Difference between revisions of "Talk:Geology"
(Compromise) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
I think it would be more accurate to say Geology and Bible-based Geology. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] | I think it would be more accurate to say Geology and Bible-based Geology. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] | ||
| + | :Given that early geologists worked within a Biblical framework and the Non-biblical Geology came later, I think it would be more accurate to say Geology and Non-biblical Geology (or Anti-biblical Geology), but as far as names are concerned, I'll compromise on Auld Nick's suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 03:20, April 30, 2007
This page implies that you're an atheist if you believe the mountains of scientific research which supports plate tectonics and other foundations of geological science. The vast majority of people who know anything at all about Geology agree with the assertions found in this field of study, so while is this viewpoint marginalized? Everwill 08:45, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Hopefully, I won't get reverted, but I attempted to acknowledge the controversy, without turning this into a debate page. Conservapedia will become a laughing stock if every science is undermined to support a specific theological conclusion. Everwill 12:43, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
- This page should be divided into two parts or made into two articles:
- Old-Earth Geology
- Young Earth Geology
Auld Nick 06:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
I think it would be more accurate to say Geology and Bible-based Geology. Everwill
- Given that early geologists worked within a Biblical framework and the Non-biblical Geology came later, I think it would be more accurate to say Geology and Non-biblical Geology (or Anti-biblical Geology), but as far as names are concerned, I'll compromise on Auld Nick's suggestion. Philip J. Rayment 23:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)