nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 17:
Line 17: +
Talk:Old Earth Creationism (view source)
Revision as of 15:57, April 19, 2008
, 15:57, April 19, 2008→Age of the Earth: Interesting question, but ID is not anti-Christian.
:::: Yes, I realise that some quote that verse, but fail to quote the rest of it ("and a thousand years is as a day"). Also, it says that a day is ''as'' a thousand years, not a day ''is'' a thousand years. Further, the word translated "day" in Genesis cannot, in context, mean anything other than an ordinary day (see [[Creation week]]). I'm glad that you started the article on the Gap theory and expanded some other articles, as our coverage of them was lacking, but really, the YEC view is the only one that actually fits what the Bible says, so this encyclopedia is not going to treat other views as though they have equal validity. (I accept that the first part of that last sentence you might well not agree with, but I'm prepared to back that up.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, I realise that some quote that verse, but fail to quote the rest of it ("and a thousand years is as a day"). Also, it says that a day is ''as'' a thousand years, not a day ''is'' a thousand years. Further, the word translated "day" in Genesis cannot, in context, mean anything other than an ordinary day (see [[Creation week]]). I'm glad that you started the article on the Gap theory and expanded some other articles, as our coverage of them was lacking, but really, the YEC view is the only one that actually fits what the Bible says, so this encyclopedia is not going to treat other views as though they have equal validity. (I accept that the first part of that last sentence you might well not agree with, but I'm prepared to back that up.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::I fully agree that some form of creationism is the only valid way to see the world. But if this encyclopedia is really going to follow true Christian values, why is the concept of Intelligent Design given so much space? I recently posted a comment about Christian values on the "expelled" article and it was removed in short order. From what you tell me above, Gap Theory - whether you accept it or not - is a lot closer to the truth than ID is, yet ID has vastly more supportive text than the Creationism article. Why should this be? I am genuinely confused. [[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:31, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::I fully agree that some form of creationism is the only valid way to see the world. But if this encyclopedia is really going to follow true Christian values, why is the concept of Intelligent Design given so much space? I recently posted a comment about Christian values on the "expelled" article and it was removed in short order. From what you tell me above, Gap Theory - whether you accept it or not - is a lot closer to the truth than ID is, yet ID has vastly more supportive text than the Creationism article. Why should this be? I am genuinely confused. [[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:31, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Interesting question! I don't agree, though, that the Gap Theory is closer to the truth than ID. But it depends on how you understand ID. ID, I would say, is merely an attempt to show scientifically that there is evidence of design. That's it. Sure, some ID people believe in an old universe, and some ID people believe in some form of evolution, and ID doesn't make any claims about who the designer is, but at its core, it's simply a scientific attempt to show evidence of design. In that sense, it is ''not inconsistent'' with the Bible at all, as the Gap Theory is. ID is not "Christian", but it is not ''anti-Christian'' either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)