Personally, I'm a creationist but have no interest or belief in Christianity. While not a Hindu nor a Sikh, they are also creationists. The issue seems to be an odd one if people are non-creationists because they don't like something the Christians use for propaganda. Darwinism/Einstein are pure Illuminati propaganda and evolution being so statistically ridiculous with odds that I suspect are way worse than the idea of 3 buildings vertically collapsing around the same time, same place, by natural causes. The spirit here is so weak and the forces and density of matter so great, life forms devolve rather than evolve upwards. All that is observable at best is sideways change and avoidance by life forms. But it is still fundamentally the desire of the life form that is really what is being credited for evolution. That aside, philosophy and it's relations in Illuminati education managed pseudo science will always fail to grasp the necessary insight to common sense. All so called "Evolutionists" operate on nothing more than a false intuition, superstitious belief that has nothing provable in it. Just an attitude that serves the interest of peer/social acceptance and career opportunities.

Great post, Although I think it is "Noachian" Flood.

I count myself as a Christian. Not a great one, but I think there's "something" more to the Universe.

Science is not simply a list of beliefs randomly decided and dogmatically stuck to. It is a SYSTEM of practices more than beliefs, it is a way of approaching any problem that is willing to change its current beliefs if the evidence comes in. Religion starts with the answer it is unwilling to abandon. Fine, believe in Creation, but you have to be honest or you have to learn the definition and realize it is not, and can never be, science, unless you have a "creationism" which would be willing to dump God if we did find all the intermediate forms and nailed down the exact methods of abiogenesis. And don't think it can't.

Creationism and Intelligent Design are PHILOSOPHIES. Believe them if you want to but they can never be science.

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
The real question is "Is there a God, and if so, what is your relationship with Him?"

I think the real question should rather be: "Is there a god, and if so what is his relationship with us?"

There is no evidence for the existence of a god, and even if there was there is no reason a being with such a perspective would care about us in the least.

There is no evidence for the existence of a god, and even if there was there is no reason a being with such a perspective would care about us in the least.

Unless he was harvesting our souls when we died, so he could live forever?

***sorry about this agian folks ****

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller

The reason I can Not accept your B.S. on Evolution, is because of your disgraceful behaviour.

which behaviour would this be?

responding to personal insults with mockery and sarcasm? your right i could and probabily should choose to rise above it but hey no ones perfect right?

If you are any example of the mainstream of Evolution messengers, propagating this material,

knowledgable on the subject? able to condense rediculously complex ideas to a simplified badly butcherd version for anyone to understand without background knowledge of the theories? a blatant ignorer of correct spelling