Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth (view source)

Revision as of 16:14, June 2, 2010

684 bytes added ,  16:14, June 2, 2010
→‎Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory: No mathematician would claim that if one proof is defective then an alternative proof must be correct.
Line 159: Line 159:     
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)
 
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)
 +
 +
::: Frank, you repeatedly reason in an "either-or" manner, as though the only two possibilities are the [[Old Earth]] and your view of [[creationism]].  That's not logical or scientific.  Both could be wrong.  No mathematician would claim that if one proof is defective then an alternative proof must be correct.
 +
 +
::: If the Ice Age theory provided a plausible explanation for the Great Lakes and other observed formations (such as the Mississippi bluffs), then a computer simulation would be easy to build.  But it hasn't been done, which suggests that the Ice Age theory is implausible in explaining all that is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:14, 2 June 2010 (EDT)
Aschlafly
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,273

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/784180"

Navigation menu