Christians, Media and Others are Ignorant about Progressive Creation!

[abelcainsbrother]

What I find strange is Audie and others will choose to accept evolution knowing that evolution cannot be demonstrated because it takes so long for life to evolve,which is admitting there is no evidence life evolves,they will believe it anyway, yet reject the bible if it cannot be proven 100% true,when we who believe it know it cannot be proven 100%.Despite the many different examples of evidence our bible is true,they'll get hung up on one issue they can't believe.

[RickD]

Do you feel that "PC" can legitimately based on scrpiture or science?

No. Progressive Creation is just more religious crap.

The only creation position that is adapted to the the beliefs of the present scientific consensus is Schroeder's Creation Perspective. All others are can only be seen as religious hogwash from the secular perspective.

Except maybe Theistic Evolution.

[Kurieuo]

And sometimes there is no "truth" in terms of an actual even or thing actually exists.

Where, after all, shall we seek the truth of mermaid stories or tales of the Seven Cities of Gold: mount yet more expeditions*, or, maybe investigate some other way?

and

which, however you parse it, comes to that the Bible contains error.

and

square peg syndrome

That's where I thought you'd take it Audie, as I mentioned, you see it black and white, entirely true or false, because of your skepticism. Your mind is completely closed, clammed shut tighter than any clam. Seriously, be careful, God often cracks people open if that is the only way they will respond. As Lewis once said,

• "Pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our consciences, but shouts in our pains. It is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world."

Another quote by the same man, "Perhaps Christianity is both a myth and a fact. It's unique. It's the true myth."

Your extreme skepticism keeps you bound, it seems to me because you're so scared of being gullible, but that leads to a different perspective on reality that can take gullibility to whole new levels of foolishness.

You end up being one who is really bound and in chains, believing that there is nothing outside the physical walls we find ourselves within, and then skillfully ridiculing and persecuting those who dare to believe otherwise.

Nonetheless, it certainly seems more mystical to believe the workings of the world, everything, are just there, our awareness and consciousness just there, everything just happening. Here is a thread I'd like to redirect you to: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

[Kurieuo]

What I find strange is Audie and others will choose to accept evolution knowing that evolution cannot be demonstrated because it takes so long for life to evolve,which is admitting there is no evidence life evolves,they will believe it anyway, yet reject the bible if it cannot be proven 100% true,when we who believe it know it cannot be proven 100%.Despite the many different examples of evidence our bible is true,they'll get hung up on one issue they can't believe.

ACB, understand that today it's an intellectual crime to even let one's mind wonder what might exist outside of the physical world we find ourselves within, even if such means we must embrace seemingly impossible odds and large gaps in knowledge.

[Philip]

Clearly, God has not made certain things - like the flood (at least currently) - obvious to us. This tells me that anyone trying to disprove the Bible because of things currently unprovable (EITHER way), is A) a person ONLY looking for negative "proofs" that don't exist, B) that aren't looking at the immense amount of data that shows how mathematically improbable a sophisticated universe instantly coming into existence without an intelligent, all-powerful cause, C) has ignored undeniable, incredible evidences of design at the cellular level and DNA, D) is a person apparently believing the astonishing can happen uncaused, except through random and previous physically non-existing things. If such people are really looking for evidence of God, they sure aren't going to find it sitting around trying to debunk an ancient flood - one that may well have been only regional in scope. They're looking in the wrong place, at the wrong things!

[hughfarey]

What I find strange is Audie and others will choose to accept evolution knowing that evolution cannot be demonstrated because it takes so long for life to evolve,which is admitting there is no evidence life evolves,they will believe it anyway, yet reject the bible if it cannot be proven 100% true,when we who believe it know it cannot be proven 100%.Despite the many different examples of evidence our bible is true,they'll get hung up on one issue they can't believe.

Difficult to follow your syntax, but I think I understand. Some parts of your first sentence are just silly (because something cannot be demonstrated, therefore there is no evidence for it), but your distinction between physical evidence and literary evidence is worth a comment. First I think that you should abandon the term 'proof'. Scientists, by and large, don't 'prove' things in the incontrovertible way that mathematicians do. However, you seem to think that there are two bodies of conflicting evidence, and that each leads to a different conclusion. That, I think, is wrong, and contrary to all religious thought over the last few thousand years. The development of science, for most of that time, has not been an attempt to deny the truth of the bible, but, by understanding it better in terms of physical evidence, to confirm it. The question to be answered by science was not "Did God create the heavens and the earth?" but "How did God create the heavens and the earth?" From at least the 3rd or 4th centuries onwards, it was apparent to the church fathers that a literal reading of Genesis could not be justified, and indeed, the current plethora of creationist interpretations of the words of the bible demonstrates that, by themselves, they are insufficient to explain the process of creation in any detail at all.

