Are there any old Earth/old life creationionists/anti-evolutionists at evcforum.net?

Participents in the evolution vs. creationism debate can vary (at least in concept) from atheistic hard core evolutionists to young universe/young Earth creationists/anti-evolutionists.In the middle ground are such things as non-atheistic hard core evolutionists, theistic evolutionists (God guided evolution to some degree), and old universe/old Earth creationists (accept the mainstream scientific determinations of things including life, but are anti-evolution).Forum examples of each:Atheistic hard core evolutionists - Many members.Non-atheistic hard core evolutionists - Jar is the prime example. I think Truthlover would be another, as seemingly would be our resident deists, Percy and RAZD.Theistic evolutionists - I don't know if we have any. I view such as including Michael Behe style "intelligent designers".Old universe/old Earth creationists - Do we have any? Buzsaw claims to be an old universe/old Earth/young life creationist, but to me, the "young life" part makes him a variation of a young Earth creationist (see topic elsewhere).Young universe/young Earth creationists - This is the evolution side's default for all creationists/anti-evolutionist, unless given a reason to think otherwise.So, my question is, does evcforum.net have any (as above defined) old universe/old Earth/old life creationists (NOT theistic evolutionists), who do not accept the mainstream scientific fact and theory of evolution? I personally do not know of any such member.I don't even know of any clear examples of old universe/old Earth/old life creationists in the world in general. Walt Brown is apparently some variety of such, but all I hear about him is his "great flood" hypotheses (see "added by edit") - I'm unaware of where in time Brown places the said flood, or where he stands on the Earth's life history.I deem this to be a forum administration related question, thus I'm starting it as the admin mode (OSLT*).Adminnemooseus*Or something like thatAdded by edit: Per Wikipedia, Walt Brown is a young Earth creationist. He's is best known for his hydroplate hypothesis. Hugh Ross is the old Earth creationist I was confusing him with.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add to previous added by edit.

Hi Moose. I assume your question has to do with life on planet earth. If you mean life in the universe, imo there has eternally been life in the universe; lots of it. However, I do believe, and have said so, that the plant life would likely be older than all other life, the reason being that according to the Genesis record, plants came before the sun and moon. Evidently God provided a perfect amount of light via his Holy Spirit to prepare earth for life and sustain it until the sun and moon were created.There are some creationists whom I have met who believe there was old life on earth before Adam including humans. I believe they have it that God wiped that life out and began anew with Eden. It's been a long time, so I'm not sure how that hypothesis goes.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Well, why would anyone bother being an Old Earth Creationist? The only reason for being a creationist is to defend the literal truth of the Bible. Anyone who's prepared to admit that the Genesis story isn't literally true might as well go the whole hog and admit the fact of common descent as well.It would take a fairly special mentality to admit that Biblical chronology is a load of rubbish and then to insist that the story with the talking snake is still totally true.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Because the Bible's literal truth is open to interpretation. One way is to assume a big gap between the first and second verse of the Bible:Gen 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."And then thousands of millions of years, followed by the earth that was 'void and without form' in the next verse - possibly because God wiped it all out to try again.Another route is to claim that the 'days' in Genesis are being used in a poetic sense to simply mean 'period of time'; and that the creation week might well have taken millions of years.A third option is to pick the point in Genesis where it appears two creation stories have been stuck together. Once Creation week is over and everything's been created, God then proceeds to do it all over again from Genesis 2:4 onwards. One literalist interpretation is that, once again, God wiped everything clean and started from scratch. The earth then, can be ancient and the fossils real examples of animals that lived millions of years ago, but they were all eliminated before the most recent creation of life a few thousand years ago. One interesting spinoff from this idea is the adoption (via Jewish mysticism) of the old Mesopotamian daemon Lilith into Christian folklore as the woman created in Genesis 1.Reading something 'literally' doesn't necessarily mean any agreement on what's actually being said.----------------------------------------------As to the main question, isn't ICANT an old-earth, old-life creationist?

Yep, this is the classical Gap Theory, sometimes known as Lucifer's Flood. It has the advantage of being a real theory, rather than mere "creation science"; that is, it was proposed at least as early as the 2nd century, when it appears in the Targum Onkelos and the Zohar, and was devised simply as an explanation of why the word tohu usually translated as "without form" is actually a verb form, something like a participle basically, meaning "laid waste"; but from this humble beginning it gets dragged out in the 19th century to solve all sorts of problems between geology and paleontology and bibleolatry and theosophy.The current version, found in many unpopular comic books from the folks who bring us those delicious Chick tracts, basically says everything before 4004 was the universe run by the original archangel, inventor of abominations like dinosaurs and black holes, and the whole thing got smoked during the War in Heaven. Afterwards, God comes down and starts sorting things out again, it takes him about a week to get all the local stars relit and recreate everything not totally reprehensible. Then he takes a little break, and it all starts going to hell again while he is snoozing. "For why? It repenteth me that I have made them!"Sort of? He has his own dealie though. Basically he cuts Genesis 2-3:something and sticks it in between 1:1 and 1:2 rather than munging it together with day 6 and 7ish the way most literalists try to do. That way, the mud man isn't the Adam who marries Eve and starts the big jesusnology, just the one who eats the apple with the unnamed woman and falls. Or something like that, I don't quite get him more than half the time.

