|
I reject the position that it's "Old Earth vs. Young Earth", because it unfairly puts the belief that Earth is only 6000 years old on the same level as rational thought.
The unverifiable, inaccurate, archaic theory proposed by Genesis is not supported by other texts of the time period or any celestial research since. When something like this runs aground against the massive flood of observable, verifiable, peer-reviewed scientific research, it should never be equated in a way that implies identical credibility.
It's acceptable to believe in a "young earth," so long as one is aware of the inherent credibility difference.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
Last edited by Jinn; 03-23-2009 at 10:33 AM..
|