Taken as a whole, the bible has been a worthwhile guideline for Christian civilisation for centuries, and there is no shame accepting it all as 'true' in some sense, even if we don't understand certain bits of it. But scientists are inveterately curious, and want to know how the bits we don't understand are true. This is where the physical evidence of creation becomes crucially important, and where, so far, it leads so much more clearly to an evolutionary conclusion that spontaneous creation becomes increasingly less tenable as a credible interpretation.

[Audie]

Clearly, God has not made certain things - like the flood (at least currently) - obvious to us. This tells me that anyone trying to disprove the Bible because of things currently unprovable (EITHER way), is A) a person ONLY looking for negative "proofs" that don't exist,

B)

That there was no GLOBAL flood certainly can be proved, has been demonstrated to be a phony baloney a thousand times over.

For some reason that always bring out people, such as you here, saying
"disprove the Bible" which is such an absurd concept, I really have to wonder why anyone would bother to say it. If the project here is to discuss the confused thoughts or someone with a childish mind, then so declare it.
Else lay off setting up nonsense so you can knock it down.

Certain interpretations of the Bible-while they may be biblically correct, a matter that concerns me not, that are not true in any possible sense connected to the physical world.

Such an interpretation is the WWF.

That, and a response to this were all I was talking about.

Truth isn't in DEGREES, or else it contains some percentage of untruth

So I said..
"the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?

A person relates his account to the best of his ability, but cannot get it 100%;
so what do you call that?

Are approximations "true", and without "untruth"?

What falls under the heading of "untruth"? Details left out?
Shades of meaning? Tone of voice? An incorrect digit in the 10,000th decimal place?



You contend that the flood story is one hundred percent factually accurate?

that aren't looking at the immense amount of data that shows how mathematically improbable a sophisticated universe instantly coming into existence without an intelligent, all-powerful cause, C) has ignored undeniable, incredible evidences of design at the cellular level and DNA, D) is a person apparently believing the astonishing can happen uncaused, except through random and previous physically non-existing things

I kinda wish you'd drop this,at least when it is 100% irrelevant as now. It is a waste as I'm not a member of the choir you are preaching to. It has nothing to do with anything I said, to which you only marginally responded.

. If such people are really looking for evidence of God, they sure aren't going to find it sitting around trying to debunk an ancient flood -

Set it up, knock it down. You. and anyone silly enough to look for evidence of god in such a way.

one that may well have been only regional in scope. They're looking in the wrong place, at the wrong things

"They" are soo foolish! Here they are now:
http://the405media.com/wp-content/uploa ... 902236.jpg

Now what about the truth, whole and nothing but bit?

[Audie]

What I find strange is Audie and others will choose to accept evolution knowing that evolution cannot be demonstrated because it takes so long for life to evolve,which is admitting there is no evidence life evolves,they will believe it anyway, yet reject the bible if it cannot be proven 100% true,when we who believe it know it cannot be proven 100%.Despite the many different examples of evidence our bible is true,they'll get hung up on one issue they can't believe.

ACB, understand that today it's an intellectual crime to even let one's mind wonder what might exist outside of the physical world we find ourselves within, even if such means we must embrace seemingly impossible odds and large gaps in knowledge.

Jump in and reinforce the drivel from abe. I must learn to stop overestimating you.

[Audie]

What I find strange is Audie and others will choose to accept evolution knowing that evolution cannot be demonstrated because it takes so long for life to evolve,which is admitting there is no evidence life evolves,they will believe it anyway, yet reject the bible if it cannot be proven 100% true,when we who believe it know it cannot be proven 100%.Despite the many different examples of evidence our bible is true,they'll get hung up on one issue they can't believe.

Difficult to follow your syntax, but I think I understand. Some parts of your first sentence are just silly (because something cannot be demonstrated, therefore there is no evidence for it), but your distinction between physical evidence and literary evidence is worth a comment. First I think that you should abandon the term 'proof'. Scientists, by and large, don't 'prove' things in the incontrovertible way that mathematicians do. However, you seem to think that there are two bodies of conflicting evidence, and that each leads to a different conclusion. That, I think, is wrong, and contrary to all religious thought over the last few thousand years. The development of science, for most of that time, has not been an attempt to deny the truth of the bible, but, by understanding it better in terms of physical evidence, to confirm it. The question to be answered by science was not "Did God create the heavens and the earth?" but "How did God create the heavens and the earth?" From at least the 3rd or 4th centuries onwards, it was apparent to the church fathers that a literal reading of Genesis could not be justified, and indeed, the current plethora of creationist interpretations of the words of the bible demonstrates that, by themselves, they are insufficient to explain the process of creation in any detail at all.

