Interesting "creationist" site.

[Frank J]

I think one of you alerted me to it, but I finally got to spend some
time at:

http://www.oldearth.org/

At first I thought it would be an OEC site like "Reasons to Believe,"
i.e. mostly anti-evolution, with the occasional polite criticism of
YEC. But what I see so far is all criticism of YEC, and none of the
usual "weaknesses" of evolution.

I haven�t read enough to see if it�s all pro-evolution, or trying to
create a "little tent" of old-earth-old-life theists who may or may
not accept common descent. But either way, it is surely a site that ID
peddlers like to pretend doesn�t exist.

[Ron O]

On Sep 30, 7:14 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I think one of you alerted me to it, but I finally got to spend some
> time at:
>
> http://www.oldearth.org/
>
> At first I thought it would be an OEC site like "Reasons to Believe,"
> i.e. mostly anti-evolution, with the occasional polite criticism of
> YEC. But what I see so far is all criticism of YEC, and none of the
> usual "weaknesses" of evolution.
>

> I haven t read enough to see if it s all pro-evolution, or trying to

> create a "little tent" of old-earth-old-life theists who may or may
> not accept common descent. But either way, it is surely a site that ID

> peddlers like to pretend doesn t exist.

They seem to try to be as literal as they can be and still stay with
what is known with as little denial as possible. Unlike the ID perps
at the Discovery Institute they do have lesson plans up on their site
for evaluation and use. This isn't a big tent scam, but it looks like
these guys are seriously trying to reconcile science with their
creationist beliefs. There isn't any room for the YECers to exist
under this tent, but they try to be as nice about it as possible.

Lesson plans:
http://www.oldearth.org/homeschool.htm

Ron Okimoto

[Frank J]

That site is one more reason that the word "creationism" in all its
forms has become a liability, confusing the ones we most need to help.
By one definition even you and I - vocal *critics* of *the anti-
evolution movement* - are "creationists."

[Christopher]

On Sunday, September 30, 2012 2:14:51 PM UTC+2, Frank J wrote:
> I think one of you alerted me to it, but I finally got to spend some
>
> time at:
>
>
>
> http://www.oldearth.org/
>
>
>
> At first I thought it would be an OEC site like "Reasons to Believe,"
>
> i.e. mostly anti-evolution, with the occasional polite criticism of
>
> YEC. But what I see so far is all criticism of YEC, and none of the
>
> usual "weaknesses" of evolution.
>
>
>

> I haven�t read enough to see if it�s all pro-evolution, or trying to

>
> create a "little tent" of old-earth-old-life theists who may or may
>
> not accept common descent. But either way, it is surely a site that ID
>

> peddlers like to pretend doesn�t exist.

I have been following this site for some years now. They used to be called Answers in Creation, but had to change recently after a correspondence with Answers in Genesis.

They endorse theistic evolution. Their main ministry purpose is to provide criticism of prominent YEC materials, since they believe this forms a stumblingblock to faith.

[Ron O]

They have to tell it like it is and it is creationism. They can't
deny it, and they do not try. This sets them apart from the type of
creationists that they oppose such as the boobs at the Discovery
Institute. If that was the attitude of all creationists TO likely
would not exist.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 05:54:25 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:

I also ran across this website. So far, I haven't seen anything there
that I interpret as advocating a creationist belief. But like you
said, it depends on how one defines 'creationist'.

[Frank J]

On 30 Sep, 11:29, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 05:54:25 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>

As I keep nagging everyone, whatever terminology we use, we need
different words for the snake oil sellers, the snake oil buyers (the
hopeless and not hopeless), and for those who believe in creation/
design in the general sense, but otherwise are no help, and possibly
hindrance, to the sellers.

A few years ago when I was ironically agreeing with the ID peddlers
that ID was not "creationism," it was not to help them in any way, but
to attempt to show that their scam was far more devious and dishonest
than the efforts of the Biblical YECs and OECs. That it was not a
cover-up of personal *acceptance* of YEC or OEC claims, but of
personal acceptance of *evolution,* admission of which they were
convinced would undermine their goal of defeating "materialism."

[Ron O]

I just call them ID perps or just scam artists. Scientific
creationists is a good enough tag for the YEC contingent of science
deniers.

Ron Okimoto

[Frank J]

Please at least put quotes on "scientific" or say pseudoscientific.
>
> Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[jillery]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 09:20:23 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
wrote:

And I admire your efforts, as I do all cat-herding. For me, I tend to
the Duck Rule; if it quacks like a duck... Currently there are at
least two posters active in T.O., possibly more, who claim their
beliefs are not Creationist, but nevertheless express dogmatic
opposition to naturalistic evolution.

