Summations Only

I need to get ready for Sabbath & church tomorrow so can't explain this now, but will likely have time after church and restaurant tomorrow. It should prove to be an interesting topic to debate with you if you're game.

ABE: On 2nd thought I think I want this one open for all to debate in the Coffee Shop. It should be a smoker.

Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted

I'm replying to your message 76 as being your most recent, although I may not (at yet) be commenting on anything you presented since my previous message.

Looking at the "Creationist Shortage" topic has inspired me to revive this GD topic. At that topic's message 124 Malcolm seems to have posted a wonderful summary of what I've been trying to say in this topic:

Buzsaw writes: This is another example of why creationists are ill treated here. We all get painted with the same broad brush. A significant percentage of us are not YEC 6000-ers. Many YECs like Kent Hoven even call for a young Universe. That's nonsense, though he has some valid evidence and arguments for many aspects of ID and creationism. I don't through out the baby with the bathwater as some critics of Hovind do. Malcolm writes: As I understand it you see yourself as an old-earth, young-life creationist, yet have never explained what evidence you are basing this on. After all the evidence that shows the earth is old also shows that life is almost as old, so you suggest that a pre-flood canopy throws out any radiometric data to suggest old life. But this also affects evidence for an old earth, so your position becomes indistinguishable from a YEC.

In message 16 of this GD topic I started the subtitle "I say you're essential a YEC"

In the "Creationist Shortage" topic message 128, NoNukes posts:

NoNukes writes: What I find hilarious your complaint included your own shot at YEC beliefs. Buzsaw writes: I've been here over 8 years and I still get lumped by you people in with the YECs who's paradigm makes no sense.

Buz, your position makes even less sense than the YEC position. At least the YEC position is internally consistent. The YECs have their young rocks containing the evidence of of their young life. You seem to be trying to somehow have old rocks containing the evidence of young life. In message 28 I had started the subtitle "You're trying to have it both ways".

Buz, your position has no support for "old Earthism" - It merely has no objection to "old Earthism". But your arguments sure seem to be not unlike those of the YEC's.

Maybe you can give me some reasoning of your support of an old Earth, beyond why you have no objection to "old Earthism"?

Moose

Thanks for your reply, Moose. I was hoping to continue with this debate.

Here's the deal. The Genesis and OT record along with the NT has the geneological record of the history of man, complete. Ussher has it calculated at about six milleniums. The animals and man were all created in day five of creation.

From day one of creation through day four, there was, Biblically, no Solar System bodies in place which would determine the 24 hour day. It is not stated how long day four was before the Solar System was complete with our Sun star. Thus the light before day four had to be from Jehovah, god's Holy Spirit whom he sends forth throughout the Undiverse to do his work.

Genesis 1:1 states that it was the Holy Spirit that moved upon the waters, did the separating etc. It had to be that entity of power and light that provided the exact amount of light and heat (a lot) to evaporate enough mirky earth surface waters up to form the earth's pre-flood canopy atmosphere, thus, effecting the perfect climate for planet earth for lush vegetation, etc. The continents and relatively shallow oceans were formed/separated.

On day three, the plants were created, having the perfect environ to sprout and propagate.

On day four the Solar System was created, effecting the 24 hour day.

Conclusion: Biblically, the age of the earth is unknown, but certainly older than man-kind and the animal kingdom.

From my previous message:

Minnemooseus writes: Buz, your position makes even less sense than the YEC position. At least the YEC position is internally consistent. The YECs have their young rocks containing the evidence of of their young life. You seem to be trying to somehow have old rocks containing the evidence of young life.

From your previous message:

Buzsaw writes: Biblically, the age of the earth is unknown, but certainly older than man-kind and the animal kingdom.

Buz, the animal kingdom goes back to at least the beginning of the Cambrian. The scientific consensus is that is 550 million years ago. You put that at circa 6000 years ago. You are calling all the Earth's rocks from the beginning of the Cambrian to the present to be circa 6000 years or less old. That is Young Earthism.

Moose

Moose writes: Buz, the animal kingdom goes back to at least the beginning of the Cambrian. The scientific consensus is that is 550 million years ago. You put that at circa 6000 years ago. You are calling all the Earth's rocks from the beginning of the Cambrian to the present to be circa 6000 years or less old. That is Young Earthism.

Which is addressed in Message 73.

quote:

---

To elaborate, I have alluded in one of my messages about evolution problems of circularly dating fossils by strata and vise versa so as to avoid problems with each.

Dating igneous strata so as to date fossils in sedimentary strata might be an example of this. Whether igneous strata was deposited early or lately, nevertheless the material is old/early.

How do instruments distinguish age of material from age deposited. Put another way, doesn't the age of the fossil in the sedimentary strata play a role in dating the time the igneous was deposited, being the instrument would be unable, in itself, to date the old material making up the igneous strata deposited?

---

Going to step back to another point.

From back in message 6:

buz writes: 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.

I always thought this argument was bogus.

Quoting an entire message from our shift key impaired member:

arachnophilia writes: How do you explain God creating light, and then separating it from drakness on the first day, but then days were not cleary defined until the fourth day? no, the days are clearly defined from day one. it says evening and morning, and the day's number for every day except the 7th, which god takes off. are you concered with the sun and moon being created after light and dark are divided? the evenings are mornings were clearly already there beforehand. but god sets sun to rule the day, and the moon to rule the night. and light, apparently, already exists prior to sun. if you're asking me for an explanation of that, well, i don't know. but that's what the bible says. maybe light from dark was a definition or properties, and day's weren't light until day four? maybe they were, but god created the light? genesis doesn't really elaborate -- anything else is a guess, and probably an ad-hoc interpretation.

My text enlargement and bolding.

The length of days 1-4 were the same as days 5-7. Morning and evening. Why should we think that day 5 comes along and God decides "I'm going to start making the days much shorter"?

Moose

Added by edit: Buz seems to be saying the sun and moon showed up on day 5 while arach says day 4. It really doesn't mater - The undefined length of days argument is bogus.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.

Moose writes: The length of days 1-4 were the same as days 5-7. Morning and evening. Why should we think that day 5 comes along and God decides "I'm going to start making the days much shorter"?

Moose, my position has always been that there were times of darkness and times of light before day five after God completed the creation of the sun, moon etc. It's that after day four the length of them became 24 hours. Likely those stars created on day four were the bodies of our solar system that related to planet earth and not the entire cosmos of the Universe.

The reason that God waited until day four to effect a 24 hour day is that all that was created before day five needed various time lengths so as to get the earth and it's atmosphere suitable for survival of all creatures which were created on days five and six after the plants and all were in place.

It was all well planned out by God. Mankind became the last to be created after all was there for him, including the animals which he was to name and have power over to use for whatever purpose he chose.

This included all plant life which was created on day three before creation of the sun and moon, etc.

How long times of darkness and light, i.e evenings and mornings were before day five would be unknown. Some could have been great lengths of time.

It would have taken far more heat to evaporate the water up out of the watery surface of the cold dark planet to create earth's atmosphere than 24 hour sun days would have afforded.

Edited by AdminModulous, : content hidden - Great Debate: Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Buzsaw parted company with us and the this world in general a year plus ago:

In Memoriam - Buzsaw

Let us now also lay this topic to rest. Every member is permitted 1 message of their thoughts about this topic's content.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : "Their", not "there".