Finally Picked a creation stance.

[abelcainsbrother]

Again,science has not demonstrated life evolves.I'm not even getting down to molecules to start it off as honest evolutionists acknowledge there is no evidence for this - abiogenesis,is not apart of evolution.So TE is out for now for me.

[neo-x]

ES, I usually don't do much creation argument here now because frankly everyone's a little touchy about their creation stance and it gets personal very quickly. But despite what some may say here of T.E, or evolution in general, just know that a molecules to man transition is still possible, if the laws of the universe do keep on working, which is how God intended them to be ofcourse. Getting into TE doesn't necessarily means you deny scripture or God.

There is a broad range of beliefs under T.E. It is usually demonized because of the term "evolution" in it and sometimes wrongly so because people have misconceptions about evolution or don't understand it. Some people do reject it on philosophical basis which can be easily understood if not condoned.

At the end of the day the idea that we are not special by birth/creation and that we share a common ancestor with the apes is far more of a factor in getting people ticked off than anything else. Some people just don't like the idea. So they consequently reject the evidence for evolution, DNA, fossil, scientific theory, prediction etc and just either claim or genuinely believe it hasn't been proven because they don't see it with their own eyes happening infront of themselves.

Of course many people will have many other objects to it as you would find out if you asked around here, but that basically surmises it.

Just wanted to clear that up.

[Kurieuo]

Don't listen to the heretic!

[Kurieuo]

Actually ES, your quote a few posts back:

Jump up ^ Rusbult, Craig (1998). "Evolutionary Creation". Ipswich, MA: American Scientific Affiliation. Retrieved 2014-03-14. A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation * — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverlydesign a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution.

That is a quote of Craig Rusbult, who has elaborated on his creation views here:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/views-cr.htm

In particular, I like what he says about Theistic Evolution:

• What about theistic evolution? I'm a critic and defender, who thinks (with humility) that totally natural evolution — with God designing the universe so everything in nature would form by 100% natural process — probably was not the way it happened. But even though I'm not a proponent of theistic evolution, I think it can be theologically satisfactory, should be carefully considered, and evolutionary creationists (who think natural evolution was God's method of creation) should be treated with respect as fellow Christians, with no "theological deficit" in their views.

[abelcainsbrother]

Well,if the gap theory is true like I believe it is it actually makes evolution wrong,unless it could ever be demonstrated life evolves,but then you'd have to believe God used evolution for both worlds,however since there is no way to demonstrate life evolves? We must say that there is absolutely no way the hominids evolved into the men in this world because all flesh and all life went extinct and perished which produced all of the fossils that go back millions of years and coal and oil,so that there is no way a person can try to make this much evidence of death and extinction fit from Genesis 1 to Noah's flood like YEC's do.

Also gap theorists do a much better job of explaining why evolution is wrong than YEC's do.Gap theorists actually explain why and how evolution has not been demonstrated.I can read Dake's reference bible that goes all the way back to the 1930's and it shows gap theorists have always rejected evolution.

Gap theorists have never accepted evolution.

[Kurieuo]

ACB, you're really Day-Age PC but you're still catching up.

[RickD]

ACB, you're really Day-Age PC but you're still catching up.

That's the impression I got too. He's just a little slow in understanding. He'll catch up eventually though, because nobody in his right mind believes in the Gap Theory anymore.

[EssentialSacrifice]

ps K; this is what I was speaking of when I thought TE and Day-Age were linked:

Strictly speaking, day-age creationism is not so much a creationist theory as a hermeneutic option which may be combined with theories such as progressive creationism.

.

K wrote:
In particular, I like what he says about Theistic Evolution:

What about theistic evolution? I'm a critic and defender, who thinks (with humility) that totally natural evolution — with God designing the universe so everything in nature would form by 100% natural process — probably was not the way it happened. But even though I'm not a proponent of theistic evolution, I think it can be theologically satisfactory, should be carefully considered, and evolutionary creationists (who think natural evolution was God's method of creation) should be treated with respect as fellow Christians, with no "theological deficit" in their views.

Agreed here K. I have found that much of what is said on the topic is always trying to hem in a particular philosophy that really cannot be hemmed in of God is involved ie: 100% natural process. His presence in the creation effect is the wild card to any and all possibilities. Our definitions are shadows of what is reality, whatever the reality actually was. Creation is undefinable awesomensess that begs or participation in defining.

neo wrote:
ES, I usually don't do much creation argument here now because frankly everyone's a little touchy about their creation stance and it gets personal very quickly. But despite what some may say here of T.E, or evolution in general, just know that a molecules to man transition is still possible, if the laws of the universe do keep on working, which is how God intended them to be of course. Getting into TE doesn't necessarily means you deny scripture or God.

I agree here completely neo. It is a valid point IMO that a segment of TE absolutely allows for the direct interpretation of the bible while still allowing for a process of creation by God that fulfills both the biblical narrative and the natural process by which He created. My problem with molecules to man was that the writer believed that meant everything happened by chance, no guidance by the Creator. If this is wrong, then perhaps I was too hasty in my judgement.

Here is a partial listing of my beliefs...

A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God's method of creation was to design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — (chemical and biological "evolution" being the use of God's materials by God to make man).

Day-age creationism states that the "six days" of the Book of Genesis are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather much longer periods (for instance, each "day" could be the equivalent of millions, or billions of years of human time)

theorists can therefore agree with the scientific consensus regarding the age of the Earth and Universe, while maintaining a literal interpretation of the biblical text.

