2,732
edits
Changes
no edit summary
: 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)
: 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)
I mean, I agree with you, but then doesn't a scientific creationism abandon the young earth thing altogether?-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 19:32, 6 May 2007 (EDT)