Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8784 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-24-2017 1:02 AM
355 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Pressie (3 members, 352 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: FFA
Post Volume:
Total: 816,876 Year: 21,482/21,208 Month: 1,915/2,326 Week: 370/881 Day: 0/88 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only)
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3530
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 16 of 84 (415607)
08-11-2007 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
08-11-2007 1:10 AM


I say you're essential a YEC
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.

Mainstream science has animal life going back to somewhere prior to the Cambrian (aka the pre-Cambrian). This is 550+ million years ago. You put this into +/-6000 years - I call that essentially YECism.

Also, perhaps you would like to elaborate on your IDisms in this topic?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 08-11-2007 1:10 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 08-11-2007 2:04 AM Minnemooseus has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 84 (415612)
08-11-2007 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Minnemooseus
08-11-2007 1:34 AM


Re: I say you're essential a YEC
Moose writes:

Mainstream science has animal life going back to somewhere prior to the Cambrian (aka the pre-Cambrian). This is 550+ million years ago. You put this into +/-6000 years - I call that essentially YECism.

Also, perhaps you would like to elaborate on your IDisms in this topic?

OK I see the problem. My statements were relative to earth, the planet but yes, things on the planet pertain to earth so in that sense you were correct in that there is an element of YEC in my OEC position. Perhaps we need to get up a couple more terms here, like OPEC (old planet earth creationism) and/or OPEYAC (old planet/young animal creationism) ;)

Now that we have that clarified imo we can proceed with understanding.

Oh yes, the wonderful ID factor - I'll need to get into that another time and will do so soon.

Off to sabbath school and church services tomorrow after which wifie and I join some of our church friends at our favorite restaurant. We do observe Sabbath Fri eve til Sat eve but since the restaurant folks don't anyhow, we have no scruples about letting them serve us so we can eat, leave the dishes on the table and go on our way.


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 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-11-2007 1:34 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-11-2007 2:31 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3530
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 18 of 84 (415613)
08-11-2007 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
08-11-2007 2:04 AM


Re: I say you're essential a YEC
Moose writes:

Mainstream science has animal life going back to somewhere prior to the Cambrian (aka the pre-Cambrian). This is 550+ million years ago. You put this into +/-6000 years - I call that essentially YECism.

Also, perhaps you would like to elaborate on your IDisms in this topic?

OK I see the problem. My statements were relative to earth, the planet but yes, things on the planet pertain to earth so in that sense you were correct in that there is an element of YEC in my OEC position.

I neglected to point out / emphasize that there is also a big chuck of geology (aka "the rocks") that are the same age as the fossils they enclose. Your position is also putting all those 550+ million year old rocks into +/- 6000 years. You're crunching the record/evidence of a lot of geological process by a factor of about 1000. Well, thank God you have the wonder flood to do miracles for you. It can somehow pull off a vast array of processes, and do it fast.

Or would you prefer to pursue the "young but looks old" variety of creationism? Personally, I would prefer to believe the evidence presented in the product of the creation over the story of a book.

Moose

Added by edit: Please feel free to take your time on your replies. I certainly don't need them tonight or even this weekend.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above. Also change ID.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 08-11-2007 2:04 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 08-12-2007 2:16 AM Minnemooseus has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 84 (415780)
08-12-2007 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Minnemooseus
08-11-2007 2:31 AM


Re: I say you're essential a YEC
Moose title writes:

Re: I say you're essential a YEC

Since my position is that the planet earth is old I regard myself as essentially an OEC with the exception of sea and animal/human life.

Moose writes:

I neglected to point out / emphasize that there is also a big chuck of geology (aka "the rocks") that are the same age as the fossils they enclose. Your position is also putting all those 550+ million year old rocks into +/- 6000 years. You're crunching the record/evidence of a lot of geological process by a factor of about 1000. Well, thank God you have the wonder flood to do miracles for you. It can somehow pull off a vast array of processes, and do it fast.

If you would be so kind as to cite this I will have a look before responding.

Moose writes:

Or would you prefer to pursue the "young but looks old" variety of creationism? Personally, I would prefer to believe the evidence presented in the product of the creation over the story of a book.

1. When the book contains the highlights of the history of the world from beginning to end, so far pretty much on tract as prophesied and corroborated by a significant amount of archeological evidence such as the chariot wheels and other Exodus evidence to also corroborate that, we have a problem with either your alleged millions of years or the array of corroborating evidence supportive of ID and the book's story.

2. We haven't come to the ID segment of our debate yet. This also, imo, significantly bolsters the book record and weakens the confidence in dating technology.

3. Your most significant evidence appears to hinge on accuracy of dating events millions of years ago. AIG and other creationist science oriented organizations offer an array of questionable factors regarding dating tech for millions of years ago. I am not qualified to significantly debate these factors but some appear to raise some reasonable doubt about the claims of science in dating methodology.

4. My evidence, though not recognized by mainline secular science is manifold with numerous corroborating factors supportive to ID, the prophecies, the archeology, the fact that all human cultures throughout history have been religious, compatibility with basic thermodynamic laws, Solar related sun, moon & atmospheric data supportive to ID, social benefits of Biblical principles et al.


