Finally Picked a creation stance.

[melanie]

I'm a fence sitter with my creation stance and some other theological ideologies.
When I'm home and with The Almighty' I'll get back to you all'

[RickD]

You fence sitter!

It's not fence sitting when you have already your thoughts and are trying to equate them with what others have proposed. My thoughts first, your definitions in creation stance second...

Did you purposefully leave out a main position

I wouldn't say purposefully K, but if I missed a category ... ? Topically categorized as 1. humanity, .2 biological species, 3. Earth and 4. Age of Universe. 1. Directly created by God as either a new species or His infused enlightenment in to a hominid. (His creation, either way) 2. see #1. 3. and 4. scientific accepted age of world, and universe.

ES,

When K asked if you purposefully left out a main position, I think he was referring to the fact that you didn't mention Day-Age/Progressive Creationism in your post.

[EssentialSacrifice]

When I'm home and with The Almighty' I'll get back to you all'

Actually young lady, I'll be saving you a seat... we have so much to speak of

[RickD]

I'm a fence sitter with my creation stance and some other theological ideologies.
When I'm home and with The Almighty' I'll get back to you all'

Mel,

[sarcasm] Only those that believe in Day-Age/Progressive Creationism go to heaven. So choose wisely![/sarcasm]

[EssentialSacrifice]

I think he was referring to the fact that you didn't mention Day-Age/Progressive Creationism in your post.

I was under the impression TE and DA were linked, but my reading on all this is new. I don't like the molecules to man proposition and

These people would say that everything is the result of time and natural processes, that everything happened by accident.

makes no sense at all to me. The long periods of time definitely do... that is why I like the post I sent you guys on sixdayscience.

Perhaps a better explanation each will help... what's your take ?

[abelcainsbrother]

If scientists ever demonstrated life evolves then I would accept evolution but they have'nt and so I see no reason to have two faiths
So TE is out for me.I go with the gap first but day age second but how could plants survive from day 3 to 4?God provided the light they needed?

[abelcainsbrother]

I'm a fence sitter with my creation stance and some other theological ideologies.
When I'm home and with The Almighty' I'll get back to you all'

7 days that divide the world.I understand,but I think we can handle it.You can speak up when you're ready.

[abelcainsbrother]

Thanks neo... the perfect witness to my creation stance philosophy.

I knew there would be crossover and there is big time. I'm going to simply list out the things I feel from the selected categories and come to an end game of best definition from this work. These will be my supported for theory list from the already advanced theories.

Young Earth creationism: Directly created by God. Now understand, my definition of this is no evolution, no primates involved, simply the pure creative act of making man from the dust... in our case star dust.

Gap creationism Directly created by God, based on primate anatomy. I must admit, the possibility of a creative act from God to a specific hominid (man) is very much in the wheelhouse too. Either way, a creative act of God was involved and we're it.

Intelligent design Divine intervention at some point in the past

Theistic evolution Evolution from single common ancestor

+ all theories that include Scientifically accepted age and no world wide flood.

So, there you have it, using only the material above as reference to my base beliefs... there it is..a YECGAPIDTE. Looks to be perhaps the name of a cactus plant in New Mexico... with graphite shavings... This of course, only covers the barest of minimum of all my thoughts involved in our creation, but it's a good start. I would like a new category to fill in... maybe just lave a blank and I'll fill it in myself.... I'm not undecided, I'm just not sure how to list it with he current choices... Actually, no big deal ... you guys no what it is now regardless.

I think before you rule out a global flood,you might want to look into how gap theorists make a case for a global flood that is much,much more biblical and scientifically valid than the way young earth creationists explain it,which is not even biblical

[Kurieuo]

I think he was referring to the fact that you didn't mention Day-Age/Progressive Creationism in your post.

I was under the impression TE and DA were linked, but my reading on all this is new. I don't like the molecules to man proposition and

These people would say that everything is the result of time and natural processes, that everything happened by accident.

makes no sense at all to me. The long periods of time definitely do... that is why I like the post I sent you guys on sixdayscience.

Perhaps a better explanation each will help... what's your take ?

TE and DA definitely not linked.

[abelcainsbrother]

Thanks neo... the perfect witness to my creation stance philosophy.

I knew there would be crossover and there is big time. I'm going to simply list out the things I feel from the selected categories and come to an end game of best definition from this work. These will be my supported for theory list from the already advanced theories.

Young Earth creationism: Directly created by God. Now understand, my definition of this is no evolution, no primates involved, simply the pure creative act of making man from the dust... in our case star dust.

Gap creationism Directly created by God, based on primate anatomy. I must admit, the possibility of a creative act from God to a specific hominid (man) is very much in the wheelhouse too. Either way, a creative act of God was involved and we're it.

Intelligent design Divine intervention at some point in the past

Theistic evolution Evolution from single common ancestor

+ all theories that include Scientifically accepted age and no world wide flood.

So, there you have it, using only the material above as reference to my base beliefs... there it is..a YECGAPIDTE. Looks to be perhaps the name of a cactus plant in New Mexico... with graphite shavings... This of course, only covers the barest of minimum of all my thoughts involved in our creation, but it's a good start. I would like a new category to fill in... maybe just lave a blank and I'll fill it in myself.... I'm not undecided, I'm just not sure how to list it with he current choices... Actually, no big deal ... you guys no what it is now regardless.