Progressive creationism holds that species have changed or evolved in a process continuously guided by God, with various ideas as to how the process operated—though it is generally taken that God directly intervened in the natural order at key moments in Earth history.

From a theistic viewpoint, the underlying laws of nature were designed by God for a purpose, and are so self-sufficient that the complexity of the entire physical universe evolved from fundamental particles in processes such as stellar evolution, life forms developed biologically , and in the same way the origin of life by God has resulted from these laws.[84]

I hold that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation, that Adam and Eve were real people and affirms that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual.[3][4]

[RickD]

ES,

Day Age is almost exclusively referred to as being with Progressive Creationism. While I suppose it's possible, I've never heard of a Day-Age Theistic Evolutionist.

If that helps any...

Not that you won't make up your mind by the evidence itself, but your Church allows for one to hold to PC or TE if one chooses.

[EssentialSacrifice]

I've never heard of a Day-Age Theistic Evolutionist.

http://www.icr.org/article/theistic-evo ... ge-theory/

Theistic evolutionists, however, profess a certain allegiance to the Scriptures and must attempt to harmonize the biblical account with the evolutionary scenario. The biblical text, at least to the unbiased observer, indicates a universe and earth that were formed in six days; evolutionists suppose at least six billion years. The mechanism by which theistic evolutionists harmonize the two is known as the day-age theory.

Not sure of it's inclusion of Day-Age within TE but I do see how the two are essentially "linked" within the parameters of time.

ps; I also see my creation stance as cherry picking (fence sitting if you please ) but that's just the way it turned out. As i said, my thoughts first, man's definitions of creation second.

[RickD]

I've never heard of a Day-Age Theistic Evolutionist.

http://www.icr.org/article/theistic-evo ... ge-theory/

Theistic evolutionists, however, profess a certain allegiance to the Scriptures and must attempt to harmonize the biblical account with the evolutionary scenario. The biblical text, at least to the unbiased observer, indicates a universe and earth that were formed in six days; evolutionists suppose at least six billion years. The mechanism by which theistic evolutionists harmonize the two is known as the day-age theory.

Not sure of it's inclusion of Day-Age within TE but I do see how the two are essentially "linked" within the parameters of time.

ps; I also see my creation stance as cherry picking (fence sitting if you please ) but that's just the way it turned out. As i said, my thoughts first, man's definitions of creation second.

Oh Gees!

If you notice at the bottom of that article, the date is 1980. Hopefully YECs have come a long way in those 35 years, to better understand what PC actually is. I've run into a few authors who conflate TE and Day-Age. Unfortunately, it's a simple, avoidable, but all too common mistake among some YECs. And unfortunately, it's still prevalent. I had it out a while back with someone from GotQuestions, because they made the same mistake.
Some ignorant YECs just see billions of years( believed by Day-Age/PC's) and conflate that belief with TE. While some TE's may believe the six days of creation are long ages, I've never actually heard any TE refer to his beliefs as Day-Age.

In your research, you may notice sites such as ICR, and AnswersinGenesis, still make those mistakes, while misrepresenting what Day-Age/PC's actually believe.
IMO, the best place to learn about DA/PC is from the leading website in that area. Reasons.org.

And FYI, that link is full of fail! If you want me to go over its mistakes, I can.

[EssentialSacrifice]

http://www.reasons.org/about/our-mission

As good a mission statement as you could ask. I found no argument. Very much in line with my way of thinking.

[RickD]

http://www.reasons.org/about/our-mission

As good a mission statement as you could ask. I found no argument. Very much in line with my way of thinking.

Yes, me too.

But to be fair, I don't think many TE's would have issues with their "What we believe" page. It just comes down to different interpretations of the available scientific evidence. And different interpretations of scripture.

[EssentialSacrifice]

It just comes down to different interpretations of the available scientific evidence. And different interpretations of scripture.

Exactly, albeit the two weakest links in the creation chain, both of which are characterized with the involvement of men and their judgments on both what they find physically as "proofs" and what they believe spiritually, internally, in conjunction with, and through those perceived "proofs".

It will take me some time to establish exactly because there is a lot to be absorbed, but for now, the Theist Evolution base perspective per my last post further defined by Day-Age and PC . It may not be usual, but I don't see how a TE who believes the DA of millions of years = day in universal creation can call it anything other than it is, Day Age PC defined. Pun intended, I expect the more I learn the more my stance may "evolve"

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB, you're really Day-Age PC but you're still catching up.

I don't see how I believe all life that lived in the former world perished 2nd Peter 3:5-7 then there was a gap of time until God restored the earth and heavens made this world and all the life in the former world died including all plant life,everything died,so again there is no way the hominids or men that lived in the former world Jeremiah 4:23-28 evolved into the men inn this world because all life died in the former world and then there was a gap of time with all of that life dead until God created this world and the life in this world,this is what the evidence in the earth proves like the fossils,coal and oil,it just proves there was a former world that existed on this earth and the reason ya'll don't believe it it because of evolution that a lot of the science ya'll go by was based on evolution,this makes ya'll believe that the world has went on and on for billions of years,but it has not and the fossils and the enormous amount of evidence of death and extinction prove it,so stop looking at the evidence from an evolution perspective.
It really comes down to how we interpret the evidence in the earth and if it was not for the theory of evolution based on the forensic geological evidence nobody would believe all things have gone on continually for millions of years,even though the earth might be billions of years old.