Talk:Galaxy

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ajkgordon (Talk | contribs) at 11:55, September 21, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

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)

if there were facts to support the abandonment ... Ungtss 19:36, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

No critisism allowed?! And this tries to be an "encyclopedia"... --Aulis Eskola 20:26, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservative viewpoint

As a person with many conservative tendencies and views, I am dismayed at the quality of this article. That the first (and only) major section deals with the YEC view is not representative of most conservatives' views. If Conservapedia is for the consumption of YEC conservatives only then I suppose that's fair. But that's very restricting as it's only a small minority of conservatives. This article should present the facts that we know for sure about galaxies, then and only then talk about the theological positions of a minority of conservatives. i.e. YEC. You are simply ensuring that most conservatives won't take this site seriously. Ajkgordon 13:05, 20 September 2007 (EDT)