Quote:Not all people who believe the the biblical story of creation believe in a young earth. Much controversy revolves around the use of the Hebrew word "yom" in the creation account. The Hebrew language had many fewer words than modern day languages and words had multiple meanings. Yom has several meanings, one of which was a 24-hour day. Some other meanings were a point of time or a general vague time, and some others definitions. If yom here means a general vague time, it would allow for an old earth interpretation. Although many creationists do believe in a young earth, many also believe in an old earth.

I don't see that ANY of this matters. Creationists, whether young Earth or old Earth are uniformly united by their rejection of science. The universe is close to 14 billion years old because the evidence points that way, and it is the only explanation that fits with the observed facts. The universe is NOT 14 billion years old because linguists can't agree on a definition of 'yom'.

Creationists of all stripes reject biological evolution - this is what makes them creationists in the first place. They complacently, fatuously ignore (literally) mountains of evidence that all life on this planet had a common ancestor, and that biological diversity is the result of descent with modification.

A YEC says the Earth is less than 10 000 years old, and that God created this planet in essentially the form we see around us. An OEC says the Earth is 4.54 billion years old and that God created this planet in essentially the form we see around us. Wrong is wrong, and spatting over the meaning of a Hebrew word changes nothing.

This is the 21st century, for fuck's sake. There is no excuse - none - for this kind of deliberate, willful ignorance.

Boru

Thing is, as well, even if the Old Earth Creationists happen to be more accurate than the Young Earthers, or at least less inaccurate, they're being so for completely accidental reasons.

The YECs, though, are simply 180° at odds with reality on all counts.

I believe most old earth creationists don't think that the earth was created just as it is now, but rather that God created life progressively over time. This allows for micro evolution within species, but not for macro or cross-species evolution. I'm no scientist. but it appears from the fossil record found in the earth's layers, new species seemed to arrive in bursts, rather that gradually over long timespans. It doesn't matter to me all that much if the current theory of evolution is correct or not. I'm bothered by the lack of undisputed cross-species fossils. But God could have used any method he wanted to create the universe and life on earth.

(February 17, 2014 at 7:47 pm)Lek Wrote: I believe most old earth creationists don't think that the earth was created just as it is now, but rather that God created life progressively over time. This allows for micro evolution within species, but not for macro or cross-species evolution. I'm no scientist. but it appears from the fossil record found in the earth's layers, new species seemed to arrive in bursts, rather that gradually over long timespans. It doesn't matter to me all that much if the current theory of evolution is correct or not. I'm bothered by the lack of undisputed cross-species fossils. But God could have used any method he wanted to create the universe and life on earth.

Micro and Macro evolution are church-invented terms. No one in science uses them, you've been lied to.

"Cross species evolution" is also a church-invented term.

"MISCONCEPTION: Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.

CORRECTION: While it's true that there are gaps in the fossil record, this does not constitute evidence against evolutionary theory. Scientists evaluate hypotheses and theories by figuring out what we would expect to observe if a particular idea were true and then seeing if those expectations are borne out. If evolutionary theory were true, then we'd expect there to have been transitional forms connecting ancient species with their ancestors and descendents. This expectation has been borne out. Paleontologists have found many fossils with transitional features, and new fossils are discovered all the time. However, if evolutionary theory were true, we would not expect all of these forms to be preserved in the fossil record. Many organisms don't have any body parts that fossilize well, the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are rare, and of course, we've only discovered a small percentage of the fossils that might be preserved somewhere on Earth. So scientists expect that for many evolutionary transitions, there will be gaps in the fossil record. To learn more about testing scientific ideas, visit the Understanding Science website. To learn more about evolutionary transitions and the fossils that document them, visit our module on this topic."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...faq.php#e4

Quote:But God could have used any method he wanted to create the universe and life on earth.

And that's precisely what happens when people switch off their brains and go with Goddiditism - you get mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers who couldn't spot a scientific paradigm if they were in the middle of a herd of scientific paradigms, covered in scientific paradigm musk at the height of the scientific paradigm mating season and doing the scientific paradigm mating dance.

In other words, Creationists.

Boru

I'd be happy with a definition of cross species evolution.

(February 17, 2014 at 7:53 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:But God could have used any method he wanted to create the universe and life on earth.

And that's precisely what happens when people switch off their brains and go with Goddiditism - you get mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers who couldn't spot a scientific paradigm if they were in the middle of a herd of scientific paradigms, covered in scientific paradigm musk at the height of the scientific paradigm mating season and doing the scientific paradigm mating dance.

In other words, Creationists.

Boru

What's sillier?
1 - There was nothing there and then was something there.

2 - The universe always existed.

3 - God, who always existed, created the universe?

(February 17, 2014 at 8:05 pm)Lek Wrote: What's sillier?
1 - There was nothing there and then was something there.

2 - The universe always existed.

3 - God, who always existed, created the universe?

3

3!

That was an easy pop quiz. Although you knew what everyone was going to say.

The idea that the fossil record does not show speciation is another example of that old willful ignorance. There are so many transitional fossils, but creationists tend to mimic what they're told by their pastor (wonder what his education is in) and do the old nanny-nanny-boo-boo when it comes to hearing otherwise. It is sad. And Lek you'll probably read this, visit this wiki listing transitional fossils, promptly repeat the magic catch phrase, and go on repeating the same things you've already repeated in this thread. More sad.

(February 17, 2014 at 8:05 pm)Lek Wrote:

(February 17, 2014 at 7:53 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: And that's precisely what happens when people switch off their brains and go with Goddiditism - you get mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers who couldn't spot a scientific paradigm if they were in the middle of a herd of scientific paradigms, covered in scientific paradigm musk at the height of the scientific paradigm mating season and doing the scientific paradigm mating dance.

In other words, Creationists.

Boru

What's sillier?
1 - There was nothing there and then was something there.

2 - The universe always existed.

3 - God, who always existed, created the universe?

3.

As Dawkins points out, the perpetual existence or spontaneous self-generation of a mind-bogglingly vast and complex universe might seem implausible, but by definition the perpetual existence or spontaneous self-generation of a a being of such mind-MELTING complexity that it's capable of willing a mind-bogglingly vast and complex universe into being must be far MORE implausible.