614
edits
Changes
no edit summary
Your rebuttal goes against biblical literalism: if the universe was created in 7 24-hour days, yet the stars are older than 6,000 years... one of those days was very, very long, then.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 19:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Your rebuttal goes against biblical literalism: if the universe was created in 7 24-hour days, yet the stars are older than 6,000 years... one of those days was very, very long, then.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 19:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
: there are two parts to the rebuttal -- the first goes to logic, not literalism. the second goes against strict innerancy and literalism, but not the substance of Genesis, nor creationism as a whole. a scientific creationism must be committed to truth, not text. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 19:30, 6 May 2007 (EDT)