Defining "Old-Earth" creationism

(George Brooks) #1

@Swamidass and @Jonathan_Burke

How does one even debate with someone who is an Old Earther and Special Creationist?

They might agree to the Earth being billions of years old… but they do not use the Bible to arrive at that conclusion?

And yet they think it is irrational to think gene pools could materially change in all those millions of years.

Edit: Summation Added-
Old Earther Creationists

1) set aside the figurative words of Genesis to allow for an Earth that is millions of years old, while simultaneously they also

2) set aside science in order to take Genesis literally that Humans are made from clay and that God intentionally used unnecessary genotype and phenotype parallels when he created millions of species … without any of it mentioned in Genesis at all.

What is Universal Common Descent?
(Brad Kramer) #2

A post was merged into an existing topic: What is Universal Common Descent?

(Peaceful Science) #3

@gbrooks9 this is genuinely absurd. This is just a cartoonized version of the OEC position. We dislike it when people do that about us. We should not do the same to others…

You have not represented their position even remotely fairly. I encourage you to do some serious reading about this before saying statements like this. I point you to the BioLogos friends: Reasons to Believe, and Old Earth Ministries.

(George Brooks) #4


I will read your links… but I think you will find that if you provide a concrete example of where I have been unfair … it will be more efficient and productive than sending me on a wild-goose hunt, in a whole website (no less!), which may or may not touch specifically on what you think I’ve been unfair about.

Sincerely and with Respect,

George Brooks


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

(George Brooks) #6

@Eddie and @Swamidass,

I can certainly enjoy a good Correction and a “Proper Analysis”… and will be delighted should one ever arrive.

@Eddie, I remember well our discussion about terminology. Do you think I used the terms in confusing ways today? I’d be surprised at that … since the way I used them before was as a generic term that I thought might be handy to be used for Evolutionists as well. But after our conversation, I have been fairly disciplined in not repeating that misapprehension. I certainly avoided that application today, wouldn’t you agree?

As to the general lack of enthusiasm of OEC’s I may express - - the one thing about their literature that is marvelous is how enthusiastic they are about telling YEC’s how wrong they are about the obvious age of the Earth. It makes for very pleasant reading.

But the theological economy by which OEC’s then proceed to craft the idea that God created each individual species … and apparently in such a way as to make it appear that populations are evolving … well, I can hardly wait to learn more!

It is my view that OEC’s became a dead-end as soon as BioLogos as established. But would be delighted if someone could explain to me otherwise.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

(George Brooks) #8

Yes, @Eddie, I have to admit OEC writings on the age of the Earth is most delightful!

I assume you support these conclusions as well.

Here is a Marvelous article about the discovery of what the group thinks may be the original Serpent of Eden - - because it is a snake with limbs! Be sure to look at the close-up photo of one limb in particular … Striking Image !!!