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 18 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-11-2007 2:31 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by anglagard, posted 08-12-2007 2:46 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 23 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-26-2007 12:57 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2158
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 20 of 84 (415784)
08-12-2007 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Buzsaw
08-12-2007 2:16 AM


Content deleted
Great Debate topic - content deleted.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Great Debate topic - content deleted.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Turned off signature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 08-12-2007 2:16 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by anglagard, posted 08-12-2007 2:57 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2158
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 21 of 84 (415785)
08-12-2007 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by anglagard
08-12-2007 2:46 AM


Oops
Sorry, my bad
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by anglagard, posted 08-12-2007 2:46 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 84 (443048)
12-23-2007 3:26 PM


The Buzsaw Hypothesis Bump
Since so many still don't get my unique position right regarding origins etc I'm bumping this thread up to remind folks what my position is.
Perhaps Moose will respond to my last message if he wishes to continue the dialog. I'll let him make that decision. If he has no desire to continue one on one he can open it up to the membership at large. Please do not post any responses unless Moose so designates.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-28-2007 7:52 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3530
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 23 of 84 (443614)
12-26-2007 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Buzsaw
08-12-2007 2:16 AM


Were their any non-young life forms?
"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

First a few basic questions.

The Genesis account is a little thin on details. Were there some early life forms not accounted for in the Genesis story? Does Genesis cover things such as the trilobites found in the Cambrian rock, those of so called Cambrian age? Going much deeper into the geologic column and further back in time, what about algae and bacteria in the pre-Cambrian?

Does all the life forms of the Earth's history fall into your "young" framework? Were there old (much more than 10,000 year) life forms?

Moose

"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added the algae/bacteria sentence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 08-12-2007 2:16 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 12-28-2007 8:11 PM Minnemooseus has responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3530
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 24 of 84 (444270)
12-28-2007 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
12-23-2007 3:26 PM


Re: The Buzsaw Hypothesis Bump - Counterbump
I've posted message 23. I presume that has slipped by your attention.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 12-23-2007 3:26 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 84 (444285)
12-28-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Minnemooseus
12-26-2007 12:57 AM


Re: Non-Young Life Forms.
Hi Moose. Thanks for being patient.

1. The Bible leaves a lot of ambiguity relative to germs and other organisms as to when they were created. We know that the plant kingdom, both on land and in the sea require non-plant organisms and insects etc for pollination, propagation and sustenance. The land and sea plant kingdom was created on the 3rd day, before the sun & moon were in place to determine properties pertaining to the days. Thus imo, the insects and other organisms were likely created along with the plants. That is nothing I can verify but I tend to apply the science when applicable so long as it doesn't contradict Biblical doctrine. I see nothing in the Genesis record either pro or con to my logical position.

2. I see nothing in the Genesis record indicative of how long days one two three and four lasted.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-26-2007 12:57 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-11-2008 11:10 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3530
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 26 of 84 (448098)
01-11-2008 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Buzsaw
12-28-2007 8:11 PM


The U.S. history analogy to the Earth's geologic history (or something like that)
"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Lifted from this ICANT message:

quote:
If life appeared 3.8 billion years ago...
Prokaryotes appeared about 2.6 billion years ago...
Eukaryotes appeared about 1.5 billions years ago...
Multicellular life appeared about 700 million years ago...

Taken from chart here: http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/courses/builders/lessons/less/les4/Vles4nb.html
From the simplest life form (single cell) to multicellular life forms it took 3.1 billion years.

My essential point of the moment is, an old Earth and life history are interlinked. Do deny old life is to deny old Earth. Thus, as I see it, your position is very close to “pure” YEC.

Now, I don’t want to get hung up on absolute dates. Thus, let me rephrase the above quoted as:

quote:
Multicellular life appeared what seems to be many, many years ago.
Eukaryotes appeared what seems to be many, many years prior to the previous.
Prokaryotes appeared what seems to be many, many years prior to the previous.
Life appeared what seems to be many, many years prior to the previous.

From the simplest life form (single cell) to multicellular life forms it took many, many years.

The geology of the Earth (aka “the rocks”) is a vast and extremely complex 3 dimensional “puzzle”. I say “puzzle” in that the many parts all fit together.

Now (again, without absolute dating), just by physical geometric relationships, the relative timings of events can largely be determined.

Analogy time, the history of the United States –

Think of the history of the United States as a country (since the declaration of independence). But think of it without any absolute dates – No 1776, no 1812, etc. Just think of all the things, big and small, that have happened since the declaration.

Now you know that some of the things happened at the same time or in overlapping times. Other things happened in some sort of (time) sequence.

Now I’m going to tell you that all these events happened in a, say, 10 year time span. Of course, you would respond “No way. All that couldn’t have happened in just 10 years”. And you would be right.

Now we go to the geologic history of the Earth –

Just like any history, an essentially if not absolutely infinite number of events, small to large, have happened. Some of these events happened at the same time or in overlapping times. Other things happened in some sort of (time) sequence. And like the U.S. history events, it is obvious to those “in the know” that certain events or processes required some minimum amount of time.