Taken as a whole, the bible has been a worthwhile guideline for Christian civilisation for centuries, and there is no shame accepting it all as 'true' in some sense, even if we don't understand certain bits of it. But scientists are inveterately curious, and want to know how the bits we don't understand are true. This is where the physical evidence of creation becomes crucially important, and where, so far, it leads so much more clearly to an evolutionary conclusion that spontaneous creation becomes increasingly less tenable as a credible interpretation.

I dont think the ninth commandment says "dont be silly".

[Kurieuo]

What I find strange is Audie and others will choose to accept evolution knowing that evolution cannot be demonstrated because it takes so long for life to evolve,which is admitting there is no evidence life evolves,they will believe it anyway, yet reject the bible if it cannot be proven 100% true,when we who believe it know it cannot be proven 100%.Despite the many different examples of evidence our bible is true,they'll get hung up on one issue they can't believe.

ACB, understand that today it's an intellectual crime to even let one's mind wonder what might exist outside of the physical world we find ourselves within, even if such means we must embrace seemingly impossible odds and large gaps in knowledge.

Jump in and reinforce the drivel from abe. I must learn to stop overestimating you.

Truth is truth no matter who is saying it.

And for all Abe's gap talk, at least he doesn't attempt to take the piss out of you all the bloody time.

[abelcainsbrother]

What I find strange is Audie and others will choose to accept evolution knowing that evolution cannot be demonstrated because it takes so long for life to evolve,which is admitting there is no evidence life evolves,they will believe it anyway, yet reject the bible if it cannot be proven 100% true,when we who believe it know it cannot be proven 100%.Despite the many different examples of evidence our bible is true,they'll get hung up on one issue they can't believe.

Difficult to follow your syntax, but I think I understand. Some parts of your first sentence are just silly (because something cannot be demonstrated, therefore there is no evidence for it), but your distinction between physical evidence and literary evidence is worth a comment. First I think that you should abandon the term 'proof'. Scientists, by and large, don't 'prove' things in the incontrovertible way that mathematicians do. However, you seem to think that there are two bodies of conflicting evidence, and that each leads to a different conclusion. That, I think, is wrong, and contrary to all religious thought over the last few thousand years. The development of science, for most of that time, has not been an attempt to deny the truth of the bible, but, by understanding it better in terms of physical evidence, to confirm it. The question to be answered by science was not "Did God create the heavens and the earth?" but "How did God create the heavens and the earth?" From at least the 3rd or 4th centuries onwards, it was apparent to the church fathers that a literal reading of Genesis could not be justified, and indeed, the current plethora of creationist interpretations of the words of the bible demonstrates that, by themselves, they are insufficient to explain the process of creation in any detail at all.

Taken as a whole, the bible has been a worthwhile guideline for Christian civilisation for centuries, and there is no shame accepting it all as 'true' in some sense, even if we don't understand certain bits of it. But scientists are inveterately curious, and want to know how the bits we don't understand are true. This is where the physical evidence of creation becomes crucially important, and where, so far, it leads so much more clearly to an evolutionary conclusion that spontaneous creation becomes increasingly less tenable as a credible interpretation.

I'm an evidence based person so evidence is important to me. Evidence is what we base truth on.You accept evolution so it might seem harsh to you that I point out there is no evidence that demonstrates life evolves,but it is the truth,however it is just a brief argument against evolution as I have already explained in other threads what the evidence does demonstrate,so no need to rehash it for now.I also believe and trust God over what man says is true as man has been wrong many of times throughout history about what he thought was true,this is why evidence is so important to me in order to be able to tell the truth from a lie,etc. You seem to trust man more than God and then allow it to influence how you interpret the bible.I trust God and then try to find evidence to confirm or not,knowing that evidence can allow us to realize we may have interpreted the bible wrong.It has happened before. Both religious people and nonreligious people have been wrong throughout history.

[abelcainsbrother]

What I find strange is Audie and others will choose to accept evolution knowing that evolution cannot be demonstrated because it takes so long for life to evolve,which is admitting there is no evidence life evolves,they will believe it anyway, yet reject the bible if it cannot be proven 100% true,when we who believe it know it cannot be proven 100%.Despite the many different examples of evidence our bible is true,they'll get hung up on one issue they can't believe.

ACB, understand that today it's an intellectual crime to even let one's mind wonder what might exist outside of the physical world we find ourselves within, even if such means we must embrace seemingly impossible odds and large gaps in knowledge.

Jump in and reinforce the drivel from abe. I must learn to stop overestimating you.

Truth is truth no matter who is saying it.

And for all Abe's gap talk, at least he doesn't attempt to take the piss out of you all the bloody time.

I don't do insults because others disagree with me,such is childish to me. I don't need insults because I have truth on my side.I can't help it if people reject truth. I don't ignore others because they disagree,I respect differences even if I disagree.I just try to show why I'm right and leave it at that.Just because I disagree with somebody does not mean they are an enemy.Insults don't phase me evidence for why a person thinks they are right does.I can handle disagreement.

