Difference between revisions of "Talk:Galaxy"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
: 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)

Revision as of 18:32, 6 May 2007

It has been pointed out that since YEC doesn't even adequately explain how the light from distant galaxies is supposed to have reached the Earth in less than 10,000 years, any criticism Creationists make of conventional theories is rather moot.

This is a non-sensical statement. A criticism of one theory is not rendered moot by the inability of the critics to provide a comprehensive alternative theory. The criticism remains valid -- it is just equally applicable to both theories. Just because I can't explain how life came from non-life doesn't mean my criticisms of another theory are no good. It means that we need to all admit that we just don't know.
Besides that, creationists can easily provide an explanation for the light "problem" -- that the universe is older than 10k years, but the Earth was made habitable 10k years ago.
Is it appropriate to provide a rebuttal to this nonsensical "criticism?" Ungtss 19:23, 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.-AmesGyo! 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. 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?-AmesGyo! 19:32, 6 May 2007 (EDT)