Difference between revisions of "Talk:Young Earth Creationism"
(→Craters: Two replies to MetcalfeM) |
|||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] | [[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] | ||
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST) | : Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | And what did you make of that site? | ||
| + | [[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] | ||
Revision as of 02:34, January 23, 2008
| ! | Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism. Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop. |
15. Too few Supernovas
This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. Learn together 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. Conservative 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
- Glad I could help. ;-) Learn together 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. Conservative 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Dates
Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. JazzMan 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite
I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. Philip J. Rayment 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
- Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. Conservative 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
- See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. Philip J. Rayment 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
Links
Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Longitude (talk)
- An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. Philip J. Rayment 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Craters
Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula? MetcalfeM
- What's the "issue"? Philip J. Rayment 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth? MetcalfeM
- That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([1] see under "Signs of desperation").
- If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
- Philip J. Rayment 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)
You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
MetcalfeM
- Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm suggesting (not claiming) that most of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.
Have any of you YECers ever looked here? http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm MetcalfeM
- Yes, I've looked at the site before. Philip J. Rayment 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)
And what did you make of that site? MetcalfeM