Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I Went to A Creationist Site

ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 2:37:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I went to the town's local fair in Monroe last night and upon my entrance, I found something very shocking. An rv that was occupied by Young Earth Creationists and they were giving a free show to try to prove the Earth is 6,000 years old and that evolution is a lie. So as a Christian who believes evolution is fact based on scientific evidence, I decided to question them. They had teeth, animal fossils and even animal poop fossils (One of them was called T Rex poop). I then debated this young guy before the show and he admitted he didn't know much on the topic, so I felt a little win there, but then comes the show with this presentation guy. An old guy who studied mechanical engineering. I told him I believed in evolution and that I believe God used evolution. He then asks if I believe in billions of years and gives me these two news sources, except they were printed from creationist sources.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com...

Of course since these were new to me, I couldn't answer him his question "How do you explain this Mr. I Know It All?" He didn't say that name, but his tone was around that area since he especially asked it 4 times repeatedly. Next, we just go through a biblical flood story with dinosaurs in it. Then me and the guy debate for 45 minutes where he says complexity means God and thins must have a designer. I realized after debating with him, I wouldn't get anywhere, especially when he kept sighing and thinking I was insane and thinking we were nothing. In the end, we agreed to disagree.

So my questions involve the articles. Can anybody explain these to me as to why it doesn't automatically prove a young earth?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 2:54:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 2:37:18 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
I went to the town's local fair in Monroe last night and upon my entrance, I found something very shocking. An rv that was occupied by Young Earth Creationists and they were giving a free show to try to prove the Earth is 6,000 years old and that evolution is a lie. So as a Christian who believes evolution is fact based on scientific evidence, I decided to question them. They had teeth, animal fossils and even animal poop fossils (One of them was called T Rex poop). I then debated this young guy before the show and he admitted he didn't know much on the topic, so I felt a little win there, but then comes the show with this presentation guy. An old guy who studied mechanical engineering. I told him I believed in evolution and that I believe God used evolution. He then asks if I believe in billions of years and gives me these two news sources, except they were printed from creationist sources.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com...

Of course since these were new to me, I couldn't answer him his question "How do you explain this Mr. I Know It All?" He didn't say that name, but his tone was around that area since he especially asked it 4 times repeatedly. Next, we just go through a biblical flood story with dinosaurs in it. Then me and the guy debate for 45 minutes where he says complexity means God and thins must have a designer. I realized after debating with him, I wouldn't get anywhere, especially when he kept sighing and thinking I was insane and thinking we were nothing. In the end, we agreed to disagree.

So my questions involve the articles. Can anybody explain these to me as to why it doesn't automatically prove a young earth?

A tip for you is always try and fit your opponents argument into some sort of formal syllogism, so glancing at the first link we can represent their argument roughly as follows:

P1) If the earth is old, then T-Rex bones would never contain soft tissue
P2) Some T-Rex bones contain soft tissue
C) The Earth is not old

This is over simplistic of course, as it sets no definition of what 'old' meNs, which immediately you realize cannot possibly affirm a 6,000 year old earth even if both portions of the argument were true.

Now examine both premises, P2 is true in some sense, there is a rare selection of dinosaur fossils that do contain soft tissue, although it needs processing, is usually substantially more degrades than younger soft tissues, and only is found in a fraction of fossils.

P1 is the killer, there doesn't seem to be a sensible way to affirm this, since even a small probability of finding soft tissue will make the YEC case liable to cherry-picking. I recommend reading potbelliedbeek vs creationtruth's debate about why certain organic materials are capable of surviving such time periods under the right conditions, which leads to the prediction that only a small subset of fossils will contain soft tissues if any do, and that's pretty much what we find, highly degraded soft tissue that is found in a small portion of fossils that had the right conditions.

Ideally we would like to have a graph of th expected degradation vs time for all fossils, but obviously the real world is more complicated than that, in either case there is no way. YEC can sensibly state is supports their position. If MOST fossil contained significant quantities of soft tissues that have the appearance of what would be expected after only a few thousand years of degradation (which can be roughly estimated), then they might have a case, but that's not what we find.

The best things to bring up are are probably radio metric dating methods (uranium/lead, zircon crystals).
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 5:52:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well. The first article proves nothing about Earth"s age, plus it especifically states that geologist have already dated the stratum in which those bones were encountered: 68 million years. However, it raises interesting questions about the process of fosilization and how fossils can preserve the matter inside of them.

And about the second article. What exactly was he trying to prove with that?
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 3:11:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 2:37:18 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
I went to the town's local fair in Monroe last night and upon my entrance, I found something very shocking. An rv that was occupied by Young Earth Creationists and they were giving a free show to try to prove the Earth is 6,000 years old and that evolution is a lie. So as a Christian who believes evolution is fact based on scientific evidence, I decided to question them. They had teeth, animal fossils and even animal poop fossils (One of them was called T Rex poop). I then debated this young guy before the show and he admitted he didn't know much on the topic, so I felt a little win there, but then comes the show with this presentation guy. An old guy who studied mechanical engineering. I told him I believed in evolution and that I believe God used evolution. He then asks if I believe in billions of years and gives me these two news sources, except they were printed from creationist sources.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com...

Of course since these were new to me, I couldn't answer him his question "How do you explain this Mr. I Know It All?" He didn't say that name, but his tone was around that area since he especially asked it 4 times repeatedly. Next, we just go through a biblical flood story with dinosaurs in it. Then me and the guy debate for 45 minutes where he says complexity means God and thins must have a designer. I realized after debating with him, I wouldn't get anywhere, especially when he kept sighing and thinking I was insane and thinking we were nothing. In the end, we agreed to disagree.

