Talk:Old Earth creationism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon creationism.svg

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.


Please dont dismiss sincerely held views[edit]

I note that in this article you simply dismiss what you call “Gap Creationism” without giving any Evidence for you dismissal. I would have thought that in a “Rational” site this would be Important! Furthermore you make no reference to the Real Source of Truth – the Holy Bible. Are you not Aware that there are many things that science in its so-called “wisdom” still Does Not Know – and Will Never Know? My Faith tells me that Christianity is the only way to obtain Real Knowledge of the Unknowable. Might I suggest that all such articles have two versions – one the soulless “scientific” version and another based on the Faith generated from the True Words of the Bible?

Sorry, my rationality muscles get a cramp when I read FAITH as a reason for anything. SusanG 13:46, 8 April 2008 (EDT)#
Faith has helped many poor Souls, and you should not Dismis it, so easily. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
It's harmed more than it's helped! SusanG 13:52, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Is faith supposed to be used as a substitute for thinking? "science is wrong, this I know, for the bible tells me so!" --Huey gunna getcha 14:08, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
You're not a scientist, Huey. I think scientists are more authoritative about science issues than law students. SHahB 14:13, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Hmm, seems like one of the great moments in "missing the point" history. -- 14:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
How can one posibly know if faith has helped more than it has harmed? Some have Faith in the wrong religions (although that is not true faith) Christian Faith can only help. tolerence On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.
Tolerence 14:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT) That's quite clever. thanks Susan.Tolerence 14:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Faith isn't what you're looking for, here, Tolerance. It's the altruistic elements of religion - agape, ahimsa, and all that - that have done good. Faith is dangerous, though - remember that, say, the Crusaders had faith in the rightness of their cause. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום

Hi and welcome to Rationalwiki - why don't you create an account here so you can log in and continue the debate more easily? We welcome your thoughts, although we may disagree with them. As to your points - a) Actually, you might have missed the part of the article that says "there is zero geological evidence for any of this". If you have new geological evidence for the theory of Gap Creationism, please let us know about it, as we welcome challenges to theories; b) I would ask you consider the dichotomy in your argument when you ask science for evidence to dismiss the theory, while you seem to be satisfied with Faith as evidence for the theory? Can you see how that is an impossible position to argue from?; c) there is an inherent weakness in your argument, which seems to be that "it's true because it's in the Bible" - excuse me if I'm not interpreting you correctly. I'm sure you can understand that that is not evidence at all? Please respond and let us know what you think. DogP 15:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

the part of Gap creationism which is not explained is this. God creates the Heaven and the Earth. As long ago as you like. He createes diansaurs and such like. Satan rebells and the earth is destroyed and the dinasaurs are fosilized. Later - much later - he recreates the Earth with Adam and EVe. Mankind rebells and God sends the Flood - more fossils and some more extinctions. All this in the fosil record. Lots of evidence.Tolerence 15:49, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Words Fail Me! SusanG 15:53, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
I mean this in the nicest way possible, even if the following sounds a little blunt. What evidence? Seriously though, provide/explain your evidence, and then your assertion can be verified. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 16:00, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
It's all in that book,you know - the one written by Bronze age/iron age tribesmen. SusanG 16:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Tolerence, perhaps you're not familiar with what is considered good evidence. A section of a book, written anything up to 14,000 years ago, by an unknown number of authors who were recounting what may or may not have been told to them by voices in their heads, and has since undergone numerous translations, retranslations, and reinterpretations, isn't exactly considered 'reliable' in scientific circles. Zmidponk 16:15, 8 April 2008 (EDT)


I have to admit that, somewhat remarkably, this article is better than the one over at your opposition.Tolerance 16:04, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

You can say "Conservapedia" without getting banned here. And why would you expect otherwise? --Shagie 16:33, 15 April 2008 (EDT)


I see the world "cults" has been Reinserted. There is no actual Cult called Gap Theory. It really should be versions. Tolerance 13:45, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