Now you are telling me that all these events happened in a, say, 10,000 year time span. Of course, I’m going to respond “Now way. All that couldn’t have happened in just 10,000 years”. And the worldly evidence (the nature of “the creation”) very much indicates that I am right.

Or something like that.

Moose

"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Fix the link to the "Geology- working up from basic principles" topic. Had an extra space in there.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added the "Great Debate" banners.


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for — but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 12-28-2007 8:11 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 02-03-2008 11:59 AM Minnemooseus has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 84 (453599)
02-03-2008 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Minnemooseus
01-11-2008 11:10 PM


Re: The U.S. history analogy to the Earth's geologic history (or something like that)
Moose writes:

My essential point of the moment is, an old Earth and life history are interlinked. Do deny old life is to deny old Earth. Thus, as I see it, your position is very close to “pure” YEC.

If I'm reading you right, no; my position is not YEC, because remember, no determined timespan of a day until day five as per my previous posts. Thus the Buzsaw Hypothesis has it that the age of the plant kingdom and likely other organisms below what we call animals, like the age of the earth are unknown as per a literal reading of Genesis 1.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-11-2008 11:10 PM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-09-2008 3:48 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3530
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 28 of 84 (454896)
02-09-2008 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Buzsaw
02-03-2008 11:59 AM


You're trying to have it both ways
"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Mainstream scientific thought:
Origin of the Earth - ~4.5 billion years ago.
Origin of animal life - At least 600 million years ago.

The Buzsaw line:
Origin of the Earth - Unknown, 4.5 billion years ago an acceptable possibility.
Origin of animal life - 5 to 10 thousand years ago.

Buz, your animal life number is roughly 1/100,000th that of the mainstream science number. Sorry, but I can't look at compressing 600+ million years into 5-10 thousand years as being anything other than young Earthism.

Your position is something along the lines of telling me that you can accept that the U.S. became a country approximately 230 years ago, but everything from the end of World War II has happened in the past 2 weeks.

Moose

"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Added by edit: Linky to a little creation music.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 02-03-2008 11:59 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 03-07-2008 9:47 PM Minnemooseus has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 84 (459477)
03-07-2008 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Minnemooseus
02-09-2008 3:48 AM


Re: You're trying to have it both ways
Wow! I've been remiss in weighing in on the debate. Thanks for being patient.

Moose writes:

Mainstream scientific thought:
Origin of the Earth - ~4.5 billion years ago.
Origin of animal life - At least 600 million years ago.

The Buzsaw line:
Origin of the Earth - Unknown, 4.5 billion years ago an acceptable possibility.
Origin of animal life - 5 to 10 thousand years ago.

Buz, your animal life number is roughly 1/100,000th that of the mainstream science number. Sorry, but I can't look at compressing 600+ million years into 5-10 thousand years as being anything other than young Earthism.

1. YEC is just that, young earth creationist. I see nothing in the Genesis record indicating a time for creation of planet earth, the Solar System including the sun and cosmos. All one could conclude from a literal reading of Genesis 1 is that planet earth was created at some point before the rest of the Solar system and perhaps even before the Milky Way Galaxy. The plant kingdom on earth also pre-existed the Solar system etc but came about after an unknown period of the events of days one and two. There is no time frame given for the plant kingdom except that it preceeded the Solar system etc.

2. The planet earth is just that; a planet. The animal kingdom and mankind are just that as well, animals and man. The record states clearly that they were created by design in one sun-measured day which would be 24 hours. That is the version of IDist I am, one who's hypothesis of origins is based on the literal reading of Genesis one.

I see the Biblical ID creator as a mighty immensely intelligent artisan, active in design whereas evolutionist Christians regard his role as designer in a more passive light. Their focus glorifies the object of design more so than the designer. I see them as denying the wonders of his creative power, majesty and greatness.

3. Factoring in all of the corroborating supportive data relative to the Biblical record, I work to apply any supportive science, anecdotal factors along with historical accounts etc to formulate the Buzsaw Hypothesis. I do as other theorists and hypothesists. I formulate with whatever evidence I can apply.

4. All theories and hypotheses have bizzare and mysterious aspects of how they are suppose to play out. How you or others may regard my hypothesis is no more bizzare to you than yours is to me. :)


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-09-2008 3:48 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-08-2010 10:22 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3530
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 30 of 84 (542333)
01-08-2010 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Buzsaw
03-07-2008 9:47 PM


Re: You're trying to have it both ways
Topic reopened (thank you, Adminnemooseus).

Buz, you have a vague acceptance of a multi-milion/billion year old Earth.

As such, you seem to accept the existence of multi-million year old sedimentary rocks, that contain the fossil record of life. But that life is of the same age as the enclosing rocks! You can't have old rocks containing the remains of young life.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 03-07-2008 9:47 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 12-05-2010 11:32 AM Minnemooseus has responded
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 06-15-2011 11:43 AM Minnemooseus has responded

    
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017