Evidence for God from Science

Without alluding to evolution . . . . . . .in any way.

Audacity wrote:Without alluding to evolution . . . . . . .in any way.

Define "creationism". I ask only because when people mention creationism, they usually are referring to young earth creationism.

If you are referring to creationism which may include Progressive Creationism, the case has been made here.

If you are talking about creationism of the Theistic Evolution type, the case has been made here.

RickD wrote:

Audacity wrote:Without alluding to evolution . . . . . . .in any way.

Define "creationism". I ask only because when people mention creationism, they usually are referring to young earth creationism.

The religious contention that all species of life were put on earth as is: no species evolved from any other species.

If you are referring to creationism which may include Progressive Creationism, the case has been made here.

Sorry, but on the very first page it mentions evolution.

If you are talking about creationism of the Theistic Evolution type, the case has been made here.

Sorry, but on the very first page it mentions evolution.


In any event, I'm asking you to "Make Your Case for Creationism." Not that of someone else.



.

audacity wrote:
The religious contention that all species of life were put on earth as is: no species evolved from any other species.

I don't think you'll find anyone that believes that. Except maybe some young earth creationists.

So, I think you may have a hard time finding someone here who will make a case for your definition of creationism.

Audacity wrote:
Sorry, but on the very first page it mentions evolution.

In any event, I'm asking you to "Make Your Case for Creationism." Not that of someone else.

The home page from Godandscience makes a case for Progressive creationism. If you really are interested in learning, it's a great place to start.

I'm not going to make a case for your version of creationism, because I don't believe in it. And second, if you want to learn about Progressive creationism or theistic evolution, there are websites where it's already laid out for you to read. There's no point in me or anyone else restating what's already in the sites I linked.

If you are really open to learning, read them over. If not, then what's your purpose for this thread?

Edit***

FYI, many creation stances(theistic evolution, progressive creationism, day age) teach certain kinds of evolution fit within those creation positions. So for you to demand that the word evolution not be part of a creation belief is just not realistic.

Do you really want to understand different creation positions, or is there another purpose for this thread?

RickD wrote:

audacity wrote:
The religious contention that all species of life were put on earth as is: no species evolved from any other species.

I don't think you'll find anyone that believes that. Except maybe some young earth creationists.

And progressive creationists.

So, I think you may have a hard time finding someone here who will make a case for your definition of creationism.

Not being at all familiar with the beliefs of the members here I'll take your word for it.

what's your purpose for this thread?

To see if anyone can make a case for creationism (as I've since defined it) without alluding to evolution. If this doesn't apply to your beliefs or that of anyone else here, then so be it.

So for you to demand that the word evolution not be part of a creation belief is just not realistic.

Sure it is. It just doesn't appear to be relevant to your belief, and perhaps some of others here.

Do you really want to understand different creation positions

Actually, I have a fair understanding of most of them. Except for young earth creationists and progressive creationists they aren't all that entertaining.

or is there another purpose for this thread?

Yes there is. It's to see if anyone can make a case for creationism (as I've defined it) without alluding to evolution.

audacity wrote:
The religious contention that all species of life were put on earth as is: no species evolved from any other species.

RickD wrote:
I don't think you'll find anyone that believes that. Except maybe some young earth creationists.

Audacity wrote:
And progressive creationists.

Then you know more about progressive creation than I do. And I lean towards progressive creationism. Where did you read that no progressive creationists believe that no species evolved from others? I've never read that.

RickD wrote:

audacity wrote:
The religious contention that all species of life were put on earth as is: no species evolved from any other species.

RickD wrote:
I don't think you'll find anyone that believes that. Except maybe some young earth creationists.

Audacity wrote:
And progressive creationists.

Then you know more about progressive creation than I do. And I lean towards progressive creationism. Where did you read that no progressive creationists believe that no species evolved from others? I've never read that.

Well, Wikipedia has a decent piece on it.

"Progressive creationism (see for comparison intelligent design) is the belief that God created new forms of life gradually over a period of hundreds of millions of years. As a form of old earth creationism, it accepts mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for the age of the Earth, some tenets of biology such as microevolution as well as archaeology to make its case. In this view creation occurred in rapid bursts in which all "kinds" of plants and animals appear in stages lasting millions of years. The bursts are followed by periods of stasis or equilibrium to accommodate new arrivals. These bursts represent instances of God creating new types of organisms by divine intervention. As viewed from the archaeological record, progressive creationism holds that "species do not gradually appear by the steady transformation of its ancestors; [but] appear all at once and "fully formed."[1] The view rejects macroevolution because it is biologically untenable and not supported by the fossil record,[2] and it rejects the concept of universal descent from a last universal common ancestor. Thus the evidence for macroevolution is considered false, but microevolution is accepted as a genetic parameter designed by the Creator into the fabric of genetics to allow for environmental adaptations and survival."