I'll give you that using the word "cult" is meant as a jab, but technically "cult" doesn't have a negative meaning in-and-of itself. --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 13:50, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Gap theory is not part of mainstream Jewish or Christian theology. It is put forth by small groups within various theologies and is not even recognized by the mainstream. A cult or sect is the proper term for such an unorthodox (or heretical) group that puts forth ideas not accepted by the mainstream. --Shagie 13:54, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm inclined to give it to him - it's less pejorative, certainly, but it doesn't hurt it. We can let him have that one. DogP 13:57, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Find anywhere where anyone of religious authority someone talks about a 'version' of a faith and I'll say go for it. Sect is often seen less insulting, but cult or sect is the right word to use there. --Shagie 14:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
I don't believe the divisions are that strong - they are simply different versions of similar beliefs. There are no groups worshipping in one church as distinct from another because of different OEC beliefs, are there? They're all bonkers, together in the same Church, unable to agree if the Moon is made of Wensleydale or Cheddar, in my book. DogP 14:18, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
At the risk or repeating myself there is no "Gap Theory" cult. For example there is no "Charismatic Leader" which is one of the Hallmarks of a cult. It's a minority belief system withing OEC.Tolerance 14:39, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
I agree. DogP 14:40, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Creationism or creationism[edit]

Should "Creationism" be capitalised or not? It seems really inconsistent here, & at Young Earth creationism, & at pages that link to either. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:44, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I'm pretty sure fundies capitalize, capitalizing it makes it proper and that much more marginal. Neveruse513 14:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)

"Creation of the past" theory....[edit]

Can we get some creationist references indicating that such a theory is in common circulation in those circles? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like junk to me. Tell me not to revert it quickly... ħumanUser talk:Human 06:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
It's also poorly written, and has a lame link to WP where it should link to RW. I dunno, copy it here to discuss? Who is the BoN ħumanUser talk:Human 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
At least, googling a chunk of it shows it's probably "original" writing, so I give the BoN those props. Let's find a link to some idiot believing it and clean up the grammar? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Isn't this like the Omphalos hypothesis? - π 06:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I dunno, but as I read it again and again, it just makes no sense, really. I repeat TOP in asking "does anyone actually believe this" or is it just a nice but silly edit? I'm still holding off on my famous authoritarian tendencies for now ;) Give it a day or two when everyone comes home from Kristmuss and we'll see. Right now it's just you, me, Nx, and Susan Toast, and TOP, as far as I can tell. Apologies to anyone I missed, 'twas a slow night on the wiki ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 07:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
If such a theory exists, I'm not sure that it would fall under Old Earth - it alludes to a 6-day creation, which would put it within YEC, but apparently involves the Earth being old at the time of its creation(?). The diagram doesn't explain much. Unless there's an example of somebody arguing this theory, we should remove it. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
It looks like Last Thursdayism to me. I've never seen it expressed quite that way before though, and I read up on various theories in the past. But just like Last Thursdayism it allows for seven days of creation but also the entire geological and evolutionary history of the earth. For that matter, it would also get round the starlight problem as presumably the entire history of the light up to and including the stars that generated the light were created at the same time.--BobBring back the hat! 12:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Mmmm. Looking at the site Religious tolerance it does seem that in their article in which Old Earth arguments are disputed that arguments about the creation of apparent age are made. Still don't know how common they are though.--BobBring back the hat! 12:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparent age is not the same as age. The theory that God made the world appear older than it really is is the Omphalos hypothesis. The "creation of the past" theory on this page seems to be that when God created stuff, he also created a whole bunch of time retrospectively so that things had a genuine history from before they existed. This is what is difficult to comprehend, & where the space-time stuff comes. Looks a bit like quantum woo & a lot like sci-fi. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Him that is what I was thinking, this theory seems to have God creating the world six thousand years ago and tacking on 13 billion years of history with it. So the 13 billion years only started to exist 6,000 years ago. Sound like someone has been reading The Last Continent. - π 12:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should "keep" it, but not on this article. Omphalos or Thursday would both be better homes for it, or perhaps it would fit in at YEC. But not here, it's not an OEC hypothesis, it's a YEC one. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. Anyone who wants to paste it in somewhere else can pull it from the diffs. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


Why o why do these articles always have to put the disclaimers about this information NOT BEING SCIENTIFIC! Aside from the fact that creationism is absolutely scientific, that is not what this discussion is about. The article is about old earth creationism. Whoever writes these articles needs to refrain from the "teaching" in the disclaimers. wow , honest writings please. — Unsigned, by: Transparent / talk / contribs

Big Bang as the Most Popular Form of Old Earth Creationism[edit]

The Father of the Big Bang is a Catholic Monk named Georges Lemaitre.

Albert Einstein ridiculed Lemaitre's theory saying that even though his math was correct, his physics was terrible. Albert Einstein & Edwin Hubble can be seen rolling over in their graves each time their work is used to justify Big Bang Creationism.— Unsigned, by: Orrery / talk / contribs