Talk:Old Earth creationism
|
This Creationism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
cults[edit]
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. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 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)
- 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'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)
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. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 14:44, 11 February 2009 (EST)
- I'm pretty sure fundies capitalize it...plus, 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... ħuman
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 173.48.188.180? ħuman 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? ħuman 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
SusanToast, and TOP, as far as I can tell. Apologies to anyone I missed, 'twas a slow night on the wiki ;) ħuman 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. Weaseloid
Methinks 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. WeaseloidMethinks 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)
- 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. Weaseloid
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. Weaseloid
- 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
- Isn't this like the Omphalos hypothesis? - π 06:57, 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? ħuman
- 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 173.48.188.180? ħuman
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. ħuman 22:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- I removed it. Anyone who wants to paste it in somewhere else can pull it from the diffs. ħuman 21:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Scientific?[edit]
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