Creationist Wisdom #587: The Researcher

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Knoxville News Sentinel of Knoxville, Tennessee. It’s titled In Bible, a day was just a normal day. The newspaper has a comments section, but you need to subscribe to see what’s going on there.

Five months ago, the same guy wrote a different letter to the same newspaper: Evolution, math and impossible odds. So although he’s a dedicated creationist, because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. We can’t use his first name either, because he only uses his initials — W.D.. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

A religious writer recently wrote about the meaning of “day” in order to fit today’s ideas on evolution with the Lord’s creation account.

We can’t find that letter, but W.D. is referring to Day-age creationism, a way to interpret Genesis so that it’s consistent with an old Earth. That’s a big issue for those who want both science and the bible to be true. Let’s find out what W.D. thinks of it:

I researched this old idea at

The Institute for Creation Research? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Roll that around in your mind a time or two, dear reader. It’s gotta be one of the funniest sentences we’ve encountered in our entire Creationist Wisdom series. Let’s read on:

These are Christian scientists with doctorates in geology, biology, physics, nuclear physics, genetics and astrophysics, along with scholars who have other advanced degrees.

Indeed. That’s why we always say that ICR is the granddaddy of all creationist outfits; they’re the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. W.D. continues:

I found that the Hebrew word for day is “yom.” The meaning of “day” is also modified by the use of evening and morning from day one through day seven. The Old Testament uses “day” 38 times, and these scholars say each time it means a normal day. There is no opening to change the meaning that is clearly stated.

Thirty-eight times! Wowie! Here’s more:

As for evolutionary theory, it was pointed out in 2 Peter 3:3-6 in the King James version with precise language that “for this they are willingly ignorant of that by the word of God the heavens were of old.”

Very persuasive! Moving along:

Peter is saying God created the heavens fully formed, just like he did Adam and Eve, plus everything else he created. Read these verses over and over, and see if this is not intended to be a repudiation of evolutionary thought, which is against the clear teaching of Genesis.

W.D. is right. There’s no doubt that those verses are a clear repudiation of evolution. Another excerpt:

Peter is saying Noah’s flood changed the whole Earth. All things are not the same day after day, which is evolutionary reasoning.

Yeah, okay. And now we come to the end — which is absolutely devastating to the evolutionists:

As a further note, recently a secular scientist in astrophysics from Europe who has been studying the origin of the stars for years wrote that he could see no way stars developed. He said it appears they formed all at once in place.

Oooooooooooooh! An unnamed scientist from an unnamed country wrote in an unnamed publication that all the stars formed at once. That’s even more impressive than W.D.’s research at ICR. We’re convinced! No doubt, you are too.

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #587: The Researcher

  1. The Old Testament uses “day” 38 times, and these scholars say each time it means a normal day.

    An easy resource to rebut that claim is Wikipedia’s article on “Yom”.

    But anyone with the least familiarity with the Bible knows of differing uses of the word “day”, even in Genesis 1. Some of these Bible-believing Christians should read the Bible.

  2. all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation 2 Peter 3:4

    Is this an endorsement of omphalism?

    It does seem to reject the idea that there was massive micro-evolution of modern species from a few kinds on the Ark. Or that there were major changes (such as the Grand Canyon) as a result of the Flood. Or major extinctions. Or a change by orders of magnitude in the speed of light, radioactive half-lifes, tree-ring formation, …

  3. “It’s gotta be one of the funniest sentences we’ve ….”
    I concur. It’s stuff like this that makes me addicted to your blog.

    “those verses are a clear repudiation of evolution.”
    We have to admire his foresight. Saint Peter was a true visionary!

  4. Dave Luckett

    Me, I think it’s hilarious that W D is quoting one of the passages that cause the strongest doubt that the second letter of Peter was actually written by him, and that it contradicts W D, anyway, but not satisfied with this faux pas, W D can’t manage not to add to the text. as well.

    These are the verses W D cites, 2 Peter 3:3-6:

    “First of all, note this: in the last days there will come scoffers who lead self-indulgent lives. They will mock you and say, ‘What has happened to his promised coming? Our fathers have been laid to rest, but still everything goes on exactly as it has always done since the world began.’ In maintaining this, they forget that there were heavens and earth long ago, created by God’s word out of water and with water, and that the first world was destroyed by water, the water of the Lord.”