[Kurieuo]

What I find strange is Audie and others will choose to accept evolution knowing that evolution cannot be demonstrated because it takes so long for life to evolve,which is admitting there is no evidence life evolves,they will believe it anyway, yet reject the bible if it cannot be proven 100% true,when we who believe it know it cannot be proven 100%.Despite the many different examples of evidence our bible is true,they'll get hung up on one issue they can't believe.

ACB, understand that today it's an intellectual crime to even let one's mind wonder what might exist outside of the physical world we find ourselves within, even if such means we must embrace seemingly impossible odds and large gaps in knowledge.

Jump in and reinforce the drivel from abe. I must learn to stop overestimating you.

Truth is truth no matter who is saying it.

And for all Abe's gap talk, at least he doesn't attempt to take the piss out of you all the bloody time.

I don't do insults because others disagree with me,such is childish to me. I don't need insults because I have truth on my side.I can't help it if people reject truth. I don't ignore others because they disagree,I respect differences even if I disagree.I just try to show why I'm right and leave it at that.Just because I disagree with somebody does not mean they are an enemy.Insults don't phase me evidence for why a person thinks they are right does.I can handle disagreement.

You do know it's more than disagreement though, right? I think many see you a someone who wears a tin-foil hat and a "Vote 1: Gap Theory" t-shirt with gappy front teeth.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB, understand that today it's an intellectual crime to even let one's mind wonder what might exist outside of the physical world we find ourselves within, even if such means we must embrace seemingly impossible odds and large gaps in knowledge.

Jump in and reinforce the drivel from abe. I must learn to stop overestimating you.

Truth is truth no matter who is saying it.

And for all Abe's gap talk, at least he doesn't attempt to take the piss out of you all the bloody time.

I don't do insults because others disagree with me,such is childish to me. I don't need insults because I have truth on my side.I can't help it if people reject truth. I don't ignore others because they disagree,I respect differences even if I disagree.I just try to show why I'm right and leave it at that.Just because I disagree with somebody does not mean they are an enemy.Insults don't phase me evidence for why a person thinks they are right does.I can handle disagreement.

You do know it's more than disagreement though, right? I think many see you a someone who wears a tin-foil hat and a "Vote 1: Gap Theory" t-shirt with gappy front teeth.

I can't help that. I just like to discuss creationism more than others.Others get uncomfortable or maybe just don't want to discuss it much.I was hoping AreEI would explain Shroeder's creation perspective.

[hughfarey]

I'm an evidence based person so evidence is important to me.

So you keep saying, but it's not true, is it? You don't produce any evidence to support a universal extinction and recreation at any time in the past. Have you in fact got any?

Evidence is what we base truth on.You accept evolution so it might seem harsh to you that I point out there is no evidence that demonstrates life evolves

No, you misunderstand the nature of a rational explanation. You seem to think that because no one has actually seen a fish turn into a bird in a science lab, that there is no evidence for evolution. This is untrue. I have never actually seen a tree grow. Whenever I'm in the presence of one, it seems to stay the same size. But over the months, whenever I see it again, it appears a little bigger. Maybe, when I'm not looking, it suddenly shoots up, or maybe it is dematerialised every night and rematerialised again a little bit bigger. All I can do is look at the evidence before me and come to whatever seems to me to be the best explanation.

it is the truth,however it is just a brief argument against evolution as I have already explained in other threads what the evidence does demonstrate,so no need to rehash it for now.

Have you? I'm afraid I can't find any anywhere. You have explained why you don't believe in evolution all over the place, but I am not familiar with your posts showing evidence which could support a different explanation. Perhaps you could provide a link?

I also believe and trust God over what man says is true as man has been wrong many of times throughout history about what he thought was true

Absolutely. Me too. However, I find that given both his words as recorded in scripture, and the evidence he has shown me through his creation, what God says is that evolution is the way he has created and developed his world. When you say you trust God, you don't actually know what he says, so you're really only trusting your own, fallible, interpretation of what he says.

this is why evidence is so important to me in order to be able to tell the truth from a lie,etc.

Good. Why not give us some?

You seem to trust man more than God and then allow it to influence how you interpret the bible.I trust God and then try to find evidence to confirm or not,knowing that evidence can allow us to realize we may have interpreted the bible wrong.

No, you can't base your belief in the Gap Theory on trust in God, as God has not made explicit how his creation has developed. Forming an opinion based entirely on your own human, fallible interpretation of God's word, and only then looking for evidence to support it is indeed trusting man (yourself) more than God (his word and his creation). I don't do that.

It has happened before. Both religious people and nonreligious people have been wrong throughout history.

Quite so. Mostly because they have prejudged something without looking at the evidence impartially. Sometimes the evidence wasn't available, and they did he best they could with what they had, but when new evidence emerges, then it must all be re-evaluated, not discarded because it doesn't fit the old paradigm.