I think before you rule out a global flood,you might want to look into how gap theorists make a case for a global flood that is much,much more biblical and scientifically valid than the way young earth creationists explain it,which is not even biblical

I'm talking about their bread and butter Noah's flood.

[RickD]

I think he was referring to the fact that you didn't mention Day-Age/Progressive Creationism in your post.

I was under the impression TE and DA were linked, but my reading on all this is new. I don't like the molecules to man proposition and

These people would say that everything is the result of time and natural processes, that everything happened by accident.

makes no sense at all to me. The long periods of time definitely do... that is why I like the post I sent you guys on sixdayscience.

Perhaps a better explanation each will help... what's your take ?

ES,

If you're not sold on molecules to man, then Theistic Evolution probably isn't for you. And if you're not sold on a global flood, then Young Earth Creationism, and the Gap Theory probably aren't for you either. You're probably falling more in line with Day-Age/Progressive Creationism. At least that's what I can see from what you posted. Of course that could change when you learn more.

Here's a couple of reasons why I choose DA/PC over TE, in a nutshell.
1) I believe in the literal interpretation of scripture. That rules out TE, IMO.
2) I'm not convinced that the scientific evidence points to molecules to man evolution.

[Philip]

Here's a couple of reasons why I choose DA/PC over TE, in a nutshell.
1) I believe in the literal interpretation of scripture. That rules out TE, IMO.
2) I'm not convinced that the scientific evidence points to molecules to man evolution.

Just to condense a few million post to their basics!

And, to me, and related to #1, if one either believes that the pertinent Scriptures related to the Creation accounts are mere allegory, or that they just aren't true / were simply made up and assembled by various writers - either one of those positions is enormously problematic in what it says about God and His ability to protect His Word, how important He sees His Word, and what He wanted to reveal or hide from us by either providing meaningless symbolic stories or outright fabrications instead of providing facts and truth. And if these accounts are in any way inaccurate or not true, it begs the question of why Jesus or none of the Apostles mentions this, and why instead they treated them, as well as the rest of the Old Testament, as being God's true and reliable Word to man.

[Kurieuo]

I think he was referring to the fact that you didn't mention Day-Age/Progressive Creationism in your post.

I was under the impression TE and DA were linked, but my reading on all this is new. I don't like the molecules to man proposition and

These people would say that everything is the result of time and natural processes, that everything happened by accident.

makes no sense at all to me. The long periods of time definitely do... that is why I like the post I sent you guys on sixdayscience.

Perhaps a better explanation each will help... what's your take ?

ES,

If you're not sold on molecules to man, then Theistic Evolution probably isn't for you. And if you're not sold on a global flood, then Young Earth Creationism, and the Gap Theory probably aren't for you either. You're probably falling more in line with Day-Age/Progressive Creationism. At least that's what I can see from what you posted. Of course that could change when you learn more.

Here's a couple of reasons why I choose DA/PC over TE, in a nutshell.
1) I believe in the literal interpretation of scripture. That rules out TE, IMO.
2) I'm not convinced that the scientific evidence points to molecules to man evolution.

It's important to note that the Progressive Creation position doesn't necessarily mean Day-Age,
however the Day-Age interpretation is firmly a Progressive Creative position.

@Philip, is there a TE interpration of Scripture? I'm not so sure as TE is more of a position.
The Framework interpretation though, would lend itself both to TE and Progressive Creation stances.

Re: YEC, there is also no real such thing as the YEC interpretation.
YEC position, yes. YEC interpretation we generally mean that of AiG but there isn't just one.

So when it comes to creation, it is a good idea to separate out two things:

1) Which position/s you might accept (YEC, OEC, TE, PC)
2) Interpretation of Scripture (a particular YEC interpretation, the Day-Age interpretation such as Hugh Ross of RTB and this G&S website, Framework Hypothesis, the now obsolete [except for ACB ] Gap Theory, something other).

So hopefully I've now created some uncertainty in your creation stance.

[EssentialSacrifice]

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.

but it can refer only to biological evolution what are they saying here ? If you aren't any more convinced of the possibility of a hominid evolving from nature that was endowed with and by God, infusing consciousness and all that goes with it or simply the direct act of God breathing life in to the lump of clay... see, it doesn't matter to me how it happened, just that it did. Although it's strikingly more important, this individual's creation stance thing, it almost reminds me of a "you call it tomato, I call it tomawto" exercise in phonetic / (hermeneutic) challenges...

but it can refer only to biological evolution what are they saying here ?

[RickD]

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.

but it can refer only to biological evolution what are they saying here ? If you aren't any more convinced of the possibility of a hominid evolving from nature that was endowed with and by God, infusing consciousness and all that goes with it or simply the direct act of God breathing life in to the lump of clay... see, it doesn't matter to me how it happened, just that it did. Although it's strikingly more important, this individual's creation stance thing, it almost reminds me of a "you call it tomato, I call it tomawto" exercise in phonetic / (hermeneutic) challenges...

but it can refer only to biological evolution what are they saying here ?

It just means that sometimes when they talk about theistic evolution, they're talking about the biological aspect of it.