    See where it says, as W D tell us, that “God created the heavens fully formed”? Um. Me, neither.

    But the really funny part is that it just about couldn’t have been written by Peter. He was dead before 65 CE, about thirty years after Jesus’s own death. Peter and the original disciples had always taught that Jesus would return within one generation, just as Jesus had promised, and at the time of Peter’s death, that still seemed possible. Only Jesus didn’t return. By around 90 CE, the whole generation had indeed passed away, just as “Peter” has his scoffers say, and still no second coming. What to do?

    Why, we write an encyclical letter over Peter’s signature, in which we back-date a prophecy that has already happened, and in which he tells everyone that he never thought Jesus was going to come back real soon. Could take a thousand years. Why, says verse 8, in the Lord’s sight a thousand years is like a day, and vice-versa.

    That is, the same, the very same text as this illiterate is quoting goes on to torpedo his point: in the Bible, days don’t mean just “days”. They can mean a thousand years.

    So the authority this loon is quoting isn’t one; it doesn’t say what he says it says; and what it does say is that he’s dead flat wrong anyway. Layer after layer of fail. The loon’s an onion of idiocies.

  5. Dave Luckett says: “Layer after layer of fail. The loon’s an onion of idiocies.”

    But he researched it at ICR!

  6. As our Curmudgeon has already noted, W.D.’s claim

    I researched this old idea at

    is worthy of our meditation–and indeed, of our respect. It is very difficult to come up with similar exemplars of pure oxymoronic babble–but of course, it’s fun to try!

    But I am sure other readers of this blog can do better than my own attempts at similar bathetic fails, e.g.

    I banqueted at MacDonald’s.

    I studied psychotherapeutic counselling under Jerry Springer

    &c. &c.

  7. To continue Megalonyx’s hilarious examples:

    I learned interior design from the homeless man.

    I went swimming in the Sahara.

    I learned about bananas from Ray Comfort.

  8. The ignorance is strong in this one, Obi-Wan.

  9. 2 Peter 3:5-6: One of my favorite REGIONAL flood passages. The Greek text says that the GE (“earth”) was formed…but in the flood the KOSMOS (the “world of people”) was deluged and destroyed. If the author had meant to say that the entirety of the GE was “deluged and destroyed”, the word GE from verse 5 could have been repeated in verse 6–but instead the author used KOSMOS. I used to tell my students to remember them from their English derivatives: GE was the “world of rocks [‘geology’] and continents” while KOSMOS was the “world of people[‘cosmopolitan’].

    The NIV says “the world[KOSMOS] of that time” was deluged. So, wherever people (the descendents of Adam) lived at that time, that world of people was deluged. There are 10 generations from Adam to Noah, about 1100 years. After the flood, the descendents of Adam/Noah stayed in one area and, thus, Genesis says the Babel incident scattered them. Perhaps Adamic people also stayed in one area before the flood. Whatever the number of Adamic people destroyed in the flood, ten generations wouldn’t necessarily require a lot of land area, even if fertility was high and families were very large. In any case, it is hard to imagine (!) that all of the continents of the GE would be settled, but the destruction of the KOSMOS (world of people) fits everything contextually.

  10. Doctor Stochastic

    As the World Turns, Swans Crossing from Dark Shadows along The Edge of Night use the Guiding Light of a Morning Star heralding The Brighter Days Of Our Lives during our Search for Tomorrow.

  11. OMG, @Doctor Stochastic! BRAVO! (loud, slow clapping)

  12. A religious writer recently wrote about the meaning of “day” in order to fit today’s ideas on evolution with the Lord’s creation account. . . . The Old Testament uses “day” 38 times, and these scholars say each time it means a normal day. There is no opening to change the meaning that is clearly stated.

    Well, there’s Daniel 9:24-27, which even true believers admit involves treating a “day” as a year. Even more startling is 2 Peter 3:8, which treats a day as equivalent to a thousand years. (Admittedly, the latter is from the New Testament rather than the Old, but isn’t all the same “Word of God,” dictated directly to the prophets?

  13. To continue Mega’s and Refl’s fine tradition:

    Fred Phelps taught me how to do gay sex.

  14. Did the guy happen to explain how an illiterate fisherman (Peter) was a ble to write a book? (Hint: it wasn’t Peter, it was somebody trying to usurp his authority.)