Talk:Old Earth creationism/Archive1

Please dont dismiss sincerely held views
I note that in this article you simply dismiss what you call “Gap Creationism” without giving any Evidence for you dismissal. I would have thought that in a “Rational” site this would be Important! Furthermore you make no reference to the Real Source of Truth – the Holy Bible. Are you not Aware that there are many things that science in its so-called “wisdom” still Does Not Know – and Will Never Know? My Faith tells me that Christianity is the only way to obtain Real Knowledge of the Unknowable. Might I suggest that all such articles have two versions – one the soulless “scientific” version and another based on the Faith generated from the True Words of the Bible?
 * Sorry, my rationality muscles get a cramp when I read FAITH as a reason for anything. SusanG 13:46, 8 April 2008 (EDT)#
 * Faith has helped many poor Souls, and you should not Dismis it, so easily. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 78.47.210.76 / talk / contribs
 * It's harmed more than it's helped! SusanG 13:52, 8 April 2008 (EDT)


 * Is faith supposed to be used as a substitute for thinking? "science is wrong, this I know, for the bible tells me so!"  --Huey gunna getcha 14:08, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
 * You're not a scientist, Huey. I think scientists are more authoritative about science issues than law students. SHahB 14:13, 8 April 2008 (EDT)


 * Hmm, seems like one of the great moments in "missing the point" history. --72.33.93.120 14:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
 * How can one posibly know if faith has helped more than it has harmed? Some have Faith in the wrong religions (although that is not true faith) Christian Faith can only help. tolerence
 * Tolerence 14:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT) That's quite clever. thanks Susan.Tolerence 14:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Faith isn't what you're looking for, here, Tolerance. It's the altruistic elements of religion - agape, ahimsa, and all that - that have done good. Faith is dangerous, though - remember that, say, the Crusaders had faith in the rightness of their cause. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום

Hi and welcome to Rationalwiki - why don't you create an account here so you can log in and continue the debate more easily? We welcome your thoughts, although we may disagree with them. As to your points - a) Actually, you might have missed the part of the article that says "there is zero geological evidence for any of this".   If you have new geological evidence for the theory of Gap Creationism, please let us know about it, as we welcome challenges to theories;   b)  I would ask you consider the dichotomy in your argument when you ask science for evidence to dismiss the theory, while you seem to be satisfied with Faith as evidence for the theory? Can you see how that is an impossible position to argue from?;  c)  there is an inherent weakness in your argument, which seems to be that "it's true because it's in the Bible" - excuse me if I'm not interpreting you correctly.   I'm sure you can understand that that is not evidence at all?  Please respond and let us know what you think.   DogP  15:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
 * the part of Gap creationism which is not explained is this. God creates the Heaven and the Earth. As long ago as you like.  He createes diansaurs and such like. Satan rebells and the earth is destroyed and the dinasaurs are fosilized.  Later - much later - he recreates the Earth with Adam and EVe.  Mankind rebells and God sends the Flood - more fossils and some more extinctions.  All this in the fosil record. Lots of evidence.Tolerence 15:49, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Words Fail Me! SusanG 15:53, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
 * I mean this in the nicest way possible, even if the following sounds a little blunt. What evidence?  Seriously though, provide/explain your evidence, and then your assertion can be verified. --Arcan   ¡ollǝɥ  16:00, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
 * It's all in that book,you know - the one written by Bronze age/iron age tribesmen. SusanG 16:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Tolerence, perhaps you're not familiar with what is considered good evidence. A section of a book, written anything up to 14,000 years ago, by an unknown number of authors who were recounting what may or may not have been told to them by voices in their heads, and has since undergone numerous translations, retranslations, and reinterpretations, isn't exactly considered 'reliable' in scientific circles. Zmidponk 16:15, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

remarkable
I have to admit that, somewhat remarkably, this article is better than the one over at your opposition.Tolerance 16:04, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
 * You can say "Conservapedia" without getting banned here. And why would you expect otherwise? --Shagie 16:33, 15 April 2008 (EDT)