240
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: + + + +
no edit summary
LOL I know you're the token OEC creationist MountainDew :-). You really are in the minority, aren't you, which is sad, because you're so much more cool and reasonable.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 23:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
LOL I know you're the token OEC creationist MountainDew :-). You really are in the minority, aren't you, which is sad, because you're so much more cool and reasonable.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 23:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Please explain how on earth an article which presupposes there WAS a creation can ever have a NPOV. First of all, the term "creation" implies a creator, whereas many scientific theories of how the universe may have begun either have no definitive starting point (e.g. Steady-State), or have no preceding moments prior to the instant (see Hawking's notions about how the edge of time/space folds back to give no distinct 'creation' moment'), or there were events which preceded the 'big bang', but these occur outside conventional 4 dimensional space-time. Yes 'big bang' admittedly is a scientific theory which does have a 'creation' moment, but this theory does not comment on what might have preceded it, or whether anything might have caused such an event other than quantum vaccuum fluctuations. Where is ANY of this stuff in the article???
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 16:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
== An intresting quote ==
== An intresting quote ==