Audacity wrote:

RickD wrote:

audacity wrote:
The religious contention that all species of life were put on earth as is: no species evolved from any other species.

RickD wrote:
I don't think you'll find anyone that believes that. Except maybe some young earth creationists.

Audacity wrote:
And progressive creationists.

Then you know more about progressive creation than I do. And I lean towards progressive creationism. Where did you read that no progressive creationists believe that no species evolved from others? I've never read that.

Well, Wikipedia has a decent piece on it.

"Progressive creationism (see for comparison intelligent design) is the belief that God created new forms of life gradually over a period of hundreds of millions of years. As a form of old earth creationism, it accepts mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for the age of the Earth, some tenets of biology such as microevolution as well as archaeology to make its case. In this view creation occurred in rapid bursts in which all "kinds" of plants and animals appear in stages lasting millions of years. The bursts are followed by periods of stasis or equilibrium to accommodate new arrivals. These bursts represent instances of God creating new types of organisms by divine intervention. As viewed from the archaeological record, progressive creationism holds that "species do not gradually appear by the steady transformation of its ancestors; [but] appear all at once and "fully formed."[1] The view rejects macroevolution because it is biologically untenable and not supported by the fossil record,[2] and it rejects the concept of universal descent from a last universal common ancestor. Thus the evidence for macroevolution is considered false, but microevolution is accepted as a genetic parameter designed by the Creator into the fabric of genetics to allow for environmental adaptations and survival."

Aha. Nothing like going to Wikipedia to learn what progressive creationists believe.

Aren't the Galapagos finches an example of a new species of finches?

Again, if you are interested in what others believe, it's best to go directly to a site that promotes that specific belief.

There are only a few young earth creationists that post here. So, you're not likely to get anyone to respond to your OP.

Based on the evidence in and on the earth a former world,a lost world, different than this world,with different life in it than this world,that perished before God made this world we live in now is more believable.

RickD wrote: Aha. Nothing like going to Wikipedia to learn what progressive creationists believe.

Again, if you are interested in what others believe, it's best to go directly to a site that promotes that specific belief.

Are you saying the Wikipedia article is wrong? That progressive creationism does not reject the evolution of all species?

abelcainsbrother wrote:Based on the evidence in and on the earth a former world,a lost world, different than this world,with different life in it than this world,that perished before God made this world we live in now is more believable.

From what I can gather from this, creationism is a better explanation for the diversity of life on earth than evolution because it's more believable. That about it?


.

Audacity wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Based on the evidence in and on the earth a former world,a lost world, different than this world,with different life in it than this world,that perished before God made this world we live in now is more believable.

From what I can gather from this, creationism is a better explanation for the diversity of life on earth than evolution because it's more believable. That about it?


.

Are you looking for proof or evidence? I mean we seem to have the bible telling us this and when we examine the evidence it is believable.But could it be proved? Do you ask for proof from scientists?Evidence is what matters to me.

Audacity wrote:

RickD wrote: Aha. Nothing like going to Wikipedia to learn what progressive creationists believe.

Again, if you are interested in what others believe, it's best to go directly to a site that promotes that specific belief.

Are you saying the Wikipedia article is wrong? That progressive creationism does not reject the evolution of all species?

I'm saying that I've never read on any progressive creationist site, that "no species evolved from any other species".

Like I said, isn't the Galapagos finches, proof that a new species of finch evolved from a different species?

The wiki article is correct about macroevolution. But there's no consensus to what macroevolution even is. I'm not sure one species evolving from another, is an accurate representation of macroevolution. We are talking about a finch evolving into a different kind of finch. Which isn't the same as a single-called organism evolving into sentient humans.

But like I said, better scientific minds than myself, can explain about progressive creation. Just look at the home site here, or Reasons.org., if you are interested.

No idea if this answers your question Audacity but here's what I believe. To be fair, I'm still figuring it out so bear that in mind.

The big bang was a flash of inspiration, an explosion of energy, matter, and thought from God. All the building blocks for life were already there, waiting for form and order, for creation.

As for my creation stance, still figuring that out, lean towards progressive creationism but all I am sureof is that we were created, just not hundred per cent sure how. Just that we were.

Hows that?

abelcainsbrother wrote: Are you looking for proof or evidence? I mean we seem to have the bible telling us this and when we examine the evidence it is believable.But could it be proved? Do you ask for proof from scientists?Evidence is what matters to me.

I'm looking for the most convincing case you can make for the truth of creationism. If evidence is what matters to you then by all means present your evidence.


.