Difference between revisions of "Talk:Date of creation"

Revision as of 03:12, May 1, 2007

!

Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism. Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.

Good NPOV article as it stands! This is the first neutral treatment of a YEC topic I have yet seen. Wowzers. That said, I just have to comment on how ridiculous the idea of a 4004 bc creation date is. We have Egyptian mummies from 8,000 B.C.!-AmesG_yo! 23:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't forget that YEC's may not accept dating methods used by archaeologists. --Ed Poor 23:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I am the token OEC here... MountainDew 23:30, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

The linked article points two two different variants of OEC. There is the "the original 6 days are metaphorical and can be billions of years" and there is the "it was 6x 24 hour days, but with the abridgment of the lineage, it could be thousands of years between significant events than the genealogy would suggest" --Mtur 23:33, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

LOL I know you're the token OEC creationist MountainDew :-). You really are in the minority, aren't you, which is sad, because you're so much more cool and reasonable.-AmesG_yo! 23:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Please explain how on earth an article which presupposes there WAS a creation can ever have a NPOV. First of all, the term "creation" implies a creator, whereas many scientific theories of how the universe may have begun either have no definitive starting point (e.g. Steady-State), or have no preceding moments prior to the instant (see Hawking's notions about how the edge of time/space folds back to give no distinct 'creation' moment'), or there were events which preceded the 'big bang', but these occur outside conventional 4 dimensional space-time. Yes 'big bang' admittedly is a scientific theory which does have a 'creation' moment, but this theory does not comment on what might have preceded it, or whether anything might have caused such an event other than quantum vaccuum fluctuations. Where is ANY of this stuff in the article???

--CatWatcher 16:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's only had this title for a week or so. It is clearly talking primarily about the Biblical record of creation, not other "creation" events, so perhaps there is a case for renaming it to reflect that. Philip J. Rayment 22:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

An intresting quote

I find this quote interesting:

"In a word, the Scriptural data leave us wholly without guidance in estimating the time which elapsed between the creation of the world and the deluge and between the deluge and the call of Abraham. So far as the Scripture assertions are concerned, we may suppose any length of time to have intervened between these events which may otherwise appear reasonable. The question of the antiquity of man is accordingly a purely scientific one, in which the theologian as such has no concern." Comments of B.B. Warfield on Dr. Green

--Mtur 23:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

One wonders how he missed the chronogenealogies in Genesis to make a statement like that. Philip J. Rayment 11:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

II Peter 3:8: 'One day is with the LORD as a thousand years...' --Petrus 11:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

And the rest of the verse: '...and a thousand years is as one day.' That just cancelled that out. Philip J. Rayment 11:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

American Time

Since you are pro-american, you should use an america based timezone

--Stitch75 19:43, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Heh heh. The article as it currently stands was largely written by me, and I'm an Aussie, so I don't agree! I could give a serious reply or two, but I presume that wasn't meant as a serious comments, so I won't. Philip J. Rayment 05:20, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Secular Science

"Based mainly on geological dating methods, however, secular scientific research generally dates the formation of the Earth to around 4.5 billion (4.5 * 109) years ago."

Isn't saying 'secular science' redundant? GodlessLiberal 17:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely not, given that (a) modern science owes its existence to a Christian worldview, and (b) not all scientists are secular. Philip J. Rayment 11:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Regardless of a scientist's religious convictions, wouldn't all research be secular? How can you research the supernatural? GodlessLiberal 13:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't want to get into an argument on semantics and whether it is exactly the correct term, but there is a difference between refusing to consider a supernatural cause and allowing for a supernatural cause. You can't measure/test/observe the supernatural, but you can deduce a supernatural cause and observe the effects of a supernatural cause. Philip J. Rayment 22:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I just thought that measure/test/observe was just about the entire basis of the scientific method. I've been known to pull B's in science classes though, so I could be wrong here. GodlessLiberal 22:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, measuring, testing, and observing are the basis of the scientific method. But we are talking about origins science here. See origins science in science. Philip J. Rayment 23:12, 30 April 2007 (EDT)