Challenge: Make Your Case for Creationism

[Audacity]

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".

Sorry, but I misspoke when I answered you:

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

From what I understand about progressive creationism, it believes that from time to time god steps in and plunks down a new species on earth. It believes in both evolution, and the frequent creation of new species by god. Where I find progressive creationists interesting (on par with YE creationists) is in their need to insert god into the evolutionary process whenever they come across a problematic situation.

The wiki article is correct about macroevolution. But there's no consensus to what macroevolution even is

Sure there is. Macroevolution is evolution that takes place at or above the level of species.

I'm not sure one species evolving from another, is an accurate representation of macroevolution.

It is.

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.

No it isn't, which is why evolutionists wouldn't say it is. Looked at broadly, evolution is an ongoing process in which many, many, many instances of microevolutionary and macroevolutionary events take place.

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.

Thank you, I've seen it. Hugh Ross is quite a guy. Here's a reference to his writings I ran across.

Hugh Ross (progressive creationist):
"…According to the fossil record, at least once every few million years a whale species disappeared only to be rapidly followed up by the appearance of a new and different species. In other words, whales have the greatest, not lowest, number of “transitions” in the fossil record. And these fossils provide evidence for a Creator, specifically for the idea that God created and designed life, rather than simply permitting natural processes to evolve them. …"

Then a bit later, in reference to a paper on the evolution of whales Ross says:

The paper also inadvertently implies an answer as to why God created a sequence of whale species such that the habitat of all whales gradually increased from just fresh water locales to partly salty river estuaries to the seas adjoining continental landmasses to all the oceans of the world. With the Sun becoming progressively brighter as it continues to convert hydrogen into helium through nuclear fusion in its core (the increasing core density causes the Sun’s nuclear furnace to burn hotter), God stepped in to compensate for the increasing solar luminosity, in part, by progressively creating new species of whales so as to gradually increase the range and population of whales. As these changes took place, the fertilization of Earth’s photic zones increased, resulting in a progressively greater removal of greenhouse gases from the planet’s atmosphere. Thus, even as the Sun brightens, the progressive removal of greenhouse gases from Earth’s atmosphere keeps the surface temperature ideal for life.In dramatic fashion Lavery’s team has shown us that sperm whales should not be taken for granted. They are a unique species, designed like no other to serve the planet’s life, and human beings in particular…
source

[Audacity]

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?

Thanks for your reply.

Just so you know, when you see creationism pitted against or contrasted with evolution, or even the two just mentioned in the same breath it invariably refers to the variety of species on earth and how they got here. Often creationists will expand the subject to the origin of the universe or the origin of life. In this context both are a mistake. Evolution doesn't address origins. The evolutionist isn't concerned with how life first came into being---be it abiogenesis or god's hand---but ONLY with the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.


.

[abelcainsbrother]

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.


.

I actually think it would be better for you to look at the evidence yourself and then compare to other ideas. An example - The fossils in the earth and all of the mass death and exctinction in the earth. Just look at this evidence from a different perspective,remove everything you've heard about evolution from your mind and look at the evidence from a different perspective. Instead of looking at this evidence from an evolution perspective look at it from a former world that existed that perished before God made this world perspective. Ask yourself,if there was a former world like the bible tells us would'nt you expect to find evidence of the kind of life that existed in it? This is a good place to start. Just ask yourself what would you expect to find if a former world did indeed exist.

There is more evidence than this though after you examine the fossil evidence and mass death and exctinction,you know there is more life exctinct than life on the earth now.But after you look into this evidence then you might start looking at all of the mysterious structures that exist all around the earth,there are mysterious places around the earth and these places are not only on land but under the ocean now too and they are real places that exist around the earth like Macchu Pichu,stone henge,little japanese Atlantis,etc there are many of these mysterious places and despite conventional wisdom about them it cannot be proven. These places are mysterious places that could be evidence for a former world.

[RickD]

As usual, ACB never misses an opportunity to hijack a thread, and turn it into a promotion of The Gap Theory. With that said, this song goes out to all you Gappers out there(probably only you ACB)

Give Peace Gap a Chance

Two, one two three four
Ev'rybody's talking about
Evolutionism, Creationism, Trumpism, Clintonism, Bernieism, Cruzism
This-ism, that-ism, is-m, is-m, is-m.

All we are saying is give Gap(Theory) a chance
All we are saying is give Gap(Theory) a chance

C'mon
Ev'rybody's talking about Ministers,
Sinisters, Banisters and canisters
Bishops and Fishops and Rabbis and Pop eyes,
And bye bye, bye byes.

All we are saying is give Gap(Theory)a chance
All we are saying is give Gap(Theory) a chance

Let me tell you now
Ev'rybody's talking about
Revolution, evolution, creationism,
Macroevolution, microevolution , gishisms,
Yec's, United Nations,
Congratulations.

Give Gap(Theory) a chance!

[Audacity]

I actually think it would be better for you to look at the evidence yourself and then compare to other ideas. An example - The fossils in the earth and all of the mass death and exctinction in the earth. Just look at this evidence from a different perspective,remove everything you've heard about evolution from your mind and look at the evidence from a different perspective. Instead of looking at this evidence from an evolution perspective look at it from a former world that existed that perished before God made this world perspective.

But I'm not concerned with anything you say may have existed before some event.

I'm asking about the creationists claim that all of the diversity of life on earth was put there as is by god.

If you can't address that, fine.

[Storyteller]

I actually think it would be better for you to look at the evidence yourself and then compare to other ideas. An example - The fossils in the earth and all of the mass death and exctinction in the earth. Just look at this evidence from a different perspective,remove everything you've heard about evolution from your mind and look at the evidence from a different perspective. Instead of looking at this evidence from an evolution perspective look at it from a former world that existed that perished before God made this world perspective.

But I'm not concerned with anything you say may have existed before some event.

I'm asking about the creationists claim that all of the diversity of life on earth was put there as is by god.

If you can't address that, fine.

Define as is. See, I think maybe God made the blueprint for it all.
If something exists, or can exist, then it has to be possible. The impossible cannot exist. There has to be a blueprint, a design.

This is really hard to explain

[Audacity]

Define as is. See, I think maybe God made the blueprint for it all.

By "as is" I mean the organism didn't evolve from any other organism.

If something exists, or can exist, then it has to be possible. The impossible cannot exist. There has to be a blueprint, a design.

And what if god decided to use evolution, and only evolution, as a means of populating the earth with a diversity of life? Wouldn't that work?


.

[Storyteller]

Define as is. See, I think maybe God made the blueprint for it all.

By "as is" I mean the organism didn't evolve from any other organism.

If something exists, or can exist, then it has to be possible. The impossible cannot exist. There has to be a blueprint, a design.

And what if god decided to use evolution, and only evolution, as a means of populating the earth with a diversity of life? Wouldn't that work?


.

Yes.
Theistic evolution or Progressive creationism both allow for evolution.
But you said make a case for my creation stance without using evolution

What do you really want to know?
How everything got here without evolution?
Or are we making evolution fit?

Thing is though, like you say evolution doesnt care why, just how. Creationists, or at least I, dont care how, just why.

[RickD]

Audacity wrote:
By "as is" I mean the organism didn't evolve from any other organism.

Define "evolve".

And what if god decided to use evolution, and only evolution, as a means of populating the earth with a diversity of life? Wouldn't that work?

You mean, what if God didn't use reproduction?

[RickD]

RickD wrote:
The wiki article is correct about macroevolution. But there's no consensus to what macroevolution even is

Audacity wrote:
Sure there is. Macroevolution is evolution that takes place at or above the level of species.

But that's not an agreed upon definition. In fact, many people don't even believe macroevolution is even a correct term to use.

From what I understand about progressive creationism, it believes that from time to time god steps in and plunks down a new species on earth. It believes in both evolution, and the frequent creation of new species by god. Where I find progressive creationists interesting (on par with YE creationists) is in their need to insert god into the evolutionary process whenever they come across a problematic situation.

That's just not accurate, at all.
First,
God does not "step in from time to time", according to PC. God stopped "stepping in" after Adam and Eve were created, according to PC.

Next, PCs don't feel any "need" to insert God into the evolutionary process when there's a problematic situation(whatever that means).

What is true, according to PC, is that the evidence shows that God created progressively over time. As opposed to a strict theistic evolutionary belief, that God created the building blocks for all life, with whatever was necessary for it to evolve into life we have today.

Please, I beg of you stop misrepresenting what PCs believe, or what PC teaches. Go do your homework, and find out what the belief or teaching actually is, before you keep spouting off inaccuracies. Or, just ask a specific question. Someone will answer if you show you are really trying to understand.

[Audacity]

Yes.
Theistic evolution or Progressive creationism both allow for evolution.
But you said make a case for my creation stance without using evolution

What do you really want to know?

To see a case (an argument, if you will) for creationism, as I defined it, without alluding to evolution.

Can't do it? Then fine.



.

[Audacity]

Define "evolve".

No.

You mean, what if God didn't use reproduction?

No. I meant: if god decided to use evolution, and only evolution, as a means of populating the earth with a diversity of life? Wouldn't that work?


.

[Audacity]

RickD wrote:
The wiki article is correct about macroevolution. But there's no consensus to what macroevolution even is

Audacity wrote:
Sure there is. Macroevolution is evolution that takes place at or above the level of species.

But that's not an agreed upon definition. In fact, many people don't even believe macroevolution is even a correct term to use.

From what I understand about progressive creationism, it believes that from time to time god steps in and plunks down a new species on earth. It believes in both evolution, and the frequent creation of new species by god. Where I find progressive creationists interesting (on par with YE creationists) is in their need to insert god into the evolutionary process whenever they come across a problematic situation.

That's just not accurate, at all.
First,
God does not "step in from time to time", according to PC. God stopped "stepping in" after Adam and Eve were created, according to PC.

Next, PCs don't feel any "need" to insert God into the evolutionary process when there's a problematic situation(whatever that means).

What is true, according to PC, is that the evidence shows that God created progressively over time. As opposed to a strict theistic evolutionary belief, that God created the building blocks for all life, with whatever was necessary for it to evolve into life we have today.

Please, I beg of you stop misrepresenting what PCs believe, or what PC teaches. Go do your homework, and find out what the belief or teaching actually is, before you keep spouting off inaccuracies. Or, just ask a specific question. Someone will answer if you show you are really trying to understand.

Reasons to Believe ministry
First, for those that don’t know what progressive creationism is let me provide this very brief overview: Progressive creationism is the belief that God created new forms of life gradually, over a period of hundreds of millions of years. As such it is a form of old earth creationism as it accepts the tenets of modern geology and astronomy but when it comes to the evolution of organisms PCs hold that new “kinds” of plants and animals appeared successively over time via divine intervention or fiat.
source


Hugh Ross (progressive creationist):
"…According to the fossil record, at least once every few million years a whale species disappeared only to be rapidly followed up by the appearance of a new and different species. In other words, whales have the greatest, not lowest, number of “transitions” in the fossil record. And these fossils provide evidence for a Creator, specifically for the idea that God created and designed life, rather than simply permitting natural processes to evolve them. …"

Then a bit later, in reference to a paper on the evolution of whales Ross says:

The paper also inadvertently implies an answer as to why God created a sequence of whale species such that the habitat of all whales gradually increased from just fresh water locales to partly salty river estuaries to the seas adjoining continental landmasses to all the oceans of the world. With the Sun becoming progressively brighter as it continues to convert hydrogen into helium through nuclear fusion in its core (the increasing core density causes the Sun’s nuclear furnace to burn hotter), God stepped in to compensate for the increasing solar luminosity, in part, by progressively creating new species of whales so as to gradually increase the range and population of whales. As these changes took place, the fertilization of Earth’s photic zones increased, resulting in a progressively greater removal of greenhouse gases from the planet’s atmosphere. Thus, even as the Sun brightens, the progressive removal of greenhouse gases from Earth’s atmosphere keeps the surface temperature ideal for life.In dramatic fashion Lavery’s team has shown us that sperm whales should not be taken for granted. They are a unique species, designed like no other to serve the planet’s life, and human beings in particular…
source


“Progressive creationism is the idea that God created directly and deliberately via a series of creative acts over very long periods of time. The ‘days’ of Genesis are not consecutive twenty-four-hour days but are ages or epochs, or perhaps literal days that marked only the beginning of successive long creative periods. Some of these various creative periods may have overlapped with each other to a certain degree … According to progressive creationism, life on earth could not have emerged without intelligent intervention. This view rejects that idea that macroevolution can account for ‘the increasing complexity and relatively abrupt appearance of new life-forms in the fossil record.’ They propose that ‘the scientific evidence is more compatible with the hypothesis that God acted miraculously several times throughout biological history’
source


"PROGRESSIVE CREATION (Old-Earth Creation)
DEFINITION — A theory of old-earth progressive creation proposes that, during a long history of nature spanning billions of years, God occasionally supplemented natural process with miraculous-appearing creations, which distinguish this view from evolutionary creation (theistic evolution) in which God used only natural-appearing creation."
source


"Progressive Creationism
This is a somewhat liberal interpretation of Genesis that allows billions of years for cosmic evolution, including the Big Bang. Progressive Creationists also allows some roll for natural development of life forms (microevolution), but only after God has stepped in to create the major species at various points in time—culminating with the creation of man. Intelligent Design restates many Progressive Creation ideas in scientific terms. [G] [+]
source


"Atheistic evolution is the concept that the cosmos and life arose
only by natural processes. Theistic evolution teaches that God
began the evolutionary process which has since continued
naturalistically. Progressive creationism is the position that
God has periodically intervened in the evolutionary process"
source


So, what does progressive creationism teach? At its most basic, according (again) to the ASA: "[a] theory of old-earth progressive creation proposes that, during a long history of nature spanning billions of years, God occasionally supplemented natural process with miraculous-appearing creations, which distinguish this view from evolutionary creation (theistic evolution) in which God used only natural-appearing creation."
source



This has been fun, seeing what progressive creationists are really supposed be believing---you might want to take notice--- but it's gotten a bit wearisome so I'm going to bail on this aspect of the discussion. If you ever care to explain why anyone should believe that god intervened in the natural evolutionary process feel free.


.

[RickD]

Good. It's better off that you bail. You expect us to argue a creation position that implies God, with someone who doesn't believe God exists?

If you decide to believe in God first, then a following step would be to discuss why we believe He created the way we think He did.

[Storyteller]

Thing is, it still goes back to how these natural processes evolved. What drives them?
Evolution is just change over time.
Maybe the diversity has always been there, just waiting.