Hi Iblis. What folks here at EvC and in the majority of conventional science fora don't understand that creation science is more whole-istic than conventional science.Creation science acknowledges and researches all observable evidences, including physical and metaphysical. What is observed is interpreted relative to corroborating all observable data by evaluating the credence of both the physical and the metaphysical.Mainline majority science viewpoint enjoys the bully pulpit, proclaiming priority preference in popular peer publications, propagating prevailing opinions of persuasive people.Web definition of metaphysics: The secularist humanist mindset rules out any living thing existing on earth, earth's atmosphere or in the cosmos not visible to the human eye. This mindset is naievely narrowminded. It's limited realm of science, in effect, assumes that the intelligence and the physiology of all living things in the universe are no greater than what we teeny tiny itty bitty specks of intelligence here on this miniscule speck of substance tucked within one of multiple hundreds of billions of galexies which we call the Milkey Way, the galexy, itself amounting to a mere dot in the whole of the universe, can observe with our earth-speck level of optical observation.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

At the Wikipedia Hugh Ross article:

quote:

---

Ross is criticized by YECs for his acceptance of uniformitarian geology and astronomy over what they see as a plain reading of Genesis and for promoting "fixity of species", which denies speciation.

---

Such a position seems to have required ongoing special creations, to result in an "evolution via creation". In other words, you have the dots without the evolutionary connecting of the dots.We do seem to have anti-evolutionists who are not clearly young Earth creationists. I am curious, as to if there are members who adhere to the Hugh Ross position.Minnemooseus

Hi Moose. I'm not sure, but methinks Phat comes the closest to that position here on this board. Perhaps he will weigh in here. Ross's position has become increasingly prevalent in some Christian colleges and universities the last half century. Houghton College, Houghton NY, here in upstate NY is one example. The young impressionable student sheeple are, thus, becoming increasingly more educated into that mindset.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I'm curious, Buz, if you would prefer modern medicine to study things that are outside of investigation? Would you prefer a faith healer or a modern physician? Would you prefer your computer that you are sitting at to be "god powered" or built by modern science? Or maybe you would prefer our military technology be faith inspired, rather than inspired by scientific study: leaving our defenses up to things that cannot be studied physically. How about abolishing DNA study in order to find out who murdered someone, and instead, see if they float or not.There is a reason science "limits" itself to things we can see physically. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

I had a dialogue with Catholic Scientist this past week, and I believe he stated his position was one of Theistic Evolutionism. I think if I'd have to nail down a creator-mediated origin belief for myself, TE may be what I'd choose. As it is, none of the creation theories I've seen offer much in the way of convincing evidence for the existence of an actual creator.Have a good one.

Hi Hooah. There are also reasons creation science whole-istically applies research to both physical and metaphysical data.1. There is observable evidence for both physical and metaphysical phenomena, much of what I've cited in other threads.2. There are logical and epistomological reasons to consider both physical and metaphysical phenomena in arriving at scientific conclusions. Edited by Buzsaw, : Remove itemEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

You omit one small problem: if it is metaphysical it is by definition not science, nor is it amenable to the methods used by science.Certainly scientists aren't including the metaphysical in their work.So why should we pay any attention to those who want to pass that stuff off as science when clearly it isn't even close?Creation "science" was a dishonest attempt to steal the good name and reputation of science for something that was clearly religious belief.So why can't you guys just go play in your own ballpark and stop trying to sneak your way into science? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Did you understand my post at all? Or was this just a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived insult?Science begins at the bottom, in its own narrow field, in its own tiny problem. If it's lucky, the hypothesis solves the problem, and doesn't collapse under further scrutiny. That's the best it can hope for, and it works to disprove itself as fast as it can so as not to waste the time of good people. Occasionally, usually in the presence of genius, a successful hypothesis turns out to have great explanatory power. It is found to solve many problems, in many fields, and through this process it becomes a theory.I call attention to the Gap Theory because it qualifies as an example of this process. It begins as a simple linguistic question. It resolves this question, and catches on like wildfire. In folklore, it sheds light on the Sons of God. In bible study, it tells us what the author of Hebrews is talking about in 11:3. In theology it serves Origen in reinterpreting his texts to create the wonderfully evocative Fall of the Angels. In politics, it assists Jerome in crushing the Luciferian heresy. In literature it gives us Milton's Paradise Lost. And in early stratigraphy and paleontology it lays the foundation for our modern understanding of Deep Time.Metaphysics, on the other hand, begins from the top down. It also can have great explanatory power. But in order to accomplish this, it has to work with the actual facts. Many good people are using creationism this way. They accept the findings of science and use them as a springboard to show how much more wonderful the creator must be than the primitive ideas of late antiquity ever imagined. Not just thousands, not just millions, but billions. Not just one little world with one little sky wrapped around it, but infinite worlds in transfinite space in more dimensions than we can yet imagine properly.In contrast to this, "creation scientists" and cdesign proponentsists not only refuse to use the truth, they lie. They not only fail to offer God the due credit for the world that is, they actively work to shrink his majesty in people's minds to that of a mere nepotistic storm lord good for only a few thousand years. They not only pretend to be baffled by a simple thing like flagellae, but refuse to do any damned experiments with their alleged hypothesis to actually earn the paycheck of a scientist. They are demagogues, and the only reason we don't kill them is because we haven't caught them hoarding weapons just yet. But God is patient, their time will come. I dig it when you get your alliteration going. I'd love to see you in some kind of steel-cage match with Jesse Jackson. It would be like Vikings invading France! Buz: Please produce the people who can pick a proper politician! *waving hands*
Jesse: Here are the people! And this is the steeple! *waggling fingers*

As you know damn well, Buz, one of those words has no business being in that phrase. Hint: it starts with r. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Hi again Buz. You will notice I asked you questions. Could you answer them please? If you need to see them again, here is my post from above: Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan