Talk:Old Earth Creationism

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png

What an economical article this is! How concise in argument, how clean in execution! It contains 3 links to Old Earth Crationism, 1 to New, and some 30 or so words to paste it all together. And this little note of mine is the first in the Discussion Page of same. Marvellous. If only all entries could follow this lead, the entire Conservapedia would fit on a floppy disk. --MylesP 06:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Gould Quote

The quote from Stephen Jay Gould is both incorrect (there should be an elipsis, which I've added), and highly misleading. Gould's claim is not that transitional fossils are *missing*; he felt that they were too rare to justify the gradualism, and instead justified punctuated equilibrium. Nedlum 12:41, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Age of the Earth

Do Old Earth Creationists necessarily believe that the earth is billions of years old? I thought there were different strains that were in the millions, not billions. Isn't there a theory that the earth was brought into its current form with a different series of creation events at different times in its history? Learn together 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, there are differences. I'm thinking about adding more to this.Tolerance 12:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
The whole point of most versions of OEC is to accommodate the uniformitarian timescale, so if they then propose a different age, they've effectively shot themselves in the foot.
However, having said that, I think there are a few views with non-uniformitarian ages, including the belief that each day was a thousand years (which I know no good reason for other than a misinterpretation of the "day is as a thousand years" verse), and the Jehovah's Witness view that each day is seven thousand years (and we are still in the seventh day).
Philip J. Rayment 23:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
These ideas are based, in part on 2 Peter 3:8 where we are told that, for God, a day is as a thousand years. The idea is not relay uncommon in some circles and, if this site is to be truly an Encyclopedia, it obviously should explore them in a Neutral Manner. I am starting to get the impression that only one version of Creationism is relay welcome here. I am sure that this is a mistake on my part but I wonder if somebody could confirm this? Tolerance 12:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I realise that some quote that verse, but fail to quote the rest of it ("and a thousand years is as a day"). Also, it says that a day is as a thousand years, not a day is a thousand years. Further, the word translated "day" in Genesis cannot, in context, mean anything other than an ordinary day (see Creation week). I'm glad that you started the article on the Gap theory and expanded some other articles, as our coverage of them was lacking, but really, the YEC view is the only one that actually fits what the Bible says, so this encyclopedia is not going to treat other views as though they have equal validity. (I accept that the first part of that last sentence you might well not agree with, but I'm prepared to back that up.) Philip J. Rayment 01:05, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I fully agree that some form of creationism is the only valid way to see the world. But if this encyclopedia is really going to follow true Christian values, why is the concept of Intelligent Design given so much space? I recently posted a comment about Christian values on the "expelled" article and it was removed in short order. From what you tell me above, Gap Theory - whether you accept it or not - is a lot closer to the truth than ID is, yet ID has vastly more supportive text than the Creationism article. Why should this be? I am genuinely confused. Tolerance 11:31, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
Interesting question! I don't agree, though, that the Gap Theory is closer to the truth than ID. But it depends on how you understand ID. ID, I would say, is merely an attempt to show scientifically that there is evidence of design. That's it. Sure, some ID people believe in an old universe, and some ID people believe in some form of evolution, and ID doesn't make any claims about who the designer is, but at its core, it's simply a scientific attempt to show evidence of design. In that sense, it is not inconsistent with the Bible at all, as the Gap Theory is. ID is not "Christian", but it is not anti-Christian either. Philip J. Rayment 11:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I would say that anyone glancing at this site would say that it supports ID rather than Biblical Literalism. As to no conflict I'm not so sure. ID includes (at least according to its main proponent, Behe) Common Descent and long atheistic timescales which would have the Dinosaurs extinct well before humanity. I, of course, believe that they died in the Gap - but I'm frankly surprised that you accept it here without objection.Tolerance 12:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
What false impressions people might get from a glance at the site is beside the point. ID (usually?) assumes common descent, long ages, etc., but I believe that I'm right in saying that they are not what ID is about. ID's point is to argue that there is evidence of design, not to argue for common descent or long ages; the latter are merely the background framework into which ID is set. Yes, YEC disagrees on those particular points, but not on ID itself. Philip J. Rayment 10:42, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Well yes, ID most certainly does argue for evidence of design - but it also argues for "evidence" of common descent and long time scales. It's all based on what they call "evidence". But isn't it wrong two out of three? Anyway, I've got to edit some more articles.Tolerance 10:58, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Where does it argue for common descent and long time scales? Philip J. Rayment 11:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

The AIG article here "Proponents of ID fail to understand that a belief in long ages for the earth formed the foundation of Darwinism.5 If God’s Word is not true concerning the age of the earth, then maybe it’s not true concerning other events of the Creation Week; and maybe God was not a necessary part of the equation for life after all." Tolerance 11:16, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

That's not ID arguing for common descent nor long ages. It's a reference to ID people having that belief, not making that argument. Philip J. Rayment 22:46, 20 April 2008 (EDT)