Difference between revisions of "Talk:Creation scientist"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:::Not so sure about that. I think the reasoning is more that since the Bible (as they interpret it) is true, good science ought to agree with it. Therefore, it ought to be possible to come up with a coherent, scientific model of, say, a young Earth. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | :::Not so sure about that. I think the reasoning is more that since the Bible (as they interpret it) is true, good science ought to agree with it. Therefore, it ought to be possible to come up with a coherent, scientific model of, say, a young Earth. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
::::Interesting possibility. You should add it to the article as an alternative perspective, like, "Alternately," or something.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | ::::Interesting possibility. You should add it to the article as an alternative perspective, like, "Alternately," or something.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Can anyone name a creation scientist?--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 01:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 05:45, March 21, 2007
This "syllogism" is fairly ridiculous, but since it is a true description of the topic, it should not be altered. I say ridiculous, because the Bible is a matter of Faith, not verifiable facts. Turing the hot light of scientific inquiry on the Bible would be disastrous for the Book.
Palmd001 10:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
- Can we have some citations for the syllogism? I'd think the stated conclusion was actually a premise for many creationists. Tsumetai 10:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
- I agree that the Bible is a matter of faith; creation scientists seem to disagree, seeking to prove the conclusion by science instead. Isn't that their whole raison d'etre?--AmesG 10:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
- Not so sure about that. I think the reasoning is more that since the Bible (as they interpret it) is true, good science ought to agree with it. Therefore, it ought to be possible to come up with a coherent, scientific model of, say, a young Earth. Tsumetai 10:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
- Interesting possibility. You should add it to the article as an alternative perspective, like, "Alternately," or something.--AmesG 10:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
- Not so sure about that. I think the reasoning is more that since the Bible (as they interpret it) is true, good science ought to agree with it. Therefore, it ought to be possible to come up with a coherent, scientific model of, say, a young Earth. Tsumetai 10:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Can anyone name a creation scientist?--Eljoe2 01:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)