Talk:Date of creation

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jazzman831 (Talk | contribs) at 19:32, 6 July 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

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.!-AmesGyo! 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.-AmesGyo! 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)

So... judging by the editing going on, creation scientists aren't Christian, but objective scientists are secular? Are the Conservapedia sysops trying to bait people, or do they really think that the majority of people think that way? Jazzman831 22:39, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

You have interesting logic. Changing "Christian researchers" to "creation scientist" does not mean that that latter are not Christian. And where does it say that objective scientists are secular? Or would you be reading your own beliefs into the text?
Sorry about the bracket. I didn't delete it; I just (accidentally) put it in the footnote instead of the main text.
Philip J. Rayment 04:49, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
My own beliefs? You were the one who added the word secular back in. There is absolutely no reason why a scientist who has concluded that the evidence leads to the big bang must be non Christian. And, since the creation "science" calculation is based entirely on the Bible, there is no reason to believe that a creation "scientist" isn't Christian, no?
And I didn't think the bracket got deleted I just couldn't find it anywhere! Ha ha. Jazzman831 13:01, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Failure to include information

This article suffers from an abject failure to describe the vast bodies of scientific evidence that are in support of a recent date of Creation. Is there anyone willing to take this on? --SimonA 15:52, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Anyone could do it. This includes works by Whitcomb and Morris, links to the Creation Research Institute, various others. Karajou 15:55, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Dual-user provenance

The expansion that I have just added of James Ussher's calculations of the date of creation are a dual submission of original work. I am the same user as Temlakos on CreationWiki, and the edits to the "Calculated dates" section are based on the section titled "James Ussher" in this version of the CreationWiki article titled Anno Mundi. That section is entirely my own work.--TerryHTalk 20:43, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

YEC v. OEC

Doesn't CreationWiki support both old and young earth creationism. Why is everyone so hung up on the age of the Earth. God made it, who cares how old it is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheisticEvolution (talk)

First, why don't you sign your posts? That's what the Signature button is for.
Second: What we're "hung up" on, is the truth, and exerting the best of our ability to find it. We should care how old the earth is because the Bible gives us definite clues that make sense only in the context of a young earth. You will find these clues mainly in Genesis 5 , and then in Genesis 11:10-32 . In short: the chronology and genealogy tell us that only so many years can have passed since Creation.
Now if the Bible is incorrect in this, then it would not be trustworthy in the most important thing to which only the Bible attests--and that is the nature of sin and of the need for Jesus Christ to make amends for it. (I would mention Jesus Christ Himself, except that He is in fact the Best-attested Figure in recorded history, with more references mentioning Him than any other person of historical interest.)--TerryHTalk 14:05, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
Wait, so if Genesis isn't giving us a literal timescale, then Jesus wasn't here to save us? I'm going to hold off on my criticism of that statement until I know that I interpreted your statement correctly. Jazzman831 14:17, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
Criticize all you want--but if the Bible is found in definite error on any one point, then it ceases to be trustworthy on any other point.
The Bible itself has multiple testaments to its all-or-nothing standing as regards the truth. For one thing, the phrase rendered in English "His Mercy endureth forever" actually refers not to mercy as we understand it, but to God's Word being His Bond. God is a Being of His Word. If God says that He will do a thing, He does it, and if He says that he will see a thing done, He will see it done. And as a corollary to that, if God says that a thing occurred, then it occurred--and if God went into detail, then those details are matters of fact.
Therefore, if God said that "such-a-man lived so-many years and begat such-a-son," then you can bank on it. And if God gives us a long string of years-at-birth-of-sons, then you can reliably add them up--and you can be sure that only so much time has passed since the beginning of time--at least by an earthly clock, which is the only sort of clock that need matter to us.--TerryHTalk 14:27, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
It just seems like a rather shaky way to interpret the Bible, is all. Genesis can be true without being literal, and you don't have to fight against all of this seemingly contrary evidence. If He could make the universe however he wanted, why would God have made it to look like something other than what He has layed down in the Bible? You may dissagree with conclusions of traditional scientists, but you can't deny that it sure looks like the earth is billions of years old, and God would have known this when he layed down the scripture. It does explain why people try so hard to compare 21st century science to a 10th century BC unattributed doccupment.
And all of this really goes back to TheisticEvolution's question: who cares? Must you declare your belief in a young earth before you ask God to redeem your sins? Can you go to heaven if you believe the scientific explanation of creation? In the scheme of things this is the much more important question, and the one that gets overlooked because of all the disagreement over the rest. Jazzman831 15:41, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

