378
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 140:
Line 140: + − +
→This is supposed to be about the Book of Genesis
:::::Is research by critics acceptable? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Is research by critics acceptable? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Which research? I put it in my previous message: research that is the most relevant and accurate. Yes, that can be from both sides, but it should be from experts, not amateur bibliosceptics (for example). Other than being an evangelical atheist with qualifications in scientific fields, I don't know what justification there is for including Richard Dawkins as an authority in the [[Conservapedia talk:Alleged Bible contradictions]] page, for example. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Which research? I put it in my previous message: research that is the most relevant and accurate. Yes, that can be from both sides, but it should be from experts, not amateur bibliosceptics (for example). Other than being an evangelical atheist with qualifications in scientific fields, I don't know what justification there is for including Richard Dawkins as an authority in the [[Conservapedia talk:Alleged Bible contradictions]] page, for example. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::He isn't quoted as an 'authority', merely as a scholar. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
== The Fourth Day ==
== The Fourth Day ==