Something that puzzles me about the Creationists:

[underlankers]

I've never understood the sense in how it is politically or socially viable to entertain the delusions of a group of people who really *are* stuck in a time-warp. The Creationist viewpoint is full of hoary old nostrums that Thomas Lyell and Charles Darwin debunked 150 years ago. The Creationist worldview is as follows: 6,000 years ago God created

Comments

[silver_chipmunk]

You do realize that not all creationists are Young Earth Creationists, which is what you're ranting about here? There are plenty of creationists who are willing to accept that the Earth is much older than that, and that the "six days" are not literal 24-hour days, but may mean much longer spans of time.

All creationists are wrong, but some, the young earthers, are wronger than others, and it doesn't do any good to tar them all with the same brush.

[underlankers]

Except that scientifically speaking the evidence is entirely for the Sun existing before the Earth. Any attempt to hold to the literal sequence of days in the Bible will in fact run up against that in the Bible's sequence the Sun must exist *after* the Earth.

[rasilio]

Only if one presumes that "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the earth" refers literally to the physical ball of rock we happen to inhabit and not something more esoteric, or just plain incomprehensible to ancient man.

Even here however, your argument only applies to biblical literalists and not to creationists in general. The majority of creationists are not biblical literalists but rather see the Bible as an allegory of creation "dumbed down" for the minds of bronze age shepherds.

What you are missing is that one can be a creationist and completely agree with modern evolutionary biology and astrophysics because contrary to what the ID crowd tries to peddle creationism answers the question WHY the events occurred the way they did and science answers the question of HOW it occurred.

[telemann]

The majority of creationists are not biblical literalists but rather see the Bible as an allegory of creation "dumbed down" for the minds of bronze age shepherds.

45 percent isn't exactly something to sneeze at:

According to a 2001 Gallup poll, about 45% of North Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

[yes_justice]

one can be a creationist and completely agree with modern evolutionary biology and astrophysics because contrary to what the ID crowd tries to peddle creationism answers the question WHY the events occurred the way they did and science answers the question of HOW it occurred.

The why question is frankly childish. Also, it eventually begs the questions what created the designer, what tools did he/she/it use? What created those tools, etc etc etc. It answers nothing.

[essius]

…it eventually begs the questions what created the designer, what tools did he/she/it use? What created those tools, etc etc etc. It answers nothing.

No. These questions, much like "What is the size of the color red" or "How much oxygen does free will have?," all derive from category mistakes and rely on unsatisfied presuppositions.

[yes_justice]

So, from whence god, is invalid? Why?

[essius]

Because there is no principle that says everything must have a cause. Only those things that are composed of existence and essence require a cause. A being whose existence and essence are one and the same-i.e. undivided, unified, uncomposed-needs no cause. To ask "from whence god" is invalid because an eternal being is uncaused. We only look for causes for things that are necessarily caused.

[yes_justice]

The universe doesn't appear to be infinite, so I cannot easily accept "eternal being".

[essius]

Your notion of eternality is much too temporal. I'm talking about eternality in the Boethian sense.

[yes_justice]

Boethian sense

I feared this would happen quickly. You're talking above my head.

[essius]

Eternality as timelessness rather than everlastingness.

Not so fast

[essius]

http://www.reasons.org/does-old-earth-creationism-contradict-genesis-1-0