Quantcast

«

»

May 22 2014

What a Difference a Day Makes – Young/Old Earth Creationism

The recent bust up between Ken Ham and Pat Robertson is kind of amusing to watch. You know how many of us doubted Bill Nye’s possible effect in that creationism debate? See the thing with unmoderated debates is that the audience is biased. Arguing looks fun, but it is just intellectual gymnastics. You aren’t going to convince the truly faithful. What you do convince are the undecideds and the malcontents. The people who have doubts about creationism who see those doubts mirrored.

Pat takes a different line. Creationism as an idea has taken a hammering and there just aren’t anymore new boys in Creationism. Instead the dialogue shifts to ID and Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution.

And at it’s core these two arguments are arguing over the mental gymnastics of what a “day means”.

The OECs treat a day as an unspecific amount of time. As in “back in those days”. A translation error left (YEAH…) left us with the wrong English Word there. A nice cop out especially considering that would mean most English Bibles are therefore “wrong” and the first Bibles in Latin and Greek use the same version of “Day” as we do.

The OECs think they have a stronger position of course. The “Science” Backs them up. Which it kind of doesn’t. I mean if your theory believes the Earth is billions of years old and you came about by evolution as directed by Brahma you are more right than the Young Earth Creationist. But it doesn’t make your statement correct. It just means that if we wrote your answer out on a school exam answer paper you would get more marks. If you stated all the possible antidotes to strychnine poisoning and then wrote cyanide you would be more right than the guy who JUST wrote cyanide but both of you would still be dead wrong.

Core to this is the notion that Day 6 of Creation was rather jam packed with a lot of the Garden of Eden stuff being dated to this period. Never mind the fact that this sort of creationism requires Adam to name all the animals on a planet separated by geological barriers. Central to this silliness again is the flaw where the cohabitation of man and dinosaur which is where everything explodes and falls to pieces.

Philosophical arguments to torture mythology into a real world structure should not be taken as canonical. It is like trying to think of new and weird ways to prove Harry Potter is real.

The Young Earth Creationist is the literal 6 Day Creationist around 6000 years ago.

The argument among those who wish to reconcile these views is to simply ignore them and denote them as not important. See the problem with the Bible is it is canonical so the best you can do is jury rigged solutions and outright ignoring sections that wouldn’t fly in the light of today’s morality. A lot of the creationists state that we are wrong to concentrate on the minutae of “evolution” which isn’t important but on Jesus and how the world “should” be rather than provide indepth scientific insight.

Which is bonkers since you may as well claim that humanity was created out of the different parts of the Brahman. All that Evolution is just petty details…

Both YEC and OEC are unscientific. It is just that they are both wrong in different scales.

5 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    The relativity of wrong as Isaac Asimov would say?

  2. 2
  3. 3
    StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    Philosophical arguments to torture mythology into a real world structure should not be taken as canonical. It is like trying to think of new and weird ways to prove Harry Potter is real.

    But, but, Harry Potter is real isn’t it?! Isn’t it!

    (Sticks fingers in ears chants “lalalalalalallallalalalallalalalala can’t you!”</i< to anyone saying otherwise.)

    Well, at least Harry Potter has some sorta ethical vision and doesn't harm, well very many people at all.

  4. 4
    dukeofomnium

    Well, at least Harry Potter has some sorta ethical vision and doesn’t harm, well very many people at all.

    Lord Voldemort would disagree.

  5. 5
    left0ver1under

    The OECs think they have a stronger position of course. The “Science” Backs them up. Which it kind of doesn’t.

    Even their own arguments don’t back them up. One of the most amusing ways to troll and confuse an OEC is to ask them about souls. It’s an argument I wish I had thought up.

    The OEC claim that only humans have souls, animals don’t, and yet they also admit that humans evolved from animals. If that’s the case, did souls suddenly appear in one generation (i.e. the parents don’t have one, but their kids do)? Or did souls gradually develop over multiple generations (i.e. 1%, 1.6%, etc. until homo sapiens finally reached 100%)?

    Their faces end up like Calvin in this old “Calvin and Hobbes” strip:

    http://calvinandhobbes.freehostia.com/oldsite/images/record.jpg

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>