So my questions involve the articles. Can anybody explain these to me as to why it doesn't automatically prove a young earth?

I'm sorry that a Creationist answered with such arrogance. To be honest, I often do the same.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 3:24:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 5:52:36 PM, Otokage wrote:
Well. The first article proves nothing about Earth"s age, plus it especifically states that geologist have already dated the stratum in which those bones were encountered: 68 million years. However, it raises interesting questions about the process of fosilization and how fossils can preserve the matter inside of them.

And about the second article. What exactly was he trying to prove with that?

He tried to claim that both are proof of thousands of years by saying that the flesh from the T. rex and blood from the mosquito would be hard as a rock if it was million years.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 3:42:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 3:24:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/28/2014 5:52:36 PM, Otokage wrote:
Well. The first article proves nothing about Earth"s age, plus it especifically states that geologist have already dated the stratum in which those bones were encountered: 68 million years. However, it raises interesting questions about the process of fosilization and how fossils can preserve the matter inside of them.

And about the second article. What exactly was he trying to prove with that?

He tried to claim that both are proof of thousands of years by saying that the flesh from the T. rex and blood from the mosquito would be hard as a rock if it was million years.

Well, you've got to admit it's unlikely unfossilized flesh would remain intact for millions of years, though that in itself is not enough to prove Creationism.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 4:47:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 3:24:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/28/2014 5:52:36 PM, Otokage wrote:
Well. The first article proves nothing about Earth"s age, plus it especifically states that geologist have already dated the stratum in which those bones were encountered: 68 million years. However, it raises interesting questions about the process of fosilization and how fossils can preserve the matter inside of them.

And about the second article. What exactly was he trying to prove with that?

He tried to claim that both are proof of thousands of years by saying that the flesh from the T. rex and blood from the mosquito would be hard as a rock if it was million years.

He's right. It doesn't prove 6,000 years specifically, but it does prove 'less than 100,000 years' which throws out any credibility conventional ages have. I'm surprised this is the first time you've seen this evidence. Did you also know that we've sequenced dinosaur DNA, and it was subsequently proven that DNA cannot be sequenced after 20,000 years? Did you know that the T. rex tissue had liquid blood with red blood cells in it?

Did you know that radiometric dating of 30 year old lava flows (observed being formed) gave a date of millions of years?

Did you know that C14 dating dinosaur bones, in 100% of cases, gives a date younger than 50,000 years? In 100% of cases!

Did you know that secular scientists were offered $20,000 to carbon date a T. rex fossil, and they declined? Presumably they know it will give a date of less than 1 million years, and they don't want the public to doubt the 65 million year age hoax.

Did you know that in Singapore, a conference was held by scientists who demonstrated young dates of dinosaurs from C14 dating, and a couple Americans who were there protested it and had the results of the conference unpublished? (You can find it on YouTube still, though, fortunately somebody else recorded it live).

The idea that dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago is a huge hoax, but keep searching and you'll realize this yourself.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 5:03:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 4:47:35 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 9/29/2014 3:24:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/28/2014 5:52:36 PM, Otokage wrote:
Well. The first article proves nothing about Earth"s age, plus it especifically states that geologist have already dated the stratum in which those bones were encountered: 68 million years. However, it raises interesting questions about the process of fosilization and how fossils can preserve the matter inside of them.

And about the second article. What exactly was he trying to prove with that?

He tried to claim that both are proof of thousands of years by saying that the flesh from the T. rex and blood from the mosquito would be hard as a rock if it was million years.

He's right. It doesn't prove 6,000 years specifically, but it does prove 'less than 100,000 years' which throws out any credibility conventional ages have. I'm surprised this is the first time you've seen this evidence. Did you also know that we've sequenced dinosaur DNA, and it was subsequently proven that DNA cannot be sequenced after 20,000 years? Did you know that the T. rex tissue had liquid blood with red blood cells in it?

Did you know that radiometric dating of 30 year old lava flows (observed being formed) gave a date of millions of years?

Did you know that C14 dating dinosaur bones, in 100% of cases, gives a date younger than 50,000 years? In 100% of cases!

Did you know that secular scientists were offered $20,000 to carbon date a T. rex fossil, and they declined? Presumably they know it will give a date of less than 1 million years, and they don't want the public to doubt the 65 million year age hoax.

Did you know that in Singapore, a conference was held by scientists who demonstrated young dates of dinosaurs from C14 dating, and a couple Americans who were there protested it and had the results of the conference unpublished? (You can find it on YouTube still, though, fortunately somebody else recorded it live).

The idea that dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago is a huge hoax, but keep searching and you'll realize this yourself.

Carbon Dating:

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Age of the earth:

http://www.talkorigins.org...
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 5:05:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 4:47:35 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 9/29/2014 3:24:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/28/2014 5:52:36 PM, Otokage wrote:
Well. The first article proves nothing about Earth"s age, plus it especifically states that geologist have already dated the stratum in which those bones were encountered: 68 million years. However, it raises interesting questions about the process of fosilization and how fossils can preserve the matter inside of them.

And about the second article. What exactly was he trying to prove with that?

He tried to claim that both are proof of thousands of years by saying that the flesh from the T. rex and blood from the mosquito would be hard as a rock if it was million years.

