I stumbled upon an old earth creationist website while looking up theories on the extinction of neanderthals.

Here is a summary of their main points:



It's not enough to convince me, but I had not heard of this stance before.  I looked around and one of the authors is a biochemist who is involved in research which is attempting to create cells from scratch.  They distinguish themselves from other creationists and proponents of intelligent design.


I was wondering what others' thoughts on this were.


And please, no believer-bashing.  I'm no apologetic, but I don't see the benefit in such jackassery.


*Upon further review, I had to change the title of this post, I had given these guys too much credit*

Views: 240

Comment by Gaytor on July 12, 2011 at 4:21pm

Took a look, have some thoughts. 

"The original Hebrew text allows for literal interpretation of the six creation “days” as long, yet finite, eras."

If they are accepting Genesis, ("We embrace the truthfulness and inerrancy of Scripture") You cannot square up a world where plants are created one finite era, then wait that era out to create the sun to feed said plants and animals to pollinate them. Even granting early plant life, having no Sun at the creation of plants is a problem. Not nearly the problem that not having a sun at the creation of the Earth though.


"The great apes and bipedal primates were simply advanced animals with no direct genetic connection to the human family tree. "

This is not correct. We have the telomeric fusion of Chromosome #2 that shows how we went from 48 to 46 Chrmosomes. We have 14 ERVs in the same locations as our common Ape ancestors. We have fossils showing the slow and steady shifts from arboreal, to terrestrial, to bipedalism, to a forward facing toe, to ability to run long distance and all with skulls that move more and more human along the way. Where would we put God into that mix? Why would we put a God into that mix (what is the evidence?)?


"The flood of Noah’s day was “worldwide” in the sense that it destroyed all humans and the animals associated with them, but it was regional"

A regional flood that lasted over one year? (Genesis 8) How about this, (Genesis 7:19-20)

"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." How do you interpret that locally? It's not logical and the Bible is quite clear in it's claims. What would be report worthy about a regional flood? 


Science is contrary to the Bible. The way that the Catholics try to sneak around it is by changing the claims to poetry. Great. So what did God actually do? When I see the claims are laid out as serious, my first question is, "Is the Bible the word of God?" This group seems to be saying yes. 

Aron Ra asks the question that goes a little something like this, "How would you know that a god is involved?" Essentially, if you can develop criteria to prove or disprove it, is the question worth asking? 

Comment by tom arblaster on July 12, 2011 at 5:37pm
There is definitely some ambiguity about nature of the very beginning of the Universe and the energy that created it. Is there room for a creator here? Maybe. I rather think that we tend to introduce god or a creator when our evidence for anything more rational runs out. If there is a creator, it is not the god of the bible or koran, this god was born out of ignorance, politics and fear. This old-earth creationist theory is merely an attempt to shoe-horn indisputable scientific evidence into an irrational theology. The religious fundamentalists will reject it as blasphemy and rationalists will reject it as utter bollocks.
Comment by Dr. del Toro on July 12, 2011 at 6:27pm

Thank you for the input.  As I said, it was only the best argument I had found, not necessarily a good one.  I saw it as compromising as well.  Just as some compromise with evolution as being "god's tool" for creating us.  Utter nonsense. 

I was kind of time-restrained and only skimmed over their site.  I was also distracted by an article they had on bacteria-eating caffeine (which I found more interesting than any creationist argument they might have). 



Comment by Artor on July 12, 2011 at 6:29pm
Trying to fit god into the gaps of what science has discovered is a losing proposition. If you are an illiterate goat herder wandering in the Sinai, it's easy to point to a shooting star, or a mushroom trip and say, "God did it," but now that we know about astrophysics and brain chemistry, creationists are forced to push their god further and further into the reaches of the unknown. Eventually, we'll figure out those primeval details as well. Then where will god be?
Comment by Alan Katz on July 12, 2011 at 7:06pm

I think the whole 'Old-Earth Creationism' idea is wishful thinking on the part of scientifically minded people aching to drag the Big Daddy In The Sky mythology from their childhood into relevancy.  They undo themselves as having any real scientific cred by stating "We embrace the truthfulness and inerrancy of Scripture."  INERRANCY.  In other words, it cannot be tested (because any test that demonstrated it to be false would be... what?  Excluded?  Denied?  Thrown out because though demonstrable it stepped on the scripture's inerrancy?  Nonsense!


Adam and Eve were historical people created between 10,000 and 100,000 years ago?  Prove it (and good luck!)  Noah's flood really happened?  Really -- a boatful of every animal in creation?  REALLY?  How'd they feed 'em all?   Where'd they put the food?  How'd they stop predatory animals from not being predatory?  What about all the extremely small animals and the microscopic ones?  Were they included too?  Or am I thinking too hard here? 


Old Earth Creationism fails as science and it flails as religion.  It's a dog's breakfast of poor thinking.  Its members should man up and have the courage of their convictions -- and either surrender the Judeo-Christian mythology of their childhoods or surrender TO the mythology and stop pretending that science and scientific thinking is one of their values.

Comment by Patti Pender on July 12, 2011 at 7:41pm

They lost me on their first premise:  "All matter, energy, space, and time had a beginning, as stated in Genesis 1:1 and confirmed by big bang cosmology. Thus, the cosmos had a Beginner."  A beginning doesn't imply a "Beginner, " any more than an ordered universe implies a "Creator."  We exist in a universe that supports life because if it didn't we wouldn't be here to observe it.  Nope.  Sorry.  No more rational than young-earth creationism.

Comment by Andy O. Williams on July 12, 2011 at 8:10pm
This just seems like another example of the dogma been twisted to fit what can now be proved. I agree that there are some points here that i haven't come accross before but they are still on the whole, implausable.
Comment by Heather Spoonheim on July 13, 2011 at 8:01am
There was a period of time when I was totally into old-earth creationism although it was just a perspective that arose from trying to rationalize my cult indoctrination with what had been discovered by science.  I think a LOT of Christians are old-earth creationists and the young-earth creationist movement (like Ken Ham) is just a reaction to the god of the gaps getting squeezed too thin to still be viable; so they revolt and reject all known scientific discoveries.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service