Progressive creation vs Theistic evolution

[Audie]

No claws, just dont know your god is seen as not being up to thinking out a universe
that doesnt need tinkering with.

[Kurieuo]

No claws, just dont know your god is seen as not being up to thinking out a universe
that doesnt need tinkering with.

And some also don't know why my God created life over millions of years rather than not being up to creating everything in 6 days.

[Audie]

No claws, just dont know your god is seen as not being up to thinking out a universe
that doesnt need tinkering with.

And some also don't know why my God created life over millions of years rather than not being up to creating everything in 6 days.

Me either, but god or no god, it didnt happen that way.

Its so disrespectful to say it did!

Anyway, there is a awful lot of universe.

[Philip]

Audie wrote: No claws, just dont know your god is seen as not being up to thinking out a universe that doesnt need tinkering with.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

[abelcainsbrother]

No claws, just dont know your god is seen as not being up to thinking out a universe
that doesnt need tinkering with.

And some also don't know why my God created life over millions of years rather than not being up to creating everything in 6 days.

Me either, but god or no god, it didnt happen that way.

Its so disrespectful to say it did!

Anyway, there is a awful lot of universe.

That does not effect the gap theory. Also How can you get a universe from nothing?If you reject a creator then what could create or cause this vast universe to come into being?

[abelcainsbrother]

It is hard to imagine,it would ever happen but to accept the gap theory would mean not only would it effect evolution science but history would have to be rewritten as well.

I think this is one reason why the gap theory is hard to accept. When you think about a lost world that existed on this earth with different kinds of life than the life in this world? I mean not just biological life but different trees and plant life too,a world where man-like beings lived with dinosaurs,etc a kind of "Lord of the rings" type world that nobody knows about because of evolution.History would have to be totally rewritten but I believe this is what the evidence in the earth reveals and it has nothing to do with life evolving and uniformitarianism

[Storyteller]

Can someone please explain (in simple terms) the difference between the two?

Am I right in thinking TE believe in evolution and PC dont?

Sure, that's easy.

Both account for the evidence that we see in the world.
Only, I believe PC fits with the facts better and makes more sense.

TE works, if you have a natural mechanism for the evolution of all life.
God creates the initial life, or even just the universe at the Big Bang, and then everything "naturally" unfolds according to God's plan and physical laws.
As such, TE still requires adequate natural mechanisms for the evolution of all life. Just like we can discover how the development of stars, planets and the like happened, we should see clear natural mechanism/s that can account for the diversity of life arising from say simple cellular life and even chemistry levels.

So then, what are adequate mechanism/s that can account for life evolving from simple to complex?
Thanks to 20th century science we now understand that biology also contains complex information content.
We are not just plasma, flesh and bone as Darwin saw, but rather have proteins that are like little machines, DNA as well RNA which performs function, carries messages and appears to follow a set instructions.

How does the information that codes for an "arm" come to be formed? What about a finger, fingernail? Coagulation (blood clotting) functionality? The eye? DNA for our brain? All our biological parts and functions can be seen as code and in informational terms.

All of the world's medical books probably just scrape the surface on all this information within our bodies, our DNA and the like. And so, if I'm to believe the "code" for a leg just naturally evolved, well I want to fairly know by what natural mechanism/s? I can see planets orbiting and the physics of the solar system is clear and makes sense to all. SO, I know planetary bodies and such naturally unfolded rather than each being created brand new.

What clear agreed mechanisms are there for all the biological-rich information that we see?
Natural selection acting on random mutation might work if you have all the information to begin with for it to select from, but to accumulate encyclopedias of information for this or that part and bodily function just boggles my mind. Perhaps it is the coder in me, and my understanding of information theory as it applies in computing. I don't know.

SO, when asking for the mechanisms of a natural evolution of life, the best any honest scientist will give you is, "there is no agreement, but here's what I believe..."
While some mechanisms are popularly favoured, there is no agreement on the mechanisms involved. Even collectively, or even logically thinking about what is possible, I can't think up an adequate natural mechanism to account for massive accumulation of biological information. If we were going from complex information to simple, then certainly -- but the other way?