He's right. It doesn't prove 6,000 years specifically, but it does prove 'less than 100,000 years' which throws out any credibility conventional ages have. I'm surprised this is the first time you've seen this evidence. Did you also know that we've sequenced dinosaur DNA, and it was subsequently proven that DNA cannot be sequenced after 20,000 years? Did you know that the T. rex tissue had liquid blood with red blood cells in it?

Did you know that radiometric dating of 30 year old lava flows (observed being formed) gave a date of millions of years?

Did you know that C14 dating dinosaur bones, in 100% of cases, gives a date younger than 50,000 years? In 100% of cases!

Did you know that secular scientists were offered $20,000 to carbon date a T. rex fossil, and they declined? Presumably they know it will give a date of less than 1 million years, and they don't want the public to doubt the 65 million year age hoax.

Did you know that in Singapore, a conference was held by scientists who demonstrated young dates of dinosaurs from C14 dating, and a couple Americans who were there protested it and had the results of the conference unpublished? (You can find it on YouTube still, though, fortunately somebody else recorded it live).

The idea that dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago is a huge hoax, but keep searching and you'll realize this yourself.

To clear up the findings with Carbon dating:

http://www.talkorigins.org...

For the age of the Earth:

http://www.talkorigins.org...
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 5:19:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
For some reason, my post was posted twice. Sorry about that disruption/event.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 5:24:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 3:24:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/28/2014 5:52:36 PM, Otokage wrote:
Well. The first article proves nothing about Earth"s age, plus it especifically states that geologist have already dated the stratum in which those bones were encountered: 68 million years. However, it raises interesting questions about the process of fosilization and how fossils can preserve the matter inside of them.

And about the second article. What exactly was he trying to prove with that?

He tried to claim that both are proof of thousands of years by saying that the flesh from the T. rex and blood from the mosquito would be hard as a rock if it was million years.

So. How exactly does it work? The mosquito fosilizes so he is old, but somehow he still can move and sucks earlier blood from an earlier creature? ...... This creationists and their magics.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 9:52:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 5:24:18 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/29/2014 3:24:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/28/2014 5:52:36 PM, Otokage wrote:
Well. The first article proves nothing about Earth"s age, plus it especifically states that geologist have already dated the stratum in which those bones were encountered: 68 million years. However, it raises interesting questions about the process of fosilization and how fossils can preserve the matter inside of them.

And about the second article. What exactly was he trying to prove with that?

He tried to claim that both are proof of thousands of years by saying that the flesh from the T. rex and blood from the mosquito would be hard as a rock if it was million years.

So. How exactly does it work? The mosquito fosilizes so he is old, but somehow he still can move and sucks earlier blood from an earlier creature? ...... This creationists and their magics.

Fossilization is not necessarily an indicator of great age. It's been demonstrated to occur in less than 40 years.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 4:01:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 9:52:13 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 9/29/2014 5:24:18 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/29/2014 3:24:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/28/2014 5:52:36 PM, Otokage wrote:
Well. The first article proves nothing about Earth"s age, plus it especifically states that geologist have already dated the stratum in which those bones were encountered: 68 million years. However, it raises interesting questions about the process of fosilization and how fossils can preserve the matter inside of them.

And about the second article. What exactly was he trying to prove with that?

He tried to claim that both are proof of thousands of years by saying that the flesh from the T. rex and blood from the mosquito would be hard as a rock if it was million years.

So. How exactly does it work? The mosquito fosilizes so he is old, but somehow he still can move and sucks earlier blood from an earlier creature? ...... This creationists and their magics.

Fossilization is not necessarily an indicator of great age. It's been demonstrated to occur in less than 40 years.

That's very interesting. Source?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,498
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 7:05:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 3:42:09 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/29/2014 3:24:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/28/2014 5:52:36 PM, Otokage wrote:
Well. The first article proves nothing about Earth"s age, plus it especifically states that geologist have already dated the stratum in which those bones were encountered: 68 million years. However, it raises interesting questions about the process of fosilization and how fossils can preserve the matter inside of them.

And about the second article. What exactly was he trying to prove with that?

He tried to claim that both are proof of thousands of years by saying that the flesh from the T. rex and blood from the mosquito would be hard as a rock if it was million years.

Well, you've got to admit it's unlikely unfossilized flesh would remain intact for millions of years, though that in itself is not enough to prove Creationism.

Yeah, the low level actions of molecules is - well, it's the basis of dating methods, after all. There was another one like this where they found tissue still elastic inside a bone. Elasticity is a fairly well understood phenomenon, where long string-like molecules are cross-bound at infrequent intervals. Over time, you generally get more cross-bonds, making the material hard. This is why things like rubber bushings get hard, and within a human lifetime (you could get less cross-bonds, where the material turns to powder). So elastic tissue after tens of millions of years? It's simply not possible. The state of preservation really can't have anything to do with it, unless it was held at near absolute zero temperature, since we're talking about action at the molecular level. So something is indeed radically wrong with some of this dating. This stuff is a giant "oops".
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,498
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 7:15:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 9:52:13 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 9/29/2014 5:24:18 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/29/2014 3:24:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/28/2014 5:52:36 PM, Otokage wrote:
Well. The first article proves nothing about Earth"s age, plus it especifically states that geologist have already dated the stratum in which those bones were encountered: 68 million years. However, it raises interesting questions about the process of fosilization and how fossils can preserve the matter inside of them.

And about the second article. What exactly was he trying to prove with that?

