Progressive Creationism vs Darwinian Evolution

CON OBJECTIONS I don"t like to repeat myself but since CON is leaving me with no choice, I will go over it again. CON says I provided a magical explanation where there is no explanation or demonstration as to how things came to be when I use a creation model. The old creation model in the past may have not derived any type of "how" from the causal agent but the progressive creation model I presented does, which means CON is simply attacking a strawman. "If it is logically impossible for time to extend to the infinite past, then God must also be subject to that logical restriction. .. ." CON is confusing a noun versus a verb. Qualities like immaterial, omnipresent, eternal are separate but primary attributes that are based on what this cause "is" while the attribute of Omnipotent or intelligence is a secondary attribute that deals with what this cause can do (actions or abilities). Fining tuning constants Again, when I said "fine-tuned for life", I was not speaking only of carbon based life forms but life of any kind. Many scientists do not believe we are the only kind of life out there which is why the definition is defined but not fully established in science. In other words, its more philosophical than scientific. Lastly, I only referenced the fine-tuning constants as a basis for further investigation and hypothesis formation. This leads me into something else CON said about the so-called multiverse "theory" . Its very simple. If there's not evidence for even one other overlapping universe, how can CON base his argument on something that is not there in the first place? The fact is , NO, we don't know whether the fine-tuning constants could come from a random see of colliding universes. Besides, its unfalsifiable and an unfalsifiable hypothesis not based on empirical observation or experience has no place in science, which automatically disqualifies this as an explanation. Therefore, I am not required ,as CON claims, to provide an argument against this explanation anymore than I would with the tooth fairy. The Beginning Again, The BGV theorem does not assume Einstein"s equations regarding time and thus holds even when we don't have a complete quantum theory of gravity of the early universe. Also, Even if we are just a tiny part of a so-called "multi-verse" or "meta-verse" with another version of space-time that follow different laws of nature, their theorem would still require an absolute beginning from this multi-verse as well. This is because the BGV theorem carries only one assumption: If the expansion rate of any universe is greater than 0, the universe began. So CON you are WRONG, it does apply to the multiverse ,space-time, and everything we understand to be part of the universe. Design inference The Common problem with CON"s objections on design inference is that he is assuming and imposing his Darwinian model on me. The progressive creation model claims that each species are Commonly designed on separate occasions, which means we are not animals but are specially created in God"s image as human beings. Humans are designed for the purpose of having a personal relationship with him but animals are merely designed to adapt according to their own environment. Also, Animals do not have the same mental capacity which is why they are designed to serve humans as well and be ruled over them like computer intelligence. Like computer intelligence, animals may be designed to be physically superior than humans but because they lack free-will and other special attributes, animals are not considered superior. In addition, CON is confusing suboptimal designs with design flaws, which are viewed as unintended. Like the evolutionary perspective, the progressive creation model does not assert that designs are suppose to be perfect but just intentional where there is a function. Pain is actually a good thing in avoiding further or permanent damage to the body. This also makes CON"s arguments futile. However, even if we end up never finding out the function or purpose for every alleged flaw CON points out, it would not prove that his Darwinian evolutionary model is true or that my model is false as he claims. Therefore, these examples he points are simply "Darwin of the gaps" arguments or argument from personal incredulity. For instance, CON"s human esophagus example are one of the many same exact examples mentioned over and over again by Darwinists as being alleged design flaws or suboptimal and have been refuted every single time by ID theorists (human appendix, human eye, panda"s thumb, etc). Just read this for an analysis : . http://www.godandscience.org... Design Decay harmful mutations that lead to disease sick animals has actually prevented overpopulation by providing easy prey for predators. Nevertheless, this may not apply to sentient beings, so part of the design research is to find out whether this is design decay or flaw. This is why its called a prediction. We don't know yet. Science provides explanations CON is wrong here, I was not referring to any kind of monotheistic religion; instead, I was emphasizing the sustaining (not increasing) popularity of the Judeo-Christian God throughout time specifically as a basis for further investigation because correlation does not prove causation. As CON even mentioned, as well as I, that people could very well be creating these religious/spiritual experiences as well as the Judeo-Christian God into existence under their own power and thus would explain from a evolutionary perspective why this particular religion continues to sustain popularity. Andrew Newberg's study I mentioned is there to show why this is not necessarily the case for Christianity. Pro's progressive creationism In regards to The prairie chicken study, It did not simply claim that a lack of genetic diversity was the problem. Instead, It was combination between lack of diversity and the increase expression of harmful mutations because sexual reproduction and recombination function to weaken beneficial and harmful mutations both. However, since beneficial mutations are usually not expressed, natural selection cannot select and evolution cannot proceed. There is another study like it as well: . http://www.nature.com... In addition, I did not only provide the prairie study. I also provided the studies showing how God created each major species from a systemic macro-mutations production of only additional information: . http://www.nature.com... lastly, my creation model does not claim that the evolution of life came about within 6,000 years nor does it attempt to explain the evolution of life from the dinosaur period and before. It only attempts to address the five major species along with humans. SCOREBOARD Progressive creation model I don"t think I need to go over which model has more explanatory power again, So I will go over all the times where scientists have and were using my model to successfully predict and confirm a phenomena or observation: 1. The beginning of the universe from the big bang theory by Georges Lema"tre 2. simple to complex from intelligence in biology 3. Origin of life by Louis pasture 4. so-called Junk DNA by Jonathan Wells in his book "the myth of junk DNA" 5. From Noah to man hypothesis by creationists (Apparently CON agrees with this) Darwinian evolutionary model (failed predictions) 1. eternal universe from steady state theory 2. simple to complex through only random mutations and natural selection 3. the common descent tree of life fossil record 4. panda"s thumb, junk DNA, psuedogenes, etc 5. from ape to man evolution One final note: I did not fully go over the attributes of this cause (God) because as CON said himself," Our debate is not about whether God exists". I agree with him and that's why I did not want to waste time and space.