Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Not to mention clinging to ideas thoroughly disproved by such a vast stock of physical evidence.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Not to mention clinging to ideas thoroughly disproved by such a vast stock of physical evidence.

No evidence for the life that lived in the former world that perished?
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=f ... gws_rd=ssl

PS: Notice not one shows any transition too,it is all fully formed life.

ACB: No evidence for the life that lived in the former world that perished?
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=f ... gws_rd=ssl

PS: Notice not one shows any transition too,it is all fully formed life.

ACB, what makes you think that these fossils are from a PREVIOUS world, as opposed to the likelihood that THIS world just happens to be old enough for those animals to have been alive millions of years ago - which is the very same thing that progressive creationists (NON-Darwinists/evolutionists) believe?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Not to mention clinging to ideas thoroughly disproved by such a vast stock of physical evidence.

No evidence for the life that lived in the former world that perished?
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=f ... gws_rd=ssl

PS: Notice not one shows any transition too,it is all fully formed life.

There was no "former world". 99 plus percent of all species are now extinct, but that is not about a former world. The climate and vegetation of a region, whether it was underwater, mountain, desert or swamp is something that has changed from one to the next, many times. "A former world" to explain all of that is just impossibly facile, the product of grotesque igonorance.


Any species past or present is "fully formed". What on earth do you imagine a transitional form would be? A salamander with fur?

For a guy who claims to have studied you sure dont know much.

I know, I know. "Evolutionist perspective". What a sorry excuse.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Not to mention clinging to ideas thoroughly disproved by such a vast stock of physical evidence.

No evidence for the life that lived in the former world that perished?
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=f ... gws_rd=ssl

PS: Notice not one shows any transition too,it is all fully formed life.

There was no "former world". 99 plus percent of all species are now extinct, but that is not about a former world. The climate and vegetation of a region, whether it was underwater, mountain, desert or swamp is something that has changed from one to the next, many times. "A former world" to explain all of that is just impossibly facile, the product of grotesque igonorance.


Any species past or present is "fully formed". What on earth do you imagine a transitional form would be? A salamander with fur?

For a guy who claims to have studied you sure dont know much.

I know, I know. "Evolutionist perspective". What a sorry excuse.

Charles Darwin insited transitional fossils would be found and yet none were ever found. He even said that we would have grounds to reject his theory if they were not found,none were ever found which I just proved and showed so the theory of evlution should have been dropped by science along time ago,but it was'nt.

Today you have a bunch of fossils that are called transitional fossils,they have been catoragized as transitional fossils but the fact still remains no transitional fossils were ever found. Should we get into "cladistics" about how the fossils were made into common ancestors based on cladistics? Cladistics is a joke! and is make believe for those who believe life evolves. They linked a whale to a creature that lived millions of years ago based on hearing and ear structures LOL! Ear structures is evidence it is a common ancestor.Pakecetus a land mammal living millions of years ago is a common ancestor to whales based on ear structures. You can google and see.LOL!

The bible tells us a former world existed that perished 2nd Peter 3:3-7(notice it says but the present heavens and earth)also notice how you claim all things have gone on continually since the beginning of the creation over billions of years too,which you believe because of evolution but the fossils are evidence of the life that lived in the former world until it perished.

We have " A Lost World" nobody knows about because of everybody looking at the evidence from an evolution point of view. You have no peer reviewed evidence that even comes close to demonstrating life evolves,all your evidence will prove is normal variation in reproduction that was known about thousands of years before Charles Darwin or adaptation but these are common knowledge things being used as peer reviewed evidence life evolves. Since you can provide no peer reviewed evidence that demonstrates life evolves? You cannot use the fossils for evidence life evolves they are evidence for the former world that perished long before God made this world we live in now.

Go to my Theory of evolution vs Gap Theory thread and we'll debate it there.Bring all of that peer reviewed evidence with you and I will offer a more believable theory than you can based on the evidence even if you reject the bible telling us a former world existed that perished,it is still more believable based on the evidence. We should expect to find exctinct life that lived in the former world and we have it.We have "A Lost World" and it was a "Lord of the Rings" type world too that perished based on all of this extinct life and fossils we have found in the earth.

Philip wrote:

ACB: No evidence for the life that lived in the former world that perished?
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=f ... gws_rd=ssl

PS: Notice not one shows any transition too,it is all fully formed life.