He tried to claim that both are proof of thousands of years by saying that the flesh from the T. rex and blood from the mosquito would be hard as a rock if it was million years.

So. How exactly does it work? The mosquito fosilizes so he is old, but somehow he still can move and sucks earlier blood from an earlier creature? ...... This creationists and their magics.

Fossilization is not necessarily an indicator of great age. It's been demonstrated to occur in less than 40 years.

Yeah, I remember Ken Hamm's magazine showing a fossilized spark plug. Kind of a stretch calling it fossilized, I'd call it something more like natural concrete, but still, it makes a point - a thing can get encased in stone in a lot less than a million years.

I'm not a YEC myself, I subscribe to the 'gap theory', where Genesis one is read as "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And as our story opens, the land is formless and empty, and darkness covers the face of the water". So I don't have to squeeze everything into 6000 years, but I also take post-Darwin time scales with a giant grain of salt.
This space for rent.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 8:10:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 7:15:08 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2014 9:52:13 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 9/29/2014 5:24:18 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/29/2014 3:24:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/28/2014 5:52:36 PM, Otokage wrote:
Well. The first article proves nothing about Earth"s age, plus it especifically states that geologist have already dated the stratum in which those bones were encountered: 68 million years. However, it raises interesting questions about the process of fosilization and how fossils can preserve the matter inside of them.

And about the second article. What exactly was he trying to prove with that?

He tried to claim that both are proof of thousands of years by saying that the flesh from the T. rex and blood from the mosquito would be hard as a rock if it was million years.

So. How exactly does it work? The mosquito fosilizes so he is old, but somehow he still can move and sucks earlier blood from an earlier creature? ...... This creationists and their magics.

Fossilization is not necessarily an indicator of great age. It's been demonstrated to occur in less than 40 years.

Yeah, I remember Ken Hamm's magazine showing a fossilized spark plug. Kind of a stretch calling it fossilized, I'd call it something more like natural concrete, but still, it makes a point - a thing can get encased in stone in a lot less than a million years.

I'm not a YEC myself, I subscribe to the 'gap theory', where Genesis one is read as "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And as our story opens, the land is formless and empty, and darkness covers the face of the water". So I don't have to squeeze everything into 6000 years, but I also take post-Darwin time scales with a giant grain of salt.

I was actually talking about a Japanese study that showed petrification of wood in less than 40 years. I'll try to see if I can find something on the fossilization of organic matter.

That's interesting, if not a little disappointing, by the way. I always wondered if you were YEC or something in between lol.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,498
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 10:13:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 8:10:46 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 9/30/2014 7:15:08 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2014 9:52:13 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 9/29/2014 5:24:18 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/29/2014 3:24:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/28/2014 5:52:36 PM, Otokage wrote:
Well. The first article proves nothing about Earth"s age, plus it especifically states that geologist have already dated the stratum in which those bones were encountered: 68 million years. However, it raises interesting questions about the process of fosilization and how fossils can preserve the matter inside of them.

And about the second article. What exactly was he trying to prove with that?

He tried to claim that both are proof of thousands of years by saying that the flesh from the T. rex and blood from the mosquito would be hard as a rock if it was million years.

So. How exactly does it work? The mosquito fosilizes so he is old, but somehow he still can move and sucks earlier blood from an earlier creature? ...... This creationists and their magics.

Fossilization is not necessarily an indicator of great age. It's been demonstrated to occur in less than 40 years.

Yeah, I remember Ken Hamm's magazine showing a fossilized spark plug. Kind of a stretch calling it fossilized, I'd call it something more like natural concrete, but still, it makes a point - a thing can get encased in stone in a lot less than a million years.

I'm not a YEC myself, I subscribe to the 'gap theory', where Genesis one is read as "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And as our story opens, the land is formless and empty, and darkness covers the face of the water". So I don't have to squeeze everything into 6000 years, but I also take post-Darwin time scales with a giant grain of salt.

I was actually talking about a Japanese study that showed petrification of wood in less than 40 years. I'll try to see if I can find something on the fossilization of organic matter.

That's interesting, if not a little disappointing, by the way. I always wondered if you were YEC or something in between lol.

Well, you know, it's often said that YEC is the literal reading of Genesis, but it's really not. You can't have literal days before you have a literal sun, ya know? So YEC is actually an interpretation - "Ok, it says day, and evening and morning, but they weren't days as we know them because there was no sun yet". It's an interpretation of 'day' just as surely as an interpretation of day as 'long period of time'. So I think a gap theory is actually the more literal reading. With a gap theory you have a literal reading of Genesis 1, you just note that it's the creation of a place for the tribe of Adam, not the creation of the whole cosmos.

You didn't ask for all this, but suffer me a little digression: If you came home from work and found a Lamborghini in your driveway, what would your first question be? It probably wouldn't be "I wonder where that was built?". It would be "Who's car is that?" with a tiny hope in your heart that Publisher's Clearing House had stopped by and left it for you. "Who owns it? Who has the rights to that car? Where are the keys?" - those are the questions foremost in your mind. And I would suggest that this is really the primary question that Genesis 1 answers - YHWH owns this cosmos. He's the one who has the keys. It's like Jesus standing up in the boat and rebuking the waves. Suddenly his disciples are reminded of who this man really is - he's the one who owns nature.

The human mind can't actually comprehend the concept of creation from nothing, it's just words, and I don't think that's what Genesis 1 is about. What is important is that it is creation by fiat; that when God speaks, the cosmos obeys. But it's a cosmos that already was. The very beginning of time and space and matter is quite beyond us - what we need to know is who made it and owns and controls it, and that he personally furnished this little planet we find ourselves on.

But I could be wrong. Just my thoughts on the matter.
This space for rent.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 11:24:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 10:13:34 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/30/2014 8:10:46 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 9/30/2014 7:15:08 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2014 9:52:13 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 9/29/2014 5:24:18 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/29/2014 3:24:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/28/2014 5:52:36 PM, Otokage wrote:
Well. The first article proves nothing about Earth"s age, plus it especifically states that geologist have already dated the stratum in which those bones were encountered: 68 million years. However, it raises interesting questions about the process of fosilization and how fossils can preserve the matter inside of them.

And about the second article. What exactly was he trying to prove with that?

He tried to claim that both are proof of thousands of years by saying that the flesh from the T. rex and blood from the mosquito would be hard as a rock if it was million years.

So. How exactly does it work? The mosquito fosilizes so he is old, but somehow he still can move and sucks earlier blood from an earlier creature? ...... This creationists and their magics.

Fossilization is not necessarily an indicator of great age. It's been demonstrated to occur in less than 40 years.

Yeah, I remember Ken Hamm's magazine showing a fossilized spark plug. Kind of a stretch calling it fossilized, I'd call it something more like natural concrete, but still, it makes a point - a thing can get encased in stone in a lot less than a million years.

I'm not a YEC myself, I subscribe to the 'gap theory', where Genesis one is read as "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And as our story opens, the land is formless and empty, and darkness covers the face of the water". So I don't have to squeeze everything into 6000 years, but I also take post-Darwin time scales with a giant grain of salt.

I was actually talking about a Japanese study that showed petrification of wood in less than 40 years. I'll try to see if I can find something on the fossilization of organic matter.

That's interesting, if not a little disappointing, by the way. I always wondered if you were YEC or something in between lol.

Well, you know, it's often said that YEC is the literal reading of Genesis, but it's really not. You can't have literal days before you have a literal sun, ya know? So YEC is actually an interpretation - "Ok, it says day, and evening and morning, but they weren't days as we know them because there was no sun yet". It's an interpretation of 'day' just as surely as an interpretation of day as 'long period of time'. So I think a gap theory is actually the more literal reading. With a gap theory you have a literal reading of Genesis 1, you just note that it's the creation of a place for the tribe of Adam, not the creation of the whole cosmos.

You didn't ask for all this, but suffer me a little digression: If you came home from work and found a Lamborghini in your driveway, what would your first question be? It probably wouldn't be "I wonder where that was built?". It would be "Who's car is that?" with a tiny hope in your heart that Publisher's Clearing House had stopped by and left it for you. "Who owns it? Who has the rights to that car? Where are the keys?" - those are the questions foremost in your mind. And I would suggest that this is really the primary question that Genesis 1 answers - YHWH owns this cosmos. He's the one who has the keys. It's like Jesus standing up in the boat and rebuking the waves. Suddenly his disciples are reminded of who this man really is - he's the one who owns nature.

The human mind can't actually comprehend the concept of creation from nothing, it's just words, and I don't think that's what Genesis 1 is about. What is important is that it is creation by fiat; that when God speaks, the cosmos obeys. But it's a cosmos that already was. The very beginning of time and space and matter is quite beyond us - what we need to know is who made it and owns and controls it, and that he personally furnished this little planet we find ourselves on.

But I could be wrong. Just my thoughts on the matter.

That's an interesting perspective but I think the scriptural evidence weighs heavily against it. Of course, the sun could not be the source of light for the first 'day' on planet earth. But in the Book of Revelation, John speaks of a new earth illuminated by God himself without the need for a sun, suggesting that the new earth (when the lion and lamb will play together or whatever) will not have a sun, and be illuminated by God himself. Further evidence in support of YEC is the fact that God said Let there be light before he created the sun.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,498
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 2:34:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 11:24:35 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:

That's an interesting perspective but I think the scriptural evidence weighs heavily against it.

Well, I don't (said nicely :-). The one pause I have is if I ask myself "Is that what other people in scripture thought Gen 1 meant?" and then sometimes it seems like a bit of a stretch. But other passages lend some support, like in one of the prophets where the phrase "the earth was formless and empty" is used to clearly refer to a judged area of earth.

Of course, the sun could not be the source of light for the first 'day' on planet earth.

Yeah, you have to put 'day' in quotes. That's my point, they aren't literal days by your reading. They ARE literal days by the reading I'm suggesting.

But in the Book of Revelation, John speaks of a new earth illuminated by God himself without the need for a sun, suggesting that the new earth (when the lion and lamb will play together or whatever) will not have a sun, and be illuminated by God himself.

I'm certainly not arguing that God COULDN'T illuminate earth without the sun, I'm just saying that I don't think that's what the text indicates. And in Revelation I think it's just the city that's illuminated this way, not the whole earth. 'New Jerusalem' is the headquarters of the new order, but there's still a whole earth out there (with no oceans, apparently) and nations that bring their wealth into the New Jerusalem.

Further evidence in support of YEC is the fact that God said Let there be light before he created the sun.

Yeah, "let there be light", not "and God created light". And "darkness covered the face of the deep" - does that not suggest an active darkness, that light as a something already existed? You have to notice that by any reading, the text begins with the earth and water already existing.

