Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2017 1:52 AM
437 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 435 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Happy Birthday: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,960 Year: 6,566/21,208 Month: 2,327/2,634 Week: 515/572 Day: 1/61 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456Next
Author Topic:   What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only)
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3470
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 1 of 84 (317937)
06-05-2006 12:16 PM


The roots of this topic
For the "Great Debate" forum, Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

This topic starts with material from an Adminnemooseus / AdminBuzsaw conversation in the "Private Administration Forum" (PAF), which for those that have PAF access, starts here,. It is a side topic in a topic complimenting AdminBuzsaw on his moderation efforts.

Adminnemooseus, in PAF topic message 7, writes:

I have poor memory abilities, so I don't have much any mental image of "the history of Buzsaw" at . I suspect that some of the edges of your creationist viewpoint have been worn off via your forum participation (ie - You're not quite the hard core creationist you used to be).

Buzaws' reply to the above:

AdminBuzsaw, in PAF topic message 8, writes:

Hi Moose. As for my creationist viewpoint, the hypothetical creationism of Buzsaw began to become unique in my early teens when I first began studying the Bible. The more I read in it, the more my viewpoints began to wear off from what I was hearing in pulpits and reading in evangelical books, though I agreed pretty much on the gospel message itself.

More marginal to this topic were some additional Buzsaw comments:

AdminBuzsaw, additionally writes:

My participation on forums began at the old now defunct Newsmax forum, username "Buzzboy where my viewpoints were about as unpopular as they are here. When that shut down we all split, the creationist types mostly going to their kind of forums and I choosing to go with the secularists, most of whom joined NoPC, (a place for the thick skinned) where moderation was pretty much nonexistent and the talk was rough. There I stayed until found EvC.

My forum experience overall has effected quite a significant honing down on some edges of my viewpoints, but mind you, only the edges. Shall we say that hypothetical viewpoint has been, imo, finetuned, due two what I've been taught by secularists as well as nonsecularists in the forums, but from the extensive amount of personal research required to debate the degree of intelligence one incounters, especially here at EvC where most, unlike myself have one or more educational degrees of some kind.

Adminnemooseus' reply to the main material above, which gets to the core of this topic:

Adminnemooseus, in PAF topic message 9, writes:

Well, the gospel message is New Testiment isn't it?

The core of the creationism vs. evolution debate comes down to the content of the Old Testiment, specificly the Genesis story and the belief vs. non-belief of the literalism of it. What is "the hypothetical creationism of Buzsaw"? My blunt question for you is, are you a young Earth creationist?

To which Buzsaw replied:

AdminBuzsaw, in PAF topic message 10, writes:

I've explained the details several times over the years and this is likely not the place to go into it, but in short, imo the age of the earth until day five of creation is unknown. From day five which includes living creatures is roughly six thousand years old. The universe has eternally existed. This has been in my origins hypothesis long before I came here, so nothing significant regarding the Evo/Creo position has changed due to forum participation.

To which Minnemooseus replied:

Adminnemooseus, in PAF topic message 11, writes:

I apologize if I have prompted you to repeat something that you have made clear in the past, but if so, such was lost to me, in the clutter of the past. In other words, I was pretty clueless about "where you were coming from".

Seemingly, you can accept an old Earth and at least much of the biological and non-biological evolution that the old Earth record indicates.

Perhaps instead of carrying on here, a public "Great Debate" discussion between Buzsaw and Minnemooseus might be interesting (or it might be even more interesting if presented as a conversation between AdminBuzsaw and Adminnemooseus). If you are interested and willing, I can cull some material from this topic and submit it as a "Proposed New Topic". I would presume that you have no objections to the revealing of what we have said in the past few messages.

The following is miscellaneous material from the PAF messages, most not directly relevant to this topic. The third block of text, however, probably is relevant. Buzsaw specificly indicated that he would like it included int this topic.

