"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
ES,EssentialSacrifice wrote: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...You fence sitter!
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.Did you purposefully leave out a main position
Actually young lady, I'll be saving you a seat... we have so much to speak ofWhen I'm home and with The Almighty' I'll get back to you all'
Mel,melanie wrote: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'
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 andI think he was referring to the fact that you didn't mention Day-Age/Progressive Creationism in your post.
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.These people would say that everything is the result of time and natural processes, that everything happened by accident.
7 days that divide the world.I understand,but I think we can handle it.You can speak up when you're ready.melanie wrote: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'
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 biblicalEssentialSacrifice wrote: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.
TE and DA definitely not linked.EssentialSacrifice wrote: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 andI think he was referring to the fact that you didn't mention Day-Age/Progressive Creationism in your post.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.These people would say that everything is the result of time and natural processes, that everything happened by accident.
Perhaps a better explanation each will help... what's your take ?
I'm talking about their bread and butter Noah's flood.abelcainsbrother wrote: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 biblicalEssentialSacrifice wrote: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,
ES,EssentialSacrifice wrote: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 andI think he was referring to the fact that you didn't mention Day-Age/Progressive Creationism in your post.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.These people would say that everything is the result of time and natural processes, that everything happened by accident.
Perhaps a better explanation each will help... what's your take ?
Just to condense a few million post to their basics!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,RickD wrote:ES,EssentialSacrifice wrote: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 andI think he was referring to the fact that you didn't mention Day-Age/Progressive Creationism in your post.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.These people would say that everything is the result of time and natural processes, that everything happened by accident.
Perhaps a better explanation each will help... what's your take ?
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.
] Gap Theory, something other).
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...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.
It just means that sometimes when they talk about theistic evolution, they're talking about the biological aspect of it.EssentialSacrifice wrote: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...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 ?