Creationist Wisdom #732: Young-Earther Returns

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Daily Courier of Prescott, Arizona. It’s titled Letter about young earth, and the newspaper has a comments section.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is David. We’ve written about two of his letters before — most recently: #724: Arizona Young-Earther. Yes — he’s writing about the same topic again. Excerpts from his new letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

[An earlier letter-writer] stated in a letter that, “Nowhere does the Bible declare that we live on a young earth…” My response to this is: 1) When you add up the genealogies in the Bible, you come to 4,004 BC; 2) Jesus says in Mt. 19:4 & Mk. 10:6 that “From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female”, so if the creation of Adam & Eve was at the beginning, and the genealogies date Adam & Eve back to 4004 B.C., then to believe that our world is old is to say that Jesus and the Bible are wrong.

Gasp — no one wants to say that! Then David declares:

Because of the brainwashing that goes on in the government schools, telling kids that they came from pond scum and that the world is billions of years old, as if it were a fact, it has become the dominant worldview for the last 50 years, but the public schools are misleading our kids as this is far from a fact.

Egad — government brainwashing! How horrible! After that he tells us:

About 95 percent of the science of dating the earth indicates that the earth is less than 100,000 years old, so why is none of that science found in the textbooks? The answer is because it goes against the dominant world view, and would embarrass those that hold to it.

Wowie — 95 percent of the geological evidence shows the Earth is less than 100K years old! That’s amazing! David continues:

[The earlier letter-writer] wants us to believe in the gap theory – one of several theories that try to insert long ages of time into the Bible to accommodate the modern cultural worldview. The problem with this is that it goes against the clear reading of the text and its interpretation by the church since its founding. It also goes against the rules of Hebraic grammar, which says that the word for day, “yom,” must mean a literal 24-hour day when used with a number or the words “evening and morning.”

Verily, there’s no room for doubt. Let’s read on:

The Genesis account uses both of these, counting each day of creation and ending each day with, “and there was evening and morning, the 1st day”, etc.

Nothing could be more clear. And now we come to the end:

I think that God knew that Satan would use this issue to derail the faith of many much later in the life of the church, so God made sure that He was as clear as possible in the wording of the creation account, but people that feel pressured by their secular worldview force it to say what they want it to say, even though it will not.

Don’t listen to the devil, dear reader. You know where that will lead you.

Copyright © 2016. 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

23 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #732: Young-Earther Returns

  1. Thinking what god knew is quite arrogant.

  2. Ah, yes, they’re holding onto an unnecessary point of Biblical history long past the point where it’s easily disproven, but it’s clearly not THEIR fault that people leave the church when they find out just how easy it is.

    Cripes.

  3. About 95 percent of the science of dating the earth indicates that the earth is less than 100,000 years old, so why is none of that science found in the textbooks?

    I’d like to know this too. Where is all this geological evidence that David claims backs up his assertions> I’ve never seen it in the textbooks, nor in the science magazines, nor in books on geology, nor even on Nova. Where have all the bastions of orthodox science been hiding this vital stuff?

  4. So this dimwit says science is false and is done wrong and is incorrect!!!??? Ok! dim one when do you stop using the products fo that incorrect science, like TV, cell phones, cars, etc!!!! Hypocrite!!!

  5. “About 95 percent of the science of dating the earth indicates that the earth is less than 100,000 years old…”

    David is correct here, if you get all your “science” from YEC Websites and maybe throw in Evolution News & Views as the 5% who are the old-earthers.

  6. About 95 percent of the science of dating the earth indicates that the earth is less than 100,000 years old, so why is none of that science found in the textbooks?

    This would be correct if you consider that the vast majority of all dating is radiocarbon dating, which has a maximum age of around 50,000 years.

  7. michaelfugate

    It also makes sense, if you assume that people in the west thought the earth was young from the time the OT was written until 1800 and then old for the last 200 years.

  8. Note to David: I did a quick search and found several colleges and institutions of higher learning in and around Prescott. Perhaps there’s an evening introductory geology course available at one or more of these. It would be a good idea for you to learn a little something of what you’re writing about.

  9. David opines “… then to believe that our world is old is to say that Jesus and the Bible are wrong.” Well Davy boy, your interpretation of the bronze age myths in the bible is wrong. Tough luck.

  10. Dave Luckett

    As I have said before, the ignorance of fact is appalling, but what chaps my ass most of all is the fearless distortion of what the Bible actually says.

    Jesus is NOT quoted at Matthew 19:4 as saying “At the beginning of creation, God made them male and female…”

    In the first place, he begins by asking his hearers if they have not read this. Of course they had. It’s a rhetorical question. But he goes on: “he who had from the beginning created, made them male and female”. I’ve just checked the Greek of the gospel, which is itself a close translation of the Aramaic targums, which are the words Jesus probably spoke. That’s what it says. No reputable translation – and I have now checked eight – says what David says it says. He’s making it up. Jesus did NOT say that human beings were made at the beginning of creation. He said that God had created them, as He had created “from the beginning”.