The main line of evidence for natural evolution of life comes via common ancestral trees.
This is seen as strong circumstantial evidence based upon logical arguments despite the mechanisms not being known or agreed upon.
BUT, for me, this isn't an open-shut case -- such can also support Progressive Creation accounts where a common designer (God) creates life brand new and/or purposefully builds upon previously existing life.

Now, I'm sure the claws will come out from those who are adamant that the ToE (in reality theories) accounts for all life.
BUT, I hope that has helped you to form your own view rather than just take on today's popular view.

Oh, and if you haven't, then I encourage you to watch Unlocking the Mystery of Life.

Thanks K. I shall absorb all of that and look into the link.

Am I right then, that, because of the precise information and detail that is locked within our DNA, that it suggests PC rather than TE?
Why did God create previous "versions" of man? Were they like practice runs? Was Adam the first one He got "right?" I`m assuming pre historic man wasn`t Adam? So how do they fit in? (I know these are probably daft questions, but I don`t know, and I can`t figure it out!)

I don`t know if I`ll ever figure out my stance on Creation and it isn`t a major issue for me, I am happy to say I don`t know but it is an interesting topic.

[Kurieuo]

What do you mean "previous versions of man"?

[abelcainsbrother]

It might surprise everybody but I am not dogmatic about the gap theory like you may think.I would change my mind if I somehow discovered it was wrong but to me it is the most truthful of the creation theories but also it is the only creation theory that directly confronts evolution and I do not care much about popularity.

If I was not a gap theorist?I would probably be a progressive creationist.I have stayed with the gap theory but I actually consider all creation theories and I am not necessarily sold out to one.I just believe the gap theory is the most true one both biblically and scientifically.

But I really like the day age theory too and to tell you the truth I would somehow like to see this one join forces with the gap theory because they both have a lot of science to go with them but from different perspectives as day age seems to rely mostly on astronomy for its science while the gap theory focuses more on geology science and they are not really all that different it is just that day age stretch the days of creation out to be long periods which I believe is unnecessary because of the gap.
I doubt they would ever join forces because of the differences but out of all of them this one is closest to the gap theory and they both reject evolution.

As far as theistic evolution the only way I would accept this is if science ever really proved and showed life evolves but I do not see evidence life evolves when I've examined the evidence and I see no reason to have two faith's,the bible is enough.

Now young earth creationism I still believe it has a lot of truth in it that should not be overlooked however I think it has had no effect against evolution,despite all of its good intentions,it has not been effective against its # 1 foe which is evolution and this tells me something is wrong with this biblical interpretation despite how dogmatic they are about it, because nature and what it reveals? Should not contradict God's word and there has been no true secular science come out that has contradicted God's word and so there is no reason to reject or ignore it when it is actually confirming more of the bible correct as time goes on and yet is being ignored.

Intelligent Design is awesome against materialistic science but seems to not deal with evolution.

Now having said all of this? I consider them all brothers in Christ and I think that even though we'll have disagreements there is still a lot we can learn from each other and we have different perspectives and that can be important.I do not close off to any of them for they all have important points here or there.

[Storyteller]

What do you mean "previous versions of man"?

Neandethral man I suppose.

[abelcainsbrother]

What do you mean "previous versions of man"?

Neandethral man I suppose.

Primates they either evolved over time or they simply lived in a world with dinosaurs.

[Storyteller]

What do you mean "previous versions of man"?

Neandethral man I suppose.

Primates they either evolved over time or they simply lived in a world with dinosaurs.

Then don`t you have to accept evolution?

[abelcainsbrother]

What do you mean "previous versions of man"?

Neandethral man I suppose.

Primates they either evolved over time or they simply lived in a world with dinosaurs.

Then don`t you have to accept evolution?

No you don't have to,I don't, but others do.I guess it depends if you believe life evolves or not.Do you?

[Storyteller]

I`m not sure.

I`ve accepted it for so long, as it is all I have been taught really but the more I look into all of the ideas the less convinced I am.

[Audie]

What do you mean "previous versions of man"?

Neandethral man I suppose.

That would not be exactly right, but there are earlier "versions". H. erectos and H. habilis for example.