1,161
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: + − +
no edit summary
:No, it's implied through the rest of the article. It's not irrelevant because God created it, He deserves the the credit. We are privileged to be able to study and figure out different aspects of His creation. That's what science is, the study of God's creation. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:No, it's implied through the rest of the article. It's not irrelevant because God created it, He deserves the the credit. We are privileged to be able to study and figure out different aspects of His creation. That's what science is, the study of God's creation. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::Sigh. It is still not proven that God did create the Universe (The Bible does not count as proof). Its just as likely and provable that Xenu, Min, Ra, Thor, Mars, Vishnu or any other God you would care to think of created the Universe. So in an article about rocks for example, should we include the statement "God's Rocks" at the start of the article.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 21:20, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::Sigh. It is still not proven that God did create the Universe (The Bible does not count as proof). Its just as likely and provable that Xenu, Min, Ra, Thor, Mars, Vishnu or any other God you would care to think of created the Universe. So in an article about rocks for example, should we include the statement "God's Rocks" at the start of the article.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 21:20, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Even if they did, this is a Christian site, so one wouldn't put those anyways. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)