ACB, what makes you think that these fossils are from a PREVIOUS world, as opposed to the likelihood that THIS world just happens to be old enough for those animals to have been alive millions of years ago - which is the very same thing that progressive creationists (NON-Darwinists/evolutionists) believe?

2nd Peter 3:3-7,etc makes me believe a former world perished but the present heavens and earth will be destroyed by fire and then restored.We can see the ending from understanding the beginning properly.I reject any creation theory that teaches all things have continued on as they were from the beginning of the creation,whether it is old earth creationism or even young earth creationism. All things have not gone on continually since the beginning of the creation,there was a gap that has been overlooked because of evolution,etc.

ACB, you keep insisting an ancient earth is believed due to belief in evolution - but you have ignored Progressive Creationism as a cause and that many Christians belief that the earth is both billions of years old while also rejecting evolution. One can indeed accept that those fossils and the geographic evidences came from the present and ONLY earth without embracing evolution. Please address this - as the issue is not merely one of a former world vs. evolution.

"Through which the world at that time was destroyed,being flooded with water."

How hard is it to see a former world perished?It is clear as a bell to me but we have fossils and exctinct life for evidence.We are just taking back our evidence that was used for evidence for Gap creationism before the theory of evolution became a scientific theory. William Buckland was teaching this at Oxford after 1818 when he became Oxford's very first Geology professor,so we are just taking back our fossil evidence that was used to confirm the Gap Theory interpretation correct in the early 1800's. I can't help it Charles Darwin took this evidence and made his evolution theory fit into it and "hoodwinked" the modern scientific elite. We are just taking back our evidence for this biblical interpretation.

Philip wrote:ACB, you keep insisting an ancient earth is believed due to belief in evolution - but you have ignored Progressive Creationism as a cause and that many Christians belief that the earth is both billions of years old while also rejecting evolution. One can indeed accept that those fossils and the geographic evidences came from the present and ONLY earth without embracing evolution. Please address this - as the issue is not merely one of a former world vs. evolution.

I have addressed it. No! I have never said an ancient earth is believed due to evolution. The earth was discovered to be ancient and old by scientists who were Christians before evolution became a scientific theory. It is YEC's that teach an ancient earth is believed due to evolution.Gap Theorists believe the bible already teaches the earth is old and in previous posts I have explained why. This is why Gap Theorists do not have to focus on the hebrew word "yom" in order to have an old earth.The bible already teaches it in many places too.

I realize you disagree but we all cannot be right,somebody is right and somebody is wrong and we can figure out who is right and who is wrong with research and bible study.I respect Progressive Creationism because it is old earth creationism too but we cannot all be right and I know many of them reject evolution too. I don't see how it has much of an impact against evolution if they reject evolution,perhaps they tolerate it. But Gap Creationism makes evolution wrong,so we have a hard time tolerating it when we believe the truth has been covered up because of evolution. Why tolerate evolution if you reject it?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Not to mention clinging to ideas thoroughly disproved by such a vast stock of physical evidence.

No evidence for the life that lived in the former world that perished?
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=f ... gws_rd=ssl

PS: Notice not one shows any transition too,it is all fully formed life.

There was no "former world". 99 plus percent of all species are now extinct, but that is not about a former world. The climate and vegetation of a region, whether it was underwater, mountain, desert or swamp is something that has changed from one to the next, many times. "A former world" to explain all of that is just impossibly facile, the product of grotesque igonorance.


Any species past or present is "fully formed". What on earth do you imagine a transitional form would be? A salamander with fur?

For a guy who claims to have studied you sure dont know much.

I know, I know. "Evolutionist perspective". What a sorry excuse.

Charles Darwin insited transitional fossils would be found and yet none were ever found. He even said that we would have grounds to reject his theory if they were not found,none were ever found which I just proved and showed so the theory of evlution should have been dropped by science along time ago,but it was'nt.

Today you have a bunch of fossils that are called transitional fossils,they have been catoragized as transitional fossils but the fact still remains no transitional fossils were ever found. Should we get into "cladistics" about how the fossils were made into common ancestors based on cladistics? Cladistics is a joke! and is make believe for those who believe life evolves. They linked a whale to a creature that lived millions of years ago based on hearing and ear structures LOL! Ear structures is evidence it is a common ancestor.Pakecetus a land mammal living millions of years ago is a common ancestor to whales based on ear structures. You can google and see.LOL!