I am not challenging the authority or integrity of scripture in any way, I am only challenging one traditional reading, one that is not necessarily how the church fathers read it, btw. Our preconceived notions can be very very strong, especially when we come by them in childhood. Make an attempt to read Gen 1 with zero preconceived notions, to just read what the text actually says, nothing more, nothing less. I think the text reads most smoothly as one told from the perspective of a witness on the surface of a water covered, thick cloud covered earth. It's already in orbit around the sun, you just can't see it. So what follows is a 6 day unveiling. Some of what happens is pure creation, some of it is just moving what's already there, like water and mountains. The creation of sun and stars is parenthetical - God DID create the sun and stars, he just didn't tell us about it until day 4, which is when they became visible to the earth.
This space for rent.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 3:01:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 2:34:46 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/30/2014 11:24:35 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:

That's an interesting perspective but I think the scriptural evidence weighs heavily against it.

Well, I don't (said nicely :-). The one pause I have is if I ask myself "Is that what other people in scripture thought Gen 1 meant?" and then sometimes it seems like a bit of a stretch. But other passages lend some support, like in one of the prophets where the phrase "the earth was formless and empty" is used to clearly refer to a judged area of earth.

Of course, the sun could not be the source of light for the first 'day' on planet earth.

Yeah, you have to put 'day' in quotes. That's my point, they aren't literal days by your reading. They ARE literal days by the reading I'm suggesting.

According to Google's definition, a period of twenty-four hours as a unit of time, reckoned from one midnight to the next, corresponding to a rotation of the earth on its axis, my day is, in fact, literal. The only difference between our day and the first day of Genesis is that the light source was different.

This is further supported by the verse that says, "God called the light Day". So there you go.

But in the Book of Revelation, John speaks of a new earth illuminated by God himself without the need for a sun, suggesting that the new earth (when the lion and lamb will play together or whatever) will not have a sun, and be illuminated by God himself.

I'm certainly not arguing that God COULDN'T illuminate earth without the sun, I'm just saying that I don't think that's what the text indicates. And in Revelation I think it's just the city that's illuminated this way, not the whole earth. 'New Jerusalem' is the headquarters of the new order, but there's still a whole earth out there (with no oceans, apparently) and nations that bring their wealth into the New Jerusalem.

Meh, I don't know much about the Book of Revelation, I just remember seeing that when I skimmed it when I was bored the other day.

Further evidence in support of YEC is the fact that God said Let there be light before he created the sun.

Yeah, "let there be light", not "and God created light".

There's no semantic difference. Some translations say "Be light made." In Spanish, it says "Que exista la luz". For comparison, if you want something to occur in Spanish, you say "Que ocurra [what you want to occur.]" I hope you get what I'm trying to say. The thing is, there is no difference between God saying "Let there be light" and God commanding light into existence, even though I get the feeling from your post you are trying to make a distinction.

In other words, light came into existence when God said "Let there be light" from how I understand it.

And "darkness covered the face of the deep" - does that not suggest an active darkness, that light as a something already existed?

I don't understand?

You have to notice that by any reading, the text begins with the earth and water already existing.

I don't understand how you can say that. It starts off with "In the beginning God created[...] the earth."

I am not challenging the authority or integrity of scripture in any way, I am only challenging one traditional reading, one that is not necessarily how the church fathers read it, btw.

I think all but one of the Church Fathers (Church Fathers as identified by the Catholic Church, since I'm Catholic) believed in a 1 week Creation week. I'm not aware of a single person advocating the Gap Theory until the past 2 hundred years... are you aware of any? I find it difficult to believe that such a huge misunderstanding would go completely unaddressed for so long.

Our preconceived notions can be very very strong, especially when we come by them in childhood. Make an attempt to read Gen 1 with zero preconceived notions,

That's not very productive for me. I remember when I was little and would hear the story being read, I could never put 100% of it together coherently in my head to "imagine it", if you know what I mean. When I read it now, I remember that St. Peter said the earth was created out of water, so the part about the earth existing, but land being created later, makes sense. And I never even tried to understand how there were days before the Sun was created, because it never occured to me. I never put 2 and 2 together, so to speak. Just like dinosaurs. I was raised believing the earth was 6,000 years old, but at the same time, I believed that dinosaurs died 65 million years ago and the Big Bang theory was true. See? I just can't read Genesis without any preconceptions and make sense out of more than half of it.

to just read what the text actually says, nothing more, nothing less. I think the text reads most smoothly as one told from the perspective of a witness on the surface of a water covered, thick cloud covered earth.

That's what it sounds like, but then you realize that the sky wasn't created yet when "the Spirit was moving over the waters" so how could there be clouds?

All this hurts my head.

It's already in orbit around the sun, you just can't see it. So what follows is a 6 day unveiling.

That's def not a straightforward reading... not at all imo.

Some of what happens is pure creation, some of it is just moving what's already there, like water and mountains. The creation of sun and stars is parenthetical - God DID create the sun and stars, he just didn't tell us about it until day 4, which is when they became visible to the earth.

I think it's pretty obvious God created the Sun on day 4... but that's just me. Remember that "Let there be" is the same as commanding something into existence.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 3:36:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 3:01:35 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 9/30/2014 2:34:46 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/30/2014 11:24:35 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:

That's an interesting perspective but I think the scriptural evidence weighs heavily against it.

Well, I don't (said nicely :-). The one pause I have is if I ask myself "Is that what other people in scripture thought Gen 1 meant?" and then sometimes it seems like a bit of a stretch. But other passages lend some support, like in one of the prophets where the phrase "the earth was formless and empty" is used to clearly refer to a judged area of earth.