First of all, Mr. Jazzman, I shall ask you to produce your "seemingly contrary evidence"--more on that word seemingly later on. I ask this to challenge you. But I am not challenging you to fight. I am merely challenging you to think, and think hard, about the quality of what you take to be the evidence contrary to a young earth.

This will probably surprise you, but much of the evidence from the solar system is not consistent with an old system, and an old earth to be a part of it. For example: the planet Mercury ought not have a magnetic field. And yet it does. For another example: the rings of Saturn, as seen by Voyager I, have an intricate pattern that no astronomer has ever been able to explain. And for that matter, the Great Red Spot on Jupiter and the Great Dark Spot on Neptune ought to have dissipated long ago, but have not. These do not add up to an old solar system.

Indeed, were the solar system half as old as the traditional scientists pretend, then the moon ought to have touched the earth that long ago. If the earth were much older than ten thousand years, its own magnetic field ought to have been strong enough to tear it apart.

In short, I don't have to fight contrary evidence. I have examined it and found much of it to be based on either:

  1. Groundless supposition, or:
  2. Outright fraud.--TerryHTalk 17:10, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
You know very well what arguments are used, especially if you have done as much research as it seems you have. I don't really see any point in listing them, as we both know what we are talking about. Though I would like to see some examples of outright fraud within the mainstream scientific community. And no fair using sources from a creationist; the scientific community is peer-reviewed so unless you are claiming some sort of systemic conspiracy to ensure old earth theory reigns (for which there is no motive or profit), you should be able to find this fraud through mainstream resources.
I have also done research on creation theory and a lot of that doesn't hold water as well. For example, many of the assertations are that if you were to take X pattern (such as the decay of the earth's magnetic feild or the depletion of the Mississippi river delta, etc) back 4.5 billion years you would get some obviously incorrect result. In other cases they find things that can't yet be explained (or at least they say they can't be explained; since I'm not an expert I just have to believe that the creationists are telling the truth), so therefore all of old earth theory must be wrong. But these are both plagued by incorrect assumptions; the former assumes that any pattern must have been that way from the beginning of time, the latter that old earth theory currently has an answer for everything. (I can't comment specifically on your examples because you have stated them as fact with no way for me to review the evidence myself).
But really there is no point with arguing the science. If every one of your pieces of evidence were proved beyond a reasonable doubt you still have your scripture and your faith; I would need to see mainstream physicists, geologists and mathemetitions disprove, starting from fundamental principals of science, every piece of evidence. This whole thing started because I wanted to know the theology, not the science. Why would God create a world with 800,000 layers of ice, when he could create a world with 6,000? Why would he make stars more than 6,000 light years away? And why is the earth round? Revelations has horsemen in four corners of the earth, and all of the world's population will whitness Jesus come down from the sky. Shouldn't the earth be flat? And even if some of scripture were wrong (say God himself comes down and says "Genesis was true, but not literal") why does that neccessitate that Jesus was not our savior?
By the way, the internet is not a great medium for having a civil conversation; civility is often in the tone. I assure you that I am not trying to attack, but I am trying my hardest to remain civil. I believe that you are as well and I thank you for not resorting to low-ball attacks on my character. Jazzman831 20:32, 6 July 2007 (EDT)