The bible tells us a former world existed that perished 2nd Peter 3:3-7(notice it says but the present heavens and earth)also notice how you claim all things have gone on continually since the beginning of the creation over billions of years too,which you believe because of evolution but the fossils are evidence of the life that lived in the former world until it perished.

We have " A Lost World" nobody knows about because of everybody looking at the evidence from an evolution point of view. You have no peer reviewed evidence that even comes close to demonstrating life evolves,all your evidence will prove is normal variation in reproduction that was known about thousands of years before Charles Darwin or adaptation but these are common knowledge things being used as peer reviewed evidence life evolves. Since you can provide no peer reviewed evidence that demonstrates life evolves? You cannot use the fossils for evidence life evolves they are evidence for the former world that perished long before God made this world we live in now.

Go to my Theory of evolution vs Gap Theory thread and we'll debate it there.Bring all of that peer reviewed evidence with you and I will offer a more believable theory than you can based on the evidence even if you reject the bible telling us a former world existed that perished,it is still more believable based on the evidence. We should expect to find exctinct life that lived in the former world and we have it.We have "A Lost World" and it was a "Lord of the Rings" type world too that perished based on all of this extinct life and fossils we have found in the earth.

I see you did not answer at all.

What on earth do you imagine a transitional form would be? A salamander with fur?

You say nothing transitional has been found? So what is your unique personal take on this? Explain how to tell if something is or is not transitional. Take your time.

For a guy who claims to have studied you sure dont know much.

You are presenting that you know more than any scientist, and yet you have shown you dont know even the simplest basics. Remember your insisting that a theory can be proven true? Absolute nonsense.


Do you consider it to be intelligent, or in any way reasonable to believe that you know more than any scientist on earth?

AND more then the finest biblical schoalrs?

I know, I know. "Evolutionist perspective". What a sorry excuse.

It was so predictable, and there it was.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote: Not to mention clinging to ideas thoroughly disproved by such a vast stock of physical evidence.

No evidence for the life that lived in the former world that perished?
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=f ... gws_rd=ssl

PS: Notice not one shows any transition too,it is all fully formed life.

There was no "former world". 99 plus percent of all species are now extinct, but that is not about a former world. The climate and vegetation of a region, whether it was underwater, mountain, desert or swamp is something that has changed from one to the next, many times. "A former world" to explain all of that is just impossibly facile, the product of grotesque igonorance.


Any species past or present is "fully formed". What on earth do you imagine a transitional form would be? A salamander with fur?

For a guy who claims to have studied you sure dont know much.

I know, I know. "Evolutionist perspective". What a sorry excuse.

Charles Darwin insited transitional fossils would be found and yet none were ever found. He even said that we would have grounds to reject his theory if they were not found,none were ever found which I just proved and showed so the theory of evlution should have been dropped by science along time ago,but it was'nt.

Today you have a bunch of fossils that are called transitional fossils,they have been catoragized as transitional fossils but the fact still remains no transitional fossils were ever found. Should we get into "cladistics" about how the fossils were made into common ancestors based on cladistics? Cladistics is a joke! and is make believe for those who believe life evolves. They linked a whale to a creature that lived millions of years ago based on hearing and ear structures LOL! Ear structures is evidence it is a common ancestor.Pakecetus a land mammal living millions of years ago is a common ancestor to whales based on ear structures. You can google and see.LOL!

The bible tells us a former world existed that perished 2nd Peter 3:3-7(notice it says but the present heavens and earth)also notice how you claim all things have gone on continually since the beginning of the creation over billions of years too,which you believe because of evolution but the fossils are evidence of the life that lived in the former world until it perished.

We have " A Lost World" nobody knows about because of everybody looking at the evidence from an evolution point of view. You have no peer reviewed evidence that even comes close to demonstrating life evolves,all your evidence will prove is normal variation in reproduction that was known about thousands of years before Charles Darwin or adaptation but these are common knowledge things being used as peer reviewed evidence life evolves. Since you can provide no peer reviewed evidence that demonstrates life evolves? You cannot use the fossils for evidence life evolves they are evidence for the former world that perished long before God made this world we live in now.

