Blog Archive

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Historic Day Age Debate

Part one
Part two

This paper demonstrates how the early church did not hold to a young earth creationist view in a doctrinally exact way.



Weemaryanne said...

Um, Vera,

The "early church" knew as much geology and paleontology as my cat knows of particle physics.

I'm just sayin'.

Weemaryanne said...

Say, Vera, you're an iTunes user, right?

PBS has a NOVA Vodcast. Episode 36 "Killer Microbe" will teach you, in nine minutes, a couple of things you didn't know before (and which you won't learn while cramming for your nursing exam), including:

- how real scientists really work, one step at a time, to answer a question that they don't have an answer for;

- the terms vertical gene transfer and horizontal gene transfer and how these processes occur;

- how mutation occurs;


- how one particular mutation in one particular species of bacterium is causing mucho trouble for soldiers in Iraq and doctors stateside.

Of course, you will then run to your Bible to find out where your Imaginary Friend already taught us all these things. So you needn't bother.

Steven J. said...

That was interesting. I have two points, for whatever value you may find in them.

First, on Dr. Milham's telling, the day-age view (as opposed to the view that the days of creation are an expository framework with no chronological significance) dates back no further than the discovery that the Earth looked much, much older than 6000 years. While the article is a short summary and doubtless does not do justice to the diversity of Christian views on the days of creation, it sounds as though all Christians were young-earth creationists up until the 17th century or so; some found reasons to doubt that the Earth was created in six literal days rather than instantaneously, but none found reason to suspect that it was more than several millennia old.

Second, while it's doubtless true that modern young-earth creationism, with flood geology, is a very young viewpoint, I'm not sure that this helps RtB's side of the argument. The idea that "let there be light" refers to a collision between the Earth and Theia that created the moon is, surely, no older than flood geology, and like it is a reaction to geological facts that simply weren't known to earlier creationists. I don't see how any form of creationism can be the same after the Lyell and Darwin (to say nothing of Lemaitre and Gamow) as it was before Lyell and Darwin.

Froggie said...

Hi Vera,

I haven't been around much lately but I wnated to let you know there is a new website online that was set up by Francis Collins, et al.

I'm sure you know that Collins was the leader of the Genome Project, and more interesting, he is a self proclaimed creationist.

Franky speaking, he makes Hugh Ross look mighty lame.
I hope you get a chance to take a look at he site and see what you think. I think he has some very compelling ideas.

Hope you do well in your finals!

Froggie said...


Here is the site:

Or, click here.

verandoug said...

Thanks, Dale
I am a little busy. But asap, I will try to get back and check that site out. It looks interesting.

verandoug said...

I have seen documentation from RTB that shows that many early church writers postulated that the days of creation were at least 1000 years per 2 Peter a day in the Lord is as a thousand years. I think some of them, as I recall, admitted that they didn't know for sure.

I don't see how any form of creationism can be the same after the Lyell and Darwin (to say nothing of Lemaitre and Gamow) as it was before Lyell and Darwin.I don't understand your point.

I have been talking to a church called the XXXChurch on youtube. Please forgive me for not getting back to you sooner. I will show you why we have created quite a stir only if you promise not to post on youtube because I am already overwhelmed with comments. :-)