    Jesus was answering a question about human beings – whether it was lawful for a HUSBAND to divorce his WIFE at will. (The converse, of course, could never arise, in the society of that place and time. Jesus’s answer, incidentally, was “No”, which is conveniently ignored by the fundamentalists, those Jesus-affirming, Bible-believing religious folks.) So the beginning Jesus was talking about was the beginning of human beings and their essential institutions. And checking the words in Genesis (1:27) we find that “male and female, he made them” are uniquely spoken of human beings.

    As far as anyone knows, Jesus was perfectly correct about marriage existing from the beginning of human society. Marriage in one form or another is one of the two invariable social institutions – the other is some form of the incest taboo – and it is immemorial. It may actually pre-date the emergence of modern human beings.

    But that is by the way. David is simply misquoting and distorting words of Jesus to suit his convenience. It is too much to hope that Jesus will have something to say to him about that; but someone should.

    The assertion that the Hebrew word “yom”, day, must and can only mean an actual 24 hour literal day is also an unwarranted addition to the text, and idiotic to boot. There are no “rules of Hebraic grammar” that require literality if you add “the morning and the evening”. What we see here is a mnemonic device, a recurring figure of the type used in all traditional tale-telling, and incidentally a piece of evidence that the original material of the text was oral.

    I’m sorry to be long about this. But as I said, the sheer insouciant chutzpah required for this sort of flagrant distortion is galling, and the unctuous hypocrisy of asserting respect for the mistreated text is doubly so. I sympathise with those who find the willing ignorance of science at least as bad; but as my Welsh grandmother remarked, “Everybody puts his finger where it hurts”.

  11. Once again, the “dominant worldview” in Prescott, Arizona and the rest of the United States is belief in a creator.

  12. About 95 percent of the science of dating the earth indicates that the earth is less than 100,000 years old, so why is none of that science found in the textbooks? The answer is because it goes against the dominant world view, and would embarrass those that hold to it.

    I’m with realthog. Where do these people get this stuff?

    It doesn’t even make sense on its own terms. If “95 percent” of the “science of dating the earth” is on the young-earthers’ side, then how did the idea of an ancient earth become part of the “dominant world view”? How, in fact, did that “world view” become, and remain, “dominant” in the first place?

    It’s not as though “95 percent” of science in a key area could be ignored by people with an interest in actually using science productively. Creationists, on the other hand, are free to ignore 100% of it, because all that matters to them is what the Bible says–or what they think it says, anyway.

  13. It also goes against the rules of Hebraic grammar, which says that the word for day, “yom,” must mean a literal 24-hour day when used with a number or the words “evening and morning.”
    Yes, and here’s a picture of his clock:

  14. It will be interesting to see if this David has any support in Texas for his views, or if it’s evaporating:
    Will Creationism Be Booted From Texas Textbooks For Good?
    http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/will-creationism-be-booted-from-texas-textbooks-for-good

  15. @DavidK

    Will Creationism Be Booted From Texas Textbooks For Good?

    Not if a President Trump has his way.

  16. @realthog: Trump probably doesn’t give a s#*t. But Pence, on the other hand…

  17. … the rules of Hebraic grammar, which says that the word for day, “yom,” must mean a literal 24-hour day when used with a number …

    “Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound.” Isaiah 30:26

  18. they came from pond scum

    I guess if I was taught I came from pond scum I would be upset too!

    As to Trump and religion all I can say is Two Corinthians baby!

  19. Eddie Janssen

    Given that the US has so many (Young Earth) Creationists, isn’t it strange that all the comments in the paper are against David?

  20. I heard that Trump is anxiously awaiting the sequel, Three Corinthians.

  21. I admit that I am a great admirer of the first Genesis creation myth. (Much less of the second.) It is neat, it is logical, it accords with everyday experience. It is a pity that it turns out to be be almost entirely wrong, but it holds up well compared to contemporary Greek speculation.
    It starts from primordial chaos, introduces light, realises that permanent light isn’t so great and institutes day and night, doesn’t want water everywhere so makes the firmament to separate water above from water below, then , on the same lines. pushes water back to make dry land. And so on, a quite logical progression culminating with the final triumph, humanity being fruitful and multiplying.
    But then, some theocrat priest made a kack-handed attempt to prop up the seven day week and the sabbath by putting in the day and night stuff.

  22. I always wondered about this woman made from a rib. Did He do that for all animals? And what about animals that change sex? And those without ribs? Did he use an antenna for the insects He is so fond of?

    95% ! As Eric pointed out, 5% does not sound ‘dominant’ to me.In fact 100% of science proposes an old Earth . I have never seen ascientific article to the contrary since Kelvin.

  23. @nicky
    And even Kelvin’s estimates are much older than YEC. More than 20 million years as compared with less than 10 thousand.