Go to my Theory of evolution vs Gap Theory thread and we'll debate it there.Bring all of that peer reviewed evidence with you and I will offer a more believable theory than you can based on the evidence even if you reject the bible telling us a former world existed that perished,it is still more believable based on the evidence. We should expect to find exctinct life that lived in the former world and we have it.We have "A Lost World" and it was a "Lord of the Rings" type world too that perished based on all of this extinct life and fossils we have found in the earth.

I see you did not answer at all.

What on earth do you imagine a transitional form would be? A salamander with fur?

You say nothing transitional has been found? So what is your unique personal take on this? Explain how to tell if something is or is not transitional. Take your time.

For a guy who claims to have studied you sure dont know much.

You are presenting that you know more than any scientist, and yet you have shown you dont know even the simplest basics. Remember your insisting that a theory can be proven true? Absolute nonsense.


Do you consider it to be intelligent, or in any way reasonable to believe that you know more than any scientist on earth?

AND more then the finest biblical schoalrs?

I know, I know. "Evolutionist perspective". What a sorry excuse.

It was so predictable, and there it was.

I'm going by what Charles Darwin said in his book "The origin of species" to know what he meant by transitional fossils,but sadly many scientists and evolutionists seem to have forgot how he made his case for evolution eventhough they still acknowledge him. We cannot ignore Charles Darwin because he is the main reason evolution became a scientific theory.

You must read Charles Darwin's book to understand what he meant by transitional fossils. Now if we were in a debate I would actually read from his book,but we are not. Based on this no tansitional fossils were ever found and it means the theory of evolution should have been dropped by science,eventhough it was'nt.

I'm just going by evolution's evidence and I'd reject evolution even if I was an atheist based on the evidence,even if I was'nt a Gap Creationist,but I know Gap creationism offers a more believable theory once all of the evidence is laid out and discussed. Go to my Theory of evolution vs Gap Theory thread if you want to debate it.You are appealing to majority of scientists because they believe life evolves.

I have never said a theory can be proven.I'm going by evidence,evidence can determine a theory correct or not though. Science has forgot this when it comes to evolution.I'm not anti-science because I reject evolution I just expect better from science when it comes to evidence if life evolves.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
No evidence for the life that lived in the former world that perished?
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=f ... gws_rd=ssl

PS: Notice not one shows any transition too,it is all fully formed life.

There was no "former world". 99 plus percent of all species are now extinct, but that is not about a former world. The climate and vegetation of a region, whether it was underwater, mountain, desert or swamp is something that has changed from one to the next, many times. "A former world" to explain all of that is just impossibly facile, the product of grotesque igonorance.


Any species past or present is "fully formed". What on earth do you imagine a transitional form would be? A salamander with fur?

For a guy who claims to have studied you sure dont know much.

I know, I know. "Evolutionist perspective". What a sorry excuse.

Charles Darwin insited transitional fossils would be found and yet none were ever found. He even said that we would have grounds to reject his theory if they were not found,none were ever found which I just proved and showed so the theory of evlution should have been dropped by science along time ago,but it was'nt.

Today you have a bunch of fossils that are called transitional fossils,they have been catoragized as transitional fossils but the fact still remains no transitional fossils were ever found. Should we get into "cladistics" about how the fossils were made into common ancestors based on cladistics? Cladistics is a joke! and is make believe for those who believe life evolves. They linked a whale to a creature that lived millions of years ago based on hearing and ear structures LOL! Ear structures is evidence it is a common ancestor.Pakecetus a land mammal living millions of years ago is a common ancestor to whales based on ear structures. You can google and see.LOL!

The bible tells us a former world existed that perished 2nd Peter 3:3-7(notice it says but the present heavens and earth)also notice how you claim all things have gone on continually since the beginning of the creation over billions of years too,which you believe because of evolution but the fossils are evidence of the life that lived in the former world until it perished.

We have " A Lost World" nobody knows about because of everybody looking at the evidence from an evolution point of view. You have no peer reviewed evidence that even comes close to demonstrating life evolves,all your evidence will prove is normal variation in reproduction that was known about thousands of years before Charles Darwin or adaptation but these are common knowledge things being used as peer reviewed evidence life evolves. Since you can provide no peer reviewed evidence that demonstrates life evolves? You cannot use the fossils for evidence life evolves they are evidence for the former world that perished long before God made this world we live in now.