Of course, the sun could not be the source of light for the first 'day' on planet earth.

Yeah, you have to put 'day' in quotes. That's my point, they aren't literal days by your reading. They ARE literal days by the reading I'm suggesting.

According to Google's definition, a period of twenty-four hours as a unit of time, reckoned from one midnight to the next, corresponding to a rotation of the earth on its axis, my day is, in fact, literal. The only difference between our day and the first day of Genesis is that the light source was different.

This is further supported by the verse that says, "God called the light Day". So there you go.

But in the Book of Revelation, John speaks of a new earth illuminated by God himself without the need for a sun, suggesting that the new earth (when the lion and lamb will play together or whatever) will not have a sun, and be illuminated by God himself.

I'm certainly not arguing that God COULDN'T illuminate earth without the sun, I'm just saying that I don't think that's what the text indicates. And in Revelation I think it's just the city that's illuminated this way, not the whole earth. 'New Jerusalem' is the headquarters of the new order, but there's still a whole earth out there (with no oceans, apparently) and nations that bring their wealth into the New Jerusalem.

Meh, I don't know much about the Book of Revelation, I just remember seeing that when I skimmed it when I was bored the other day.

Further evidence in support of YEC is the fact that God said Let there be light before he created the sun.

Yeah, "let there be light", not "and God created light".

There's no semantic difference. Some translations say "Be light made." In Spanish, it says "Que exista la luz". For comparison, if you want something to occur in Spanish, you say "Que ocurra [what you want to occur.]" I hope you get what I'm trying to say. The thing is, there is no difference between God saying "Let there be light" and God commanding light into existence, even though I get the feeling from your post you are trying to make a distinction.

In other words, light came into existence when God said "Let there be light" from how I understand it.

And "darkness covered the face of the deep" - does that not suggest an active darkness, that light as a something already existed?

I don't understand?

You have to notice that by any reading, the text begins with the earth and water already existing.

I don't understand how you can say that. It starts off with "In the beginning God created[...] the earth."

I am not challenging the authority or integrity of scripture in any way, I am only challenging one traditional reading, one that is not necessarily how the church fathers read it, btw.

I think all but one of the Church Fathers (Church Fathers as identified by the Catholic Church, since I'm Catholic) believed in a 1 week Creation week. I'm not aware of a single person advocating the Gap Theory until the past 2 hundred years... are you aware of any? I find it difficult to believe that such a huge misunderstanding would go completely unaddressed for so long.

Our preconceived notions can be very very strong, especially when we come by them in childhood. Make an attempt to read Gen 1 with zero preconceived notions,

That's not very productive for me. I remember when I was little and would hear the story being read, I could never put 100% of it together coherently in my head to "imagine it", if you know what I mean. When I read it now, I remember that St. Peter said the earth was created out of water, so the part about the earth existing, but land being created later, makes sense. And I never even tried to understand how there were days before the Sun was created, because it never occured to me. I never put 2 and 2 together, so to speak. Just like dinosaurs. I was raised believing the earth was 6,000 years old, but at the same time, I believed that dinosaurs died 65 million years ago and the Big Bang theory was true. See? I just can't read Genesis without any preconceptions and make sense out of more than half of it.

to just read what the text actually says, nothing more, nothing less. I think the text reads most smoothly as one told from the perspective of a witness on the surface of a water covered, thick cloud covered earth.

That's what it sounds like, but then you realize that the sky wasn't created yet when "the Spirit was moving over the waters" so how could there be clouds?

All this hurts my head.

It's already in orbit around the sun, you just can't see it. So what follows is a 6 day unveiling.

That's def not a straightforward reading... not at all imo.

Some of what happens is pure creation, some of it is just moving what's already there, like water and mountains. The creation of sun and stars is parenthetical - God DID create the sun and stars, he just didn't tell us about it until day 4, which is when they became visible to the earth.

I think it's pretty obvious God created the Sun on day 4... but that's just me. Remember that "Let there be" is the same as commanding something into existence.

Pretty obvious God made the sun on day 4? Where you there? How did you know it was the fourth day?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,498
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 7:28:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 3:01:35 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
...

I think it's pretty obvious God created the Sun on day 4... but that's just me. Remember that "Let there be" is the same as commanding something into existence.

Just to address this one point - I don't think so. I have humorously walked into a dark room and said "let there be light" before hitting the light switch. And it's a perfectly valid bit of language, actually. I am commanding light, through the agent of technology. I'm not creating light from nothing, just commanding it to radiate in that dark room.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,498
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 9:23:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 3:36:10 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
...

Pretty obvious God made the sun on day 4? Where you there? How did you know it was the fourth day?

I think it pretty obvious that the context here is the text. Garrett and I are discussing the meaning of a bit of historical literature. I'm proposing that the text describes something of much smaller scale than the creation of the whole cosmos, so we're discussing textual clues for or against that view. I think that the textual reference to days, evening and morning, points to the earth being in orbit around the sun and its own axis at the beginning of the 6 day week of Genesis 1. It's the creation of 'the heavens and the earth' as we experience them that is described, just as there will one day be a 'new heavens and new earth' that apparently will be this same physical planet. By analogy, it's like describing how a painter paints a masterpiece in one week. But he does it upon a canvas and with paints that were not themselves part of the 6 day effort.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,498
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 11:18:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 9:30:29 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/1/2014 9:23:25 AM, v3nesl wrote:
...

