Talk:Old Earth Creationism

What an economical article this is! How concise in argument, how clean in execution! It contains 3 links to Old Earth Crationism, 1 to New, and some 30 or so words to paste it all together. And this little note of mine is the first in the Discussion Page of same. Marvellous. If only all entries could follow this lead, the entire Conservapedia would fit on a floppy disk. --MylesP 06:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Gould Quote

The quote from Stephen Jay Gould is both incorrect (there should be an elipsis, which I've added), and highly misleading. Gould's claim is not that transitional fossils are *missing*; he felt that they were too rare to justify the gradualism, and instead justified punctuated equilibrium. Nedlum 12:41, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Age of the Earth

Do Old Earth Creationists necessarily believe that the earth is billions of years old? I thought there were different strains that were in the millions, not billions. Isn't there a theory that the earth was brought into its current form with a different series of creation events at different times in its history? Learn together 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, there are differences. I'm thinking about adding more to this.Tolerance 12:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

The whole point of most versions of OEC is to accommodate the uniformitarian timescale, so if they then propose a different age, they've effectively shot themselves in the foot.

However, having said that, I think there are a few views with non-uniformitarian ages, including the belief that each day was a thousand years (which I know no good reason for other than a misinterpretation of the "day is as a thousand years" verse), and the Jehovah's Witness view that each day is seven thousand years (and we are still in the seventh day).

Philip J. Rayment 23:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

These ideas are based, in part on 2 Peter 3:8 where we are told that, for God, a day is as a thousand years. The idea is not relay uncommon in some circles and, if this site is to be truly an Encyclopedia, it obviously should explore them in a Neutral Manner. I am starting to get the impression that only one version of Creationism is relay welcome here. I am sure that this is a mistake on my part but I wonder if somebody could confirm this? Tolerance 12:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I realise that some quote that verse, but fail to quote the rest of it ("and a thousand years is as a day"). Also, it says that a day is as a thousand years, not a day is a thousand years. Further, the word translated "day" in Genesis cannot, in context, mean anything other than an ordinary day (see Creation week). I'm glad that you started the article on the Gap theory and expanded some other articles, as our coverage of them was lacking, but really, the YEC view is the only one that actually fits what the Bible says, so this encyclopedia is not going to treat other views as though they have equal validity. (I accept that the first part of that last sentence you might well not agree with, but I'm prepared to back that up.) Philip J. Rayment 01:05, 19 April 2008 (EDT)