Go to my Theory of evolution vs Gap Theory thread and we'll debate it there.Bring all of that peer reviewed evidence with you and I will offer a more believable theory than you can based on the evidence even if you reject the bible telling us a former world existed that perished,it is still more believable based on the evidence. We should expect to find exctinct life that lived in the former world and we have it.We have "A Lost World" and it was a "Lord of the Rings" type world too that perished based on all of this extinct life and fossils we have found in the earth.

I see you did not answer at all.

What on earth do you imagine a transitional form would be? A salamander with fur?

You say nothing transitional has been found? So what is your unique personal take on this? Explain how to tell if something is or is not transitional. Take your time.

For a guy who claims to have studied you sure dont know much.

You are presenting that you know more than any scientist, and yet you have shown you dont know even the simplest basics. Remember your insisting that a theory can be proven true? Absolute nonsense.


Do you consider it to be intelligent, or in any way reasonable to believe that you know more than any scientist on earth?

AND more then the finest biblical schoalrs?

I know, I know. "Evolutionist perspective". What a sorry excuse.

It was so predictable, and there it was.

I'm going by what Charles Darwin said in his book "The origin of species" to know what he meant by transitional fossils,but sadly many scientists and evolutionists seem to have forgot how he made his case for evolution eventhough they still acknowledge him. We cannot ignore Charles Darwin because he is the main reason evolution became a scientific theory.

You must read Charles Darwin's book to understand what he meant by transitional fossils. Now if we were in a debate I would actually read from his book,but we are not. Based on this no tansitional fossils were ever found and it means the theory of evolution should have been dropped by science,eventhough it was'nt.

I'm just going by evolution's evidence and I'd reject evolution even if I was an atheist based on the evidence,even if I was'nt a Gap Creationist,but I know Gap creationism offers a more believable theory once all of the evidence is laid out and discussed. Go to my Theory of evolution vs Gap Theory thread if you want to debate it.You are appealing to majority of scientists because they believe life evolves.

I have never said a theory can be proven.I'm going by evidence,evidence can determine a theory correct or not though. Science has forgot this when it comes to evolution.I'm not anti-science because I reject evolution I just expect better from science when it comes to evidence if life evolves.

You have claimed there are no transitional fossils. If you know so much as to be able to state this as anything but opinionated bs, you can explain in detail what a transitional fossil is.

I know you cant, Im just making it clear.

I have never said a theory can be proven

I have a good memory, this dates to our first encounter.
You did in fact make such a claim.
I am, tho, glad to see you internalized this and have made that little gain.

I'm going to expound on Gap Creationism some time when I have the time to.Alot of times when it is discussed I strip it down to just a few verses to make my points. But I have found many more verses throughout the bible in both the old and new testaments that backs up this interpretation.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

There was no "former world". 99 plus percent of all species are now extinct, but that is not about a former world. The climate and vegetation of a region, whether it was underwater, mountain, desert or swamp is something that has changed from one to the next, many times. "A former world" to explain all of that is just impossibly facile, the product of grotesque igonorance.


Any species past or present is "fully formed". What on earth do you imagine a transitional form would be? A salamander with fur?

For a guy who claims to have studied you sure dont know much.

I know, I know. "Evolutionist perspective". What a sorry excuse.

Charles Darwin insited transitional fossils would be found and yet none were ever found. He even said that we would have grounds to reject his theory if they were not found,none were ever found which I just proved and showed so the theory of evlution should have been dropped by science along time ago,but it was'nt.

Today you have a bunch of fossils that are called transitional fossils,they have been catoragized as transitional fossils but the fact still remains no transitional fossils were ever found. Should we get into "cladistics" about how the fossils were made into common ancestors based on cladistics? Cladistics is a joke! and is make believe for those who believe life evolves. They linked a whale to a creature that lived millions of years ago based on hearing and ear structures LOL! Ear structures is evidence it is a common ancestor.Pakecetus a land mammal living millions of years ago is a common ancestor to whales based on ear structures. You can google and see.LOL!

The bible tells us a former world existed that perished 2nd Peter 3:3-7(notice it says but the present heavens and earth)also notice how you claim all things have gone on continually since the beginning of the creation over billions of years too,which you believe because of evolution but the fossils are evidence of the life that lived in the former world until it perished.