Which I read as "that went completely over my head". Not sure why you feel the need to announce that...
This space for rent.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 11:22:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 11:18:56 AM, v3nesl wrote:
...
At 10/1/2014 9:30:29 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/1/2014 9:23:25 AM, v3nesl wrote:
...

Which I read as "that went completely over my head". Not sure why you feel the need to announce that...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 12:25:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 7:28:33 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/30/2014 3:01:35 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
...

I think it's pretty obvious God created the Sun on day 4... but that's just me. Remember that "Let there be" is the same as commanding something into existence.

Just to address this one point - I don't think so. I have humorously walked into a dark room and said "let there be light" before hitting the light switch. And it's a perfectly valid bit of language, actually. I am commanding light, through the agent of technology. I'm not creating light from nothing, just commanding it to radiate in that dark room.

So you're saying God created the sun when he said "Let there be light"? And the sun didn't shine on earth until day 4?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,498
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 7:37:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 12:25:57 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 10/1/2014 7:28:33 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/30/2014 3:01:35 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
...

I think it's pretty obvious God created the Sun on day 4... but that's just me. Remember that "Let there be" is the same as commanding something into existence.

Just to address this one point - I don't think so. I have humorously walked into a dark room and said "let there be light" before hitting the light switch. And it's a perfectly valid bit of language, actually. I am commanding light, through the agent of technology. I'm not creating light from nothing, just commanding it to radiate in that dark room.

So you're saying God created the sun when he said "Let there be light"? And the sun didn't shine on earth until day 4?

No, I think the sun was created in verse one: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." So on day one that whole infrastructure exists. But it's dark on the earth, perhaps because the earth is covered with thick cloud. Meteor? Volcano? On day one God clears the atmosphere enough to let light reach earth, that's what I'm guessing there. Remember, God himself sets the frame of reference by saying "and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters". So that's where our narrator is, you might say - just over top of the surface of the planet. There's water, there's earth, but no light. "Lights!" says the director. "Let the story of Christ begin."
This space for rent.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 8:42:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 7:37:47 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/1/2014 12:25:57 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 10/1/2014 7:28:33 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/30/2014 3:01:35 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
...

I think it's pretty obvious God created the Sun on day 4... but that's just me. Remember that "Let there be" is the same as commanding something into existence.

Just to address this one point - I don't think so. I have humorously walked into a dark room and said "let there be light" before hitting the light switch. And it's a perfectly valid bit of language, actually. I am commanding light, through the agent of technology. I'm not creating light from nothing, just commanding it to radiate in that dark room.

So you're saying God created the sun when he said "Let there be light"? And the sun didn't shine on earth until day 4?

No, I think the sun was created in verse one: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." So on day one that whole infrastructure exists. But it's dark on the earth, perhaps because the earth is covered with thick cloud. Meteor? Volcano? On day one God clears the atmosphere enough to let light reach earth, that's what I'm guessing there. Remember, God himself sets the frame of reference by saying "and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters". So that's where our narrator is, you might say - just over top of the surface of the planet. There's water, there's earth, but no light. "Lights!" says the director. "Let the story of Christ begin."

Looking at it again it seems that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is just a summary of what it's about to describe, because it goes on to say (in the context of day 2) that "God created the firmament" and also "The firmament he called the heavens", then on the same day he makes the "dry land" and calls it "earth".

How could the "heavens" and "earth" already exist if God doesn't create the "firmament" and "dry land" until day 2, which he identifies as "heaven" and "earth"?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,498
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 8:57:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 8:42:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 10/2/2014 7:37:47 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/1/2014 12:25:57 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 10/1/2014 7:28:33 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/30/2014 3:01:35 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
...

I think it's pretty obvious God created the Sun on day 4... but that's just me. Remember that "Let there be" is the same as commanding something into existence.

Just to address this one point - I don't think so. I have humorously walked into a dark room and said "let there be light" before hitting the light switch. And it's a perfectly valid bit of language, actually. I am commanding light, through the agent of technology. I'm not creating light from nothing, just commanding it to radiate in that dark room.

So you're saying God created the sun when he said "Let there be light"? And the sun didn't shine on earth until day 4?

No, I think the sun was created in verse one: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." So on day one that whole infrastructure exists. But it's dark on the earth, perhaps because the earth is covered with thick cloud. Meteor? Volcano? On day one God clears the atmosphere enough to let light reach earth, that's what I'm guessing there. Remember, God himself sets the frame of reference by saying "and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters". So that's where our narrator is, you might say - just over top of the surface of the planet. There's water, there's earth, but no light. "Lights!" says the director. "Let the story of Christ begin."

Looking at it again it seems that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is just a summary of what it's about to describe,

That's definitely the one option. The other is that it is a standalone statement.

because it goes on to say (in the context of day 2) that "God created the firmament" and also "The firmament he called the heavens", then on the same day he makes the "dry land" and calls it "earth".

How could the "heavens" and "earth" already exist if God doesn't create the "firmament" and "dry land" until day 2, which he identifies as "heaven" and "earth"?

On the other hand, how could he create earth on day 2 if it was 'formless and void' on day 1?

So, interpretation is necessary. I know that it took a number of years to get where I'm at, so just ponder it. I'm certainly not offering my thoughts as some kind of dogma, I just think I've gotten to a place where most of the puzzle pieces fit when you look at it that way.
This space for rent.