Adminnemooseus, message 7, writes:

I've been thinking about that "Great Debate" between you an Jar from quite a while back. The one that I foolishly agreed to moderate, and then ended up doing nothing. Essentially, once you and Jar started rapid firing rather lengthy messages back and forth, in a subject pretty foreign to me, I was totally boggled. I should have known such was going to happen, and I should have declined the moderation job.

AdminBuzsaw, message 8, writes:

Ah, yes, that GD, which, as I understood was to be EvC's first offical totally structured and managed GD. I still claim it as the first official one, complete with moderator, appointed judges and the whole enchilada, including the followup peanut gallery, which btw, went the whole post limit or nearly so. As I remember, you did a little moderating, but unless my memory fails me, there were indeed two judges who were appointed but forgot to judge. I have my thinking on why, but we won't go into that.

AdminBuzsaw, message 10, writes:

The Buz/Jar GD and the PG followup thread was a significant test for my own benefit to assure me that my hypothesis was the best out there relative the thermodynamic laws. Imo, it eliminates the problems that both evos and young earth/young universe creationists have regarding the before problem. Young Universe folks have a huge problem, given they have an eternal idist minded creator, in that if he created it all a few thousand years ago he would be lonely and idle for all of the pre-universe past. I suppose we ought to move on, lest one of our cumbody admin friends gives us heck for topic drift.

That, and a few other messages concerning agreeing to this "Great Debate", gets us to my starting this topic. I will end message 1 here, and will also post new input as message 2.

Minnemooseus

"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added subtitle. Also added an "I" that had gotten lost in the copy/paste procedures I did.


    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3470
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 2 of 84 (317938)
06-05-2006 12:18 PM


New material
"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

The core of the broader theme of this topic is that those of the evolution side of the debate assume that anyone professing to be a creationist, is a young universe / young Earth creationist (YEC), unless they make clear otherwise. And it seems that for many of 's non-YEC creationists, statements of being non-YEC are obscure at best. Perhaps they have stated their non-YEC creationist position, but such gets lost in the clutter of the older topics. Or perhaps they do not have a clear personal opinion on the age of the universe / age of the Earth (as I found out about Randman via the Yec/Not Yec? - A "let's keep it short topic" topic).

But, in my opinion, those ages are most fundamental in the whole creationism/evolution debate.

My impression, from the material presented in message 1, is that you have no great conflicts with much of evolutionary theory, be it biological or non-biological. Your main creationist differences seem to kick in concerning the events of creation day 6.

Quoting from my version of the Bible, concerning "Sixth day: animals and man" (Genesis 1:24-27, it also continues on through verse 31):

24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

26Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth," 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

First comment - Awful lot of redundant text there.

I am thinking that the key part of the above quoted is the "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." I am also thinking that you believe that that creation is a matter of spiritual and not physical image and likeness.

If I am interpreting your position correctly, you are very far from being a young universe, young Earth creationist. I see you as being able to accept the evolution of the human species from earlier life forms, to later (roughly 6000 years ago) be given by God the spiritual image of God.

As such, I would file you under "theistic evolutionist". Again, I see no major conflicts between your creationist viewpoint and the mainstream scientific evolutionary viewpoint. But then, I may be substantially misunderstanding your position.

Minnemooseus

Added by edit - For possible future reference, the list of "Biological Evolution", "Human Origins", and "Geology and the Great Flood" topics Buzsaw has posted to:

"Biological Evolution":
Does Chen's work pose a problem for ToE?
"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?
where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman]
Rodent speciation and Noah's Ark.
The Definition and Description of a "Transitional"
Dinosaurs and man lived together, which destroys the theory of evolution
Nature: Archy was bird brain
Is there evidence for macroevolution?
Could any creationist explain the DNA-differences from a sudden creation?
Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution?
Urgent Help With Quote Miner
evolution is IN the bible!
Fear of venomous (& poisonous) animals: who is to blame?

