Talk:Day-age creationism

	This Creationism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Yeah, i found a virtually "empty" article, and am trying to add to it. Normally I do "new" articles in my user space, but this one had already been started. Please please please suggest anything else you have, i don't mind doing the research if you've some names or ideas. Out side of the arguments of the Hebrew, i really don't know much about it. I don't really even know why it would be it's own article.--En attendant Godot 17:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Cue Ocassionaluse and Sterile, who were much deeper into the aSK day-age vs. whatever-Philip-Rayment-thinks-he's-doing approaches. This entry is already long enough to justify its own article, but the subject matter entails entails articles on the Framework approach and the Historico-grammatical approach. I just found my list of exegetes on these subjects and it's not as long as I thought it was for day-age advocates: Gleason L. Archer and Hugh Ross. For framework advocates: Meredith Kline, Lee Irons, Davis A. Young, Henri Blocker, Bruce Waltke, JI Packer, Gordon Wenham, and Ludwig Ott. WfG, I really like how this is shaping up. Good work on the expansion and organization. 19:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a bit off put by the Framework, as i can't really find it easily... so not sure the difference between "made up Fundi term", and "really academically understood term". HGA is standard, but in this context, each side claims they and they alone are applying the HGA correctly. That I can explain into an article, if you think it merits one. the framework one? can't do.--En attendant Godot 19:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't remove my edit again unless you can come up with an explanation of how a figurative day can have an evening and a morning. Kirk Johnson (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the point you're making in the article either - perhaps you can change the explanation. Moreover, the style is more suited to a talk page - " I simply respond, "Fine. Then what do "EVENING" and "MORNING" mean?" That shuts them up." - than a mainspace article. I'm not saying that the point is without value, I just think it is inappropriately presented. I can certainly see why WaitingForGodot took issue. Gomer (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we sure that we're not painting with too broad a brush here? This is presumably a subset of progressive creationism but, as our OEC article points out, there are various ways of interpreting the "days". --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I was never sure it should be it's own article, rather than just creationsim. or old earth creationism. but someone started it and did so rather hap hazardly. so, i finished it. shrugs. just delete all my hard work, see if i care! ;-)--En attendant Godot 20:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The approaches identified in the OEC article are not rooted in exegetical attempts to read Genesis literally. I would actually say that, with the exception of ID, no literalist would accept them as consistent with Genesis. However now that I research day-age, framework, and HGM more, I'm not sure day-age and framework are necessarily distinct exegetical methods but conclusions drawn from exegesis. They appear to be described as "views" where HGM is described as a hermeneutic. What I am sure about is that I've never seen a creationist purport to use HGM to come up with any conclusion other than that Genesis is referring to 24 hour days, as well as rejecting the day-age and framework views. There's something important here and I don't understand the distinctions yet. I hope someone else here knows how these things fit together. 22:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"It is an attempt to shoehorn the biblical myth into something resembling scientific fact." I don't think you can say this without assuming bad faith. The effect of whatever methodology these guys are using is to derive a view that's partially consistent with a realistic age of the Earth, though nothing else. I think the more accurate statement is that these guys are reading the Bible literally and just happen to come up with an interpretation that partially squares with empirical reality. As Ocassionaluse can attest, guys from both the day-age and framework camps would vehemently disagree with the claim that they're "shoehorning" anything because the accusation implies they're not deriving their conclusions from within but from outside the text. In other words, we can't claim they're doing eisegesis when they disagree and we have no specific description of what their methodology actually is. 22:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

IN THE COURSE OF ONE DAY, "YOM" WE'VE CREATED A REALLY GOOD ARTICLE! CONGRATULATIONS RATWIKIANS! Kirk Johnson (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)