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:29:51 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> I also ran across this website. So far, I haven't seen anything there
> that I interpret as advocating a creationist belief. But like you
> said, it depends on how one defines 'creationist'.

If we're still talking about <http://www.oldearth.org/> it goes

"Welcome to Old Earth Ministries (formerly Answers In Creation),
a creation science ministry dedicated to supporting old earth creationism.
This website exists to provide rebuttals to the false claims of
young earth creation science. We currently have over 1,500 articles
disputing the claims of young earth creationism."

Also, did you take the "One Hour Tour"? Me neither.

So, yes, apparently they only "support" OEC by rebutting YEC.

There is a page for "Notable Christians Open to an Old Earth
Interpretation", but this seems to consist of a link to someone else's
site, and Billy Graham (didn't care about creationism) and C.S. Lewis
(accepted evolution), according to their version. But also there's
<http://www.oldearth.org/testimony.htm> - but this seems to be mostly
anti-YEC, too; They include Glenn Morton, twice.

[jillery]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:04:40 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
wrote:

Some of them call themselves Creation Scientists.

[jillery]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 16:25:52 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:29:51 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>> I also ran across this website. So far, I haven't seen anything there
>> that I interpret as advocating a creationist belief. But like you
>> said, it depends on how one defines 'creationist'.
>
>If we're still talking about <http://www.oldearth.org/> it goes
>
>"Welcome to Old Earth Ministries (formerly Answers In Creation),
>a creation science ministry dedicated to supporting old earth creationism.
>This website exists to provide rebuttals to the false claims of
>young earth creation science. We currently have over 1,500 articles
>disputing the claims of young earth creationism."

Yes. That they say they are creationists is one thing. But I look at
their argument themselves. And I see nothing there that qualifies as
a creationist argument.

>Also, did you take the "One Hour Tour"? Me neither.

As a matter of fact, I did. If you're familiar with the issues, it
doesn't actually take a whole hour. The text for each of the chapters
is as described in the preamble:

"If you are looking for a quick intro on the bad science behind young
earth creationism, you are in the right place. "

It's easy to refute YEC science using plain vanilla science. I saw
nothing there that couldn't comfortably paste into any good science
textbook.

>So, yes, apparently they only "support" OEC by rebutting YEC.
>
>There is a page for "Notable Christians Open to an Old Earth
>Interpretation", but this seems to consist of a link to someone else's
>site, and Billy Graham (didn't care about creationism) and C.S. Lewis
>(accepted evolution), according to their version. But also there's
><http://www.oldearth.org/testimony.htm> - but this seems to be mostly
>anti-YEC, too; They include Glenn Morton, twice.

So a naive person reading this website might easily get the impression
that OEC is little different from plain vanilla science. Maybe that's
the impression they're trying to make. I had hoped for some specific
information on what they think are the differences.

[Ernest Major]

In message <l6ki68dmeaqock5gh...@4ax.com>, jillery
<69jp...@gmail.com> writes

They write "Yes, Noah was real, and so was his ark." and "The ark was
real, but do the young earth theorists have it right?"

Skimming the site, it appears to be an apologetics site trying to remove
YEC as a barrier to Christian belief. As such it appears to be taking a
broad-tent approach between Gap Theory, Progressive Creationism and
Theistic Evolution. It specifically takes an inerrantist approach to the
Bible.
--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

Wow. How did I miss that one? That's definitely a no-no. I retract
my earlier comments.

[Ernest Major]

In message <k62j68lg29r38hefn...@4ax.com>, jillery

It might not be quite that bad. Apart from "Christianity is true", "the
Bible is inerrant" and "Young Earth Creationism" is false, the site
seems rather reluctant to take positive positions, but they seem to
accept the possibility of a local flood. (They reference but don't
explicitly endorse a Hugh Ross article which argues for a flood
restricted to Mesopotamia - and does considerable violence to science in
the process.) I don't see how a possible historical flooding event and
Biblical inerrancy can be reconciled, but I may underestimate the amount
of violence they are willing to do to the concept of inerrancy. (By
claiming that Noah was real they cut off the easy way of saving
inerrancy - that is interpreting the story as allegorical rather than
historical.)

Make that "almost certainly a no-no".

>
>
>>Skimming the site, it appears to be an apologetics site trying to remove
>>YEC as a barrier to Christian belief. As such it appears to be taking a
>>broad-tent approach between Gap Theory, Progressive Creationism and
>>Theistic Evolution. It specifically takes an inerrantist approach to the
>>Bible.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 14:07:03 +0100, Ernest Major

For me, the problem isn't just the nature of the Flood, but also the
nature of the Ark. They site has several articles which say the
Biblical Ark actually existed as described. Had I seen that on my
first few passes, I would not have written what I did.