We have " A Lost World" nobody knows about because of everybody looking at the evidence from an evolution point of view. You have no peer reviewed evidence that even comes close to demonstrating life evolves,all your evidence will prove is normal variation in reproduction that was known about thousands of years before Charles Darwin or adaptation but these are common knowledge things being used as peer reviewed evidence life evolves. Since you can provide no peer reviewed evidence that demonstrates life evolves? You cannot use the fossils for evidence life evolves they are evidence for the former world that perished long before God made this world we live in now.

Go to my Theory of evolution vs Gap Theory thread and we'll debate it there.Bring all of that peer reviewed evidence with you and I will offer a more believable theory than you can based on the evidence even if you reject the bible telling us a former world existed that perished,it is still more believable based on the evidence. We should expect to find exctinct life that lived in the former world and we have it.We have "A Lost World" and it was a "Lord of the Rings" type world too that perished based on all of this extinct life and fossils we have found in the earth.

I see you did not answer at all.

What on earth do you imagine a transitional form would be? A salamander with fur?

You say nothing transitional has been found? So what is your unique personal take on this? Explain how to tell if something is or is not transitional. Take your time.

For a guy who claims to have studied you sure dont know much.

You are presenting that you know more than any scientist, and yet you have shown you dont know even the simplest basics. Remember your insisting that a theory can be proven true? Absolute nonsense.


Do you consider it to be intelligent, or in any way reasonable to believe that you know more than any scientist on earth?

AND more then the finest biblical schoalrs?

I know, I know. "Evolutionist perspective". What a sorry excuse.

It was so predictable, and there it was.

I'm going by what Charles Darwin said in his book "The origin of species" to know what he meant by transitional fossils,but sadly many scientists and evolutionists seem to have forgot how he made his case for evolution eventhough they still acknowledge him. We cannot ignore Charles Darwin because he is the main reason evolution became a scientific theory.

You must read Charles Darwin's book to understand what he meant by transitional fossils. Now if we were in a debate I would actually read from his book,but we are not. Based on this no tansitional fossils were ever found and it means the theory of evolution should have been dropped by science,eventhough it was'nt.

I'm just going by evolution's evidence and I'd reject evolution even if I was an atheist based on the evidence,even if I was'nt a Gap Creationist,but I know Gap creationism offers a more believable theory once all of the evidence is laid out and discussed. Go to my Theory of evolution vs Gap Theory thread if you want to debate it.You are appealing to majority of scientists because they believe life evolves.

I have never said a theory can be proven.I'm going by evidence,evidence can determine a theory correct or not though. Science has forgot this when it comes to evolution.I'm not anti-science because I reject evolution I just expect better from science when it comes to evidence if life evolves.

You have claimed there are no transitional fossils. If you know so much as to be able to state this as anything but opinionated bs, you can explain in detail what a transitional fossil is.

I know you cant, Im just making it clear.

I have never said a theory can be proven

I have a good memory, this dates to our first encounter.
You did in fact make such a claim.
I am, tho, glad to see you internalized this and have made that little gain.

Just because we disagree about evolution does not mean we are enemies.Hopefully we can get into it more one of these days. I just might convince you the evidence is weak,despite so much "so called" evidence. I'll recommend a book for you for now written by an atheist just so you know it is not just creationists that have a problem with the evidence in evolution science. The book is called "Evolution: A case of stating the obvious" written by Derek Hough.

ACB: I respect Progressive Creationism because it is old earth creationism too but we cannot all be right and I know many of them reject evolution too.

I don't see how it has much of an impact against evolution if they reject evolution, perhaps they tolerate it.

Progressive creationists reject macroevolution. Period!

ACB, if only you realized that evolution arguments are irrelevant, as they are around 10 billion years after the fact of what really needs explaining (Creation / The Big Bang began, its origin, its intelligence and power). Arguing over evolution is arguing over the very near end of a movie for clues as to how events transpired as the did - without knowing the setting, characters and key variables that were at the movie's beginning. Evolution can't explain the origins or the Big Bang - upon which ALL physical things are dependent upon.

ACB: But Gap Creationism makes evolution wrong,so we have a hard time tolerating it when we believe the truth has been covered up because of evolution. Why tolerate evolution if you reject it?

So, it does so by saying what - that the fossils are actually YOUNG? No, it agrees with evolutionists that they are old, as do PEs and Darwinists. - except that the fossils are from a former world, apparently.