nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 186:
Line 186: − +
Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally? (view source)
Revision as of 13:38, January 24, 2008
, 13:38, January 24, 2008→But What is really important here?: Clarification
{{unsigned|AdamB}}
{{unsigned|AdamB}}
:I totally reject that science has disproved creation in six days. Perhaps you could explain to me how it has done this?
:I totally reject that science has disproved creation in six days [the word "supposedly" was added later]. Perhaps you could explain to me how it has done this?
:I agree that the scientific account of creation supports a creator—that's what creation science is all about!
:I agree that the scientific account of creation supports a creator—that's what creation science is all about!
:Although the Big Bang theory does propose a beginning, it does not propose that the universe was created by God. It proposes that nothing became something for no reason.
:Although the Big Bang theory does propose a beginning, it does not propose that the universe was created by God. It proposes that nothing became something for no reason.