Talk:Old earth creationism

Why the Biology portal?
Shouldn't this article have a tag for the Creation portal? Why the Biology portal? I saw very little biology-specific content in it; most of it relates to creationism and the creation-vs.-evolution debate.--TemlakosTalk 11:26, 26 November 2007 (EST)
 * Makes sense to me man, I say change it.--Tony Sommer 16:30, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Thoughts on Day-Age Theory
I was just thinking about the controversial verse in 1 Peter 3:8, "One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." In prophecy or other cases, a week is used to refer to 7 years - e.g. Genesis 29:27-28 or Daniel 9:25-27.

But even if one were to consider the days of Genesis to each have been 1,000 years, that still doesn't provide any sort of acceptability for evolutionary theory, which requires MILLIONS OF YEARS. Even if you were to accept 5,000 years for the 3rd-7th days, you're still looking at life having been created less than 20,000 years ago.

In other words, the verse still doesn't allow in any way, shape, or form for the millions or billions of years required by evolutionary theory. I don't understand why people think it makes the Bible compatible with evolutionary theory. --Jzyehoshua 17:47, 27 May 2012 (PDT)

False Dichotomy
The article, as it stands, is biased against Old Earth Creationism, equating it with evolution. This is patently false. To be fair, there are two broad perspectives or views on evolution for OEC when it comes to the origins of life but they both include God: (1) God created adult life forms and they reproduced after their own kind, as the biblical text says; or (2) God used evolution to create life forms. I happen to be in the first camp. Regardless, OEC does not comment on evolution- it is strictly stating that the universe is 13.772 billion years old and the age of the earth is 4.543 billion years old. Thus, it is not accurate to include the term, "evolutionary time line".

OEC conclusions with respect to deep time is primarily based on two things: (1) measurable and testable facts and (2) The Genesis Account of creation. Put another way, the age of the earth is based on "what has been made, so that men are without excuse" and "what God has said, and our best understanding of what it means". Thus, OEC is no more a "belief" than me believing that God created the heavens and the earth.

With respect to Genesis, either the phrase, "let there be light" or the phrase, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" is connected to what most astrophysicist and astronomers call "the big bang". I prefer to refer to it as the cosmic creation event, borrowing this phrase from well known Christian astrophysicist. This is what well known YEC call "operational science" in trying to distinguish the science used to develop cars, radios, nuclear power, and cell phones from "historical science" - the methods used to estimate age. The false dichotomy is that all science is estimation and not precise. Most of what is called "operational science" by YEC is actually based on estimates with a given tolerance. This is true with everything we design and build. There is no difference between operational and historical science - it's strictly a matter of tolerance and the scale's being used. or the record, IMHO, the "science" of Darwinian biological evolution is not science but a philosophy that is linked to a commitment to methodological naturalism.

Finally, a major reason Christianity stands out over other worldviews and religious ideas of reality is that the Christian faith actually reflects reality. Christianity explains the state of the world better than any other worldview. It explains why mankind is bent toward evil, but also why practicing godly behavior - even if you don't believe in God - generally leads to a happier and more fulfilling life. For example, staying married for live and learning to love each other over ones married life together is better, even if the couple doing so are not Christians. Where Christianity must also reflect reality is in actual, testable and factual scientific efforts. The Bible may not talk about nuclear fission, but there must be a realistic way for both the spiritual truths of God's word to allow for or live in harmony with the laws of physics that are used to build and operate a nuclear reactor. Just because the Bible doesn't address it directly or even remotely doesn't remove the fact that a nuclear reactor is a real thing. Thus, if deep time is, indeed, a measurable real thing based on the size of the universe, then the truths of God's word will also reflect such reality, even if we simply don't understand how.