theism, and people prove it every day.  [[User:Order|Order]] 09:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 
::::::Anyway the real question was how strong the correlation between atheism and an old view. And a secondary question was is an old earth view implies atheism. And the correlation isn't that big, and you can combine an old world view with theism, and people prove it every day.  [[User:Order|Order]] 09:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
  
2,002

edits

Navigation menu