"Human Origins":
How many Creationists here believe in the Caveman?
Was Nebraska Man a fraud?
Racial Evolution 101

"Geology and the Great Flood":
Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark
Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some
YECs, how do you explain meandering canyons?
Fresh Problem with the Ark
Re-enactments of the Noah's Ark voyage?
Pre-flood physics?
What about altitude
The flood and Ancient Chinese Documents
Frozen Tropical Animals
Buz's seashell claim
Question about this so called World Wide Flood.
Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II

"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added Buzsaw "Biological Evolution" and "Human Origins" topic lists.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added "Geology and the Great Flood" topic list.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-05-2006 4:38 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2006 11:44 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
AdminAsgara
Administrator
Posts: 2072
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 3 of 84 (317941)
06-05-2006 12:21 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3470
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 4 of 84 (318014)
06-05-2006 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Minnemooseus
06-05-2006 12:18 PM


Minnemooseus misreading of Buzsaw position
"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Buzsaw writes:

...imo the age of the earth until day five of creation is unknown. From day five which includes living creatures is roughly six thousand years old.

Minnemooseus writes:

Your main creationist differences seem to kick in concerning the events of creation day 6.

I had midread the above quoted "unknown until day five" to mean "unknown until and including day five". In other words, my interpretation was that your "roughly six thousand years" did not include the day five creation event(s); It only included day six on.

This may well be a major glitch in my interpretation of your creationist position. Also, I seemed to have blotched my attention to some of day six, and got over-focused on the creation of man.

Feel free to comment on what I previously wrote, but be aware that I was not considering the events of day five, and misconsidered the events of day six. Back to the Bible for me.

Things are looking much more to be "Buzsaw is a YEC", or, even more confusing, "Buzsaw is a semi-YEC".

Minnemooseus

Added by edit: OK, day five deals with the creation of fish and birds, but you have to go back to day three for the creation of vegetation. Essentially the Buzsaw position seems to be "day 4 and earlier - old Earth is acceptable"; "day five and later - young Earth". I thought I had made sense of the Buzsaw position, but now I'm boggled. Like I said above, "Buzsaw is a semi-YEC"?

Now ready for Buzsaw input.

"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added top and bottom banners.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-05-2006 12:18 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 06-07-2006 12:25 AM Minnemooseus has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 5 of 84 (318511)
06-06-2006 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Minnemooseus
06-05-2006 12:18 PM


Re: New material
Minnemooseous writes:

And it seems that for many of 's non-YEC creationists, statements of being non-YEC are obscure at best. Perhaps they have stated their non-YEC creationist position, but such gets lost in the clutter of the older topics. Or perhaps they do not have a clear personal opinion on the age of the universe / age of the Earth (as I found out about Randman via the Yec/Not Yec? - A "let's keep it short topic" topic).

But, in my opinion, those ages are most fundamental in the whole creationism/evolution debate.

Hi Minnemooseous. You've gone to a lot of work here. Thanks much! I am pleased to be able to clarify my position on these things, since what I call my Buzsaw Hypothesis on origins and creationism science is quite unique and easily confused when it's dealt out piecemeal in various threads over a long period of time.

Btw, are you ok with me using "Moose" for brevity? Please feel free to say so if you'd rather have your username in full. "Buz" is fine with me if you wish so as to save some typing. An old 1950's Air Force buddy in my squadron was "Moose." (abe: Disregard. I've decided to go with the whole username.)

Minnemooseous writes:

My impression, from the material presented in message 1, is that you have no great conflicts with much of evolutionary theory, be it biological or non-biological. Your main creationist differences seem to kick in concerning the events of creation day 6.

Quoting from my version of the Bible, concerning "Sixth day: animals and man" (Genesis 1:24-27, it also continues on through verse 31):

24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth," 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

The only evolution I can accept would be possibly some micro type adaptations within a species. I see in your next post you acknowledge that you missread so I understand why you had this wrong here.

Minnemooseous writes:

First comment - Awful lot of redundant text there.

I am thinking that the key part of the above quoted is the "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." I am also thinking that you believe that that creation is a matter of spiritual and not physical image and likeness.

