87
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 20:
Line 20: +
Talk:Old Earth Creationism (view source)
Revision as of 14:58, April 20, 2008
, 14:58, April 20, 2008→Age of the Earth
:::::::I would say that anyone glancing at this site would say that it supports ID rather than Biblical Literalism. As to no conflict I'm not so sure. ID includes (at least according to its main proponent, Behe) Common Descent and long atheistic timescales which would have the Dinosaurs extinct well before humanity. I, of course, believe that they died in the Gap - but I'm frankly surprised that you accept it here without objection.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 12:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I would say that anyone glancing at this site would say that it supports ID rather than Biblical Literalism. As to no conflict I'm not so sure. ID includes (at least according to its main proponent, Behe) Common Descent and long atheistic timescales which would have the Dinosaurs extinct well before humanity. I, of course, believe that they died in the Gap - but I'm frankly surprised that you accept it here without objection.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 12:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: What false impressions people might get from a ''glance'' at the site is beside the point. ID (usually?) ''assumes'' common descent, long ages, etc., but I believe that I'm right in saying that they are not what ID is about. ID's point is to argue that there is evidence of design, not to argue for common descent or long ages; the latter are merely the background framework into which ID is set. Yes, YEC disagrees on those particular points, but not on ID itself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:42, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: What false impressions people might get from a ''glance'' at the site is beside the point. ID (usually?) ''assumes'' common descent, long ages, etc., but I believe that I'm right in saying that they are not what ID is about. ID's point is to argue that there is evidence of design, not to argue for common descent or long ages; the latter are merely the background framework into which ID is set. Yes, YEC disagrees on those particular points, but not on ID itself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:42, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::Well yes, ID most certainly does argue for evidence of design - but it also argues for "evidence" of common descent and long time scales. It's all based on what they call "evidence". But isn't it wrong two out of three? Anyway, I've got to edit some more articles.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 10:58, 20 April 2008 (EDT)