Thursday, October 06, 2005


In an article on a creationist trip and an evolutionist trip down the Grand Canyon those loveable guys at the NYT give us this:
For Mr. Vail and 29 guests on his Canyon Ministries trip, this was vacation as religious pilgrimage, an expedition in search of evidence that God created the earth in six days 6,000 years ago, just as Scripture says. [emphasis mine, nac]

Um, you got a verse on that 6,000 year thing? No painting with broad strokes there.


Chuck Anziulewicz said...

So tell me: Are you are "Old Earth" creationist or a "Young Earth" creationist?

susanna in alabama said...

Chuck, are you an "Old Earth" irritant or a "Young Earth" irritant? Certainly your comments have the cutting edge humor and intelligence of fossilized rocks. What, precisely, do you seek to accomplish beyond irritation?

Chuck Anziulewicz said...

Dear Susanna:

Something about my question not legitimate enough for you?

"Young Earth" creationists are those who believe in a strictly literal interpretation of Biblical Creation ... namely, that all of Creation took place over a six-day period less than 7,000 years ago. Go on the internet and you'll find plenty of websites devoted to "Young Earth" creationism.

"Old Earth" creationists, on the other hand, prefer to fit the Creation into a world and a universe that science demonstrates to be quite a lot older than 7,000 years.

If you find the question irritating, you shouldn't. Some Christians are "Young Earth," others are "Old Earth." There is certainly a degree of bitterness among the "Young Earth" side toward the "Old Earth" side. I just wondered which side Alan was on.

Don't get your panties in a twist over this.

Hatless in Hattiesburg said...

The phrase "six days" is Biblical, and may be interpreted either literally or figuratively. But the 6000 to 7000 year estimate for a "young earth" is based more on tradition than Scripture.

I just googled this link -
- which says that about 400 years ago, Bishop James Ussher made his estimate of the date of creation, which became widely accepted.

(...and there is certainly too much bitterness on all sides of the controversy...)

susanna in alabama said...

Chuck, your question is quite legit, and I am fully aware of the distinction between the terms. I was responding more to your history of asking questions for reasons other than honest seeking. I assumed this question was likewise asked for reasons other than a simple desire to know, and I allowed my own irritation to show. If that assumption was incorrect, then I apologize for my response.