Actually I believe that though God is spirit, he has a literal glorified glowing image resembling ours in form. He is complex and beyond our comprehension, having a multi-present spirit known as the Holy Spirit being the formless member of the trinity, also being the spirit of Jevovah the father as well as Jesus, the son. Whenever a theophany of God appeared to men/mankind, it was in the form of a man, sometimes referred to the angel of God. So we, being uniquely intelligent beings are created very much like God in form/image as well as spirit unlike the other earthly creatures/brute beasts. Angels also appear to be always in like image, often being mistaken for earth men. If you need clarification on my position on this, say so and I'll do the best I can to explain my position.

Minnemooseous writes:

If I am interpreting your position correctly, you are very far from being a young universe, young Earth creationist.

That is correct, the universe being eternal having no beginning perse. Everything in the universe proceeded from God in some form or another as per TD1 science. All that exists today has existed in some form or another eternally, either as engergy/matter within the being of God or as matter/energy proceeding forth from God intelligently designed (ID) for his purpose. Colossians 1:17 would at least imply this when referring to Jesus who come from the Holy Spirit it says that he was before all things which were created and all things consist in him. This statement is not easily comprehended but I see it as at least implicating my above statement.

Minnemooseous writes:

I see you as being able to accept the evolution of the human species from earlier life forms, to later (roughly 6000 years ago) be given by God the spiritual image of God.

That is incorrect. Adam was the first earth man ever, created in one literal day roughly six milleniums ago as the perfect man who being created perfect was far superior to any since the fall in every respect, body soul and mind, but nevertheless totally human as we are.

Minnemooseous writes:

As such, I would file you under "theistic evolutionist". Again, I see no major conflicts between your creationist viewpoint and the mainstream scientific evolutionary viewpoint. But then, I may be substantially misunderstanding your position.

This is incorrect. I'll proceed to your next message to address that since you missread as you have stated in that message.

Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-05-2006 12:18 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 84 (318538)
06-07-2006 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Minnemooseus
06-05-2006 4:38 PM


Re: Minnemooseus misreading corrected by Minnemouseous
Minnemooseous writes:

Essentially the Buzsaw position seems to be "day 4 and earlier - old Earth is acceptable"; "day five and later - young Earth". I thought I had made sense of the Buzsaw position, but now I'm boggled. Like I said above, "Buzsaw is a semi-YEC"?

Now ready for Buzsaw input.

Perfecto! Since the sun and moon were as stated in the text "for seasons, for days and for years," the text, imo, implies that previous to these bodies and since it is not given how long it took in day for for them to be finished, there is no criteria in the first four days to determine the length of them, the light of them being furnished by God and by another source.

In Revelation 21:23 we read that in the New Jerusalem of the new earth (future) "it has no need of the sun, neither of the moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God did lighten it." I assume that the glory of God's Holy Spirit furnished the light for planet earth in the first four days before the sun and moon were created.

Why did God wait until day four? The Buzsaw Hypothesis (BH for the purpose of this thread) has it that since there would be widely varying requirements of heat for effecting the various processes of creation, some monumetal, the HS (Holy Spirit) emmited the exact amount of energy needed to effect each desired application. This would include preparing planet earth with ample vegitation so as to be in place for the living creatures after day four. Thus day three being pre sun and moon for the plants. Likely a literal day, though not impossible with God, would not be the best way to go.

Again, for clarification on anything or if I have failed to address some point, just say the word.

Btw, I've decided to edit your full username into the other messages in place of "Moose" since once I get use to typing it it goes fast.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-05-2006 4:38 PM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-07-2006 2:13 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3470
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 7 of 84 (318574)
06-07-2006 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
06-07-2006 12:25 AM


Please stand by for another message
First of all, calling me Moose in just fine. For some vague reason I was feeling extra formal at the beginning of this topic and started signing off with the full Minnemooseus, which is something I have rarely if ever done before. It think it had something to do with the fact that the roots of this topic was an Adminnemooseus/AdminBuzsaw conversation.

When I completed message 2, I was thinking we had major agreement, and this topic was going to be a very short one. So much for that idea.

As I see it, my blotched up message 2 has resulted in your message 5 reply being irrelevant to the debate, at least at this point. Maybe it will become relevant later. Anyway, I'm not going to make any response to message 5, other than to say I have no problem with an eternal universe, with what we now know as the universe being only the latest installment of a longer history.

Your first paragraph of message 6 anticipated what was going to be my next first question. I think I find your answer acceptable, at least in the context of the debate so far. The resolving of this point so quickly has really caught me by surprise.

Your second paragraph (further elaborated on in your third paragraph) anticipated what was going to be my second question. I had, at least generally, accurately predicted to myself what your response would be. Again, I find your answer acceptable, at least in the context of the debate so far.

I didn't have a third question lined up, or if I did, I sure can't remember it now.

Right now, I have nothing further to add. Please stand by until I come up with material and post another message.

Alas, I fear this topic may be merging into the same area as my "Great Debate" with Faith (Yes, Faith, I haven't forgotten it). You may want to look at Two Different Stories About the Creation - Faith and Moose only.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 06-07-2006 12:25 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Buzsaw, posted 06-07-2006 9:07 AM Minnemooseus has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 84 (318661)
06-07-2006 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Minnemooseus
06-07-2006 2:13 AM


Re: Point clarification.
Moose writes:

Your second paragraph (further elaborated on in your third paragraph) anticipated what was going to be my second question. I had, at least generally, accurately predicted to myself what your response would be. Again, I find your answer acceptable, at least in the context of the debate so far.

I didn't have a third question lined up, or if I did, I sure can't remember it now.

1. I need to clarify one thing regarding message 6. When I said it is unknown how long the first four days were, I meant that to mean these days could even have been 24 hour days but imo, not likely that short. After all, the creator, being omnipotent could have effected a great deal of change in one day, having his mighty spirit effecting the geological change, et al and not relying on the natural processes via the sun, et al to provide the energy and change desired.

2. Even if days one through 4 were literal days, the earth and heavens would not be young. Why? Because Genesis 1:1, imo doesn't begin until the Holy Spirit began to "move upon the waters." The statement, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is simply an introductory statement regarding the origin of the earth and the universe, being an appropriate beginning statement to God's manual/book for mankind.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-07-2006 2:13 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-08-2006 2:09 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3470
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 9 of 84 (318966)
06-08-2006 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Buzsaw
06-07-2006 9:07 AM


Just a short response - Young Earth made to appear old?
"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

After all, the creator, being omnipotent could have effected a great deal of change in one day, having his mighty spirit effecting the geological change, et al and not relying on the natural processes via the sun, et al to provide the energy and change desired.

In the above quoted and also in message 6, in an obtuse sort of way, you seem to be saying that God had the power to created a young Earth with an appearance of a much older age, and that maybe he did.

Do you agree with that statement, and if so, might such have also extended into the creations of days 5 and 6?

Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "Concerning planet Earth, Buzsaw recognizes that the worldly evidence does give support to ages and processes that fall outside of the Buzsaw model".

(Being an obtuse) Moose

Added by edit:

This is not really something I want to bring into this message, but if I don't do it now, I won't remember to do it later:

Buzsaw, in message 5, writes:

Adam was the first earth man ever, created in one literal day roughly six milleniums ago as the perfect man who being created perfect was far superior to any since the fall in every respect, body soul and mind, but nevertheless totally human as we are.

Were there other "simular to man, but not man" creatures created in day 6, perhaps prior to the creation of Adam? Creatures not quite up to being "in God's image"?

"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added banner message at top and bottom of message.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Buzsaw, posted 06-07-2006 9:07 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 06-08-2006 11:01 PM Minnemooseus has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 84 (319379)
06-08-2006 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Minnemooseus
06-08-2006 2:09 AM


Re: Just a short response - Young Earth made to appear old?
Moose writes:

In the above quoted and also in message 6, in an obtuse sort of way, you seem to be saying that God had the power to created a young Earth with an appearance of a much older age, and that maybe he did.

Do you agree with that statement, and if so, might such have also extended into the creations of days 5 and 6?

I'm not saying he did it with planet earth. I do believe he likely did it with the sun and moon. The protostar stage of sun, as I understand it is about 30 million years, so the sun would have to appear likely much older than that and I doubt that day four was that long. We just don't know as the text info isn't that imphatic. Many moons ago I had an inthread mini debate with Eta Carina in which imo I emperially established that if the sun were created relative suddenly by God, it would have had to appear with the appearance of age, i.e. 30 million years plus.

Moose writes:

(Being an obtuse) Moose

:D..........:cool:

Moose writes:

Were there other "simular to man, but not man" creatures created in day 6, perhaps prior to the creation of Adam? Creatures not quite up to being "in God's image"?

Imo, as per text, the most intelligent lower creatures to man were the serpents/reptiles/dinosaurs (dinos as per Buz hypothesis), who before the fall were as the text implies more intelligent than any of the other creatures of the field.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-08-2006 2:09 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-25-2006 11:08 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3470
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 11 of 84 (343456)
08-25-2006 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Buzsaw
06-08-2006 11:01 PM


Just (another) short response
From a current "Proposed New Topic":
Buzsaw writes:

10. Most are YEC's. I am not. I am however a YCC, which is a Young Creature Creationist, meaning all creatures were created roughly six milleniums ago.

But some creatures were created prior to day 5. You are a "Some creatures are old, some creatures are young" creationist. Which still puts you outside of the worldly evidence of the creation story.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 06-08-2006 11:01 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 08-11-2007 12:49 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3470
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 12 of 84 (414601)
08-05-2007 6:33 AM


From message 108 of the "What is an Articulate Informed Creationist" topic:

Buzsaw writes:

Yah, I know. For years I've tried to make it clear that I'm neither a YEC or YUC (young universe creo), explaining in detail as to why not a YEC and why I am eternal universalist but often still get lumped in the one lump as you say.

As I see it, you are part OEC, part YEC. You do compress a big chunk of (distorted) Earth history into the 5000 to 10,000 years, or whatever it is.

Moose


Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-11-2007 12:08 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 08-11-2007 1:10 AM Minnemooseus has responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3470
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 13 of 84 (415586)
08-11-2007 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Minnemooseus
08-05-2007 6:33 AM


Bump for Buz
Comments in this topic?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-05-2007 6:33 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 84 (415598)
08-11-2007 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Minnemooseus
08-25-2006 11:08 PM


Re: Just (another) short response
Moose writes:

But some creatures were created prior to day 5. You are a "Some creatures are old, some creatures are young" creationist. Which still puts you outside of the worldly evidence of the creation story.

Hi Moose. Sorry I missed this updated message. Thanks for the bump. I don't consider plants as creatures, plants being the only living organisms before day 5. Do you consider plants to be creatures?

I see Mirriam Webster includes inanimate as a creature property, but I don't recall anyone referring to plants as creatures in the common usage of the word.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-25-2006 11:08 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 84 (415601)
08-11-2007 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Minnemooseus
08-05-2007 6:33 AM


OEC/YEC Clarification
Moose writes:

As I see it, you are part OEC, part YEC. You do compress a big chunk of (distorted) Earth history into the 5000 to 10,000 years, or whatever it is.

I consider myself to be OEC all the way but no possible way to determine how old. As I stated before, imo, the opening statement of Genesis 1:1 is not part of day one perse, but an introductory prefacing the six day creation account to the effect that whenever the universe and earth were created it was God who created them. I pretty much go with the Bishop James Ussher geneology record which is about 6000 years for both man and all other living things except plants. I will concede however that that the six milleniums is not set in stone, so to speak with me, in that perhaps one might question the prefall existence of Adam and Eve as to whether their prefall time was calculated in the Biblical geneological record. I do tend to assume that they were included.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-05-2007 6:33 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-11-2007 1:34 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
1
23456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017