I posted the thread just because I was surprised and automatically assumed he was a YEC through confirmation bias, but reasonable bias I'd say. I was shocked to hear him say it in this day and age where most public fundamentalist figures will either embrace YEC or claim "nobody can be sure" or some other dodge like that.
But not only did he not dodge or give vague allusions, he straight up said it was wrong, which is what surprised me so much. I wish our politicians would follow suite.
Tactical retreat? I don't know if old-earth creationism is much better than YEC. It eliminates a few glaring weaknesses of YEC which are clearly in opposition to observable reality so they don't have to bother explaining why radiometric dating is wrong and why the Hubble telescope can see objects so far away, etc. OEC is safer ground to defend because it doesn't have these major weaknesses. But it's still wrong and unscientific.
A skeptic's journey works in gradations. One rarely wakes up and "sees the light." He puts together the pieces in his head which can sometimes take years. This is a huge step forward for an otherwise woefully ignorant person.
You have to be deaf, dumb and blind to think that this Earth that we live in only has 6,000 years of existence, it just doesn’t, I’m sorry.
To deny the clear record that’s there before us makes us looks silly. There’s no way that all this that you have here took place in 6,000 years, it just couldn’t have been done, couldn’t possibly have been done.
Incorrect. No less an authority than Ken Ham himself says so.
If the days of creation are really geologic ages of millions of years, then the gospel message is undermined at its foundation because it puts death, disease, thorns, and suffering before the Fall. The effort to define “days” as “geologic ages” results from an erroneous approach to Scripture—reinterpreting the Word of God on the basis of the fallible theories of sinful people.
It is a good exercise to read Genesis 1 and try to put aside outside influences that may cause you to have a predetermined idea of what the word “day” may mean. Just let the words of the passage speak to you.
Taking Genesis 1 in this way, at face value, without doubt it says that God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon and stars, plants and animals, and the first two people within six ordinary (approximately 24-hour) days. Being really honest, you would have to admit that you could never get the idea of millions of years from reading this passage.
Didn't see anything on religious or science forum, sorry if this was posted.
Pat Robertson seems to have finally fulfilled his second accurate statement on his wheel of stopped clock fortune today (ever?)
Odin bless him, he realizes that you shouldn't hide the findings of science from your children, as they just don't contradict the bible, and you're only going to drive your children away. It would be nice if he would address why Christians are making this idea of a young Earth so popular without challenging it as Christians in the modern day, I'm sure he has an opinion on that.
While the findings of science do contradict the bible, at least he's able to contort things otherwise.
Who is qualified to determine what is or is not relevant to a discussion on a forum here which includes the length of G-d's day? We're just common, everyday. garden variety posters sharing our opinions on what is essentially a non important issue.
Who is qualified to determine what is or is not relevant to a discussion on a forum here which includes the length of G-d's day? We're just common, everyday. garden variety posters sharing our opinions on what is essentially a non important issue.
It's an argument OEC's make with regard to creation. "God's days are not that same as ours, they could be billions of our years long each." It's a rationalization, but it is a position held by a fair number of people. Even Fat Pat has mentioned it more than once.
It's an argument OEC's make with regard to creation. "God's days are not that same as ours, they could be billions of our years long each." It's a rationalization, but it is a position held by a fair number of people. Even Fat Pat has mentioned it more than once.
The Hebrew/Aramaic word "day" - ywm - is very similar to English in that it has a figurative and a literal meaning. In the case of scripture, using it literally in the creation packages is a misreading, as the literary form is not a literal one, and it's used figuratively. The entirety of the early Genesis account is in a poetic literary mode that doesn't really exist in English; and to take it literally expresses a profound ignorance of the nature of the language and literature. This is something that was understood by many early scholars; but is consistently ignored by the anti-intellectual fundamentalist YECs.
It's remarkable how often that happens, particularly in terms of Creationism. The history of that world-view appears to be one of decent into insanity, with the pace of that fall increasing geometrically over time.
Early Creationist views (specifically, Catastraphist views) actually demanded an INFINITE age of the universe--Reality/the Universe was infinitely old, but God destroyed it and re-created it from time to time, with the Bible only referencing a few of the most recent worlds. They had no problem accepting (once the concept of extinction was proven) that the fossil record showed even earlier worlds; in fact, it seemed to prove their point. Uniformitarianism and some of the Creationists' favorite estimates of the age of the Earth were developed to argue against that view.
ABC10 said:
It's respect. Respect for a power greater then ourselves.
Simple caplitalization was deemed sufficient by the priests and bishops I knew back when I was a Catholic. At least the RCC has never had any issues with spelling out the word God, nor with spelling out any names associated with Him.
While I agree that the length of a day in Genesis is almost certainly not 24 hours (only the luniest of luny religious nutjobs takes it literally), it really is irrelevant. The order is all wrong, and demonstrably so. A lot of things happen before things that are necessary for them TO happen, and the fossil record clearly shows that the events had a very different order. It can be read as an alegorical story, as a morality tale, as pure fantasy, as poetry, or in a number of other ways--but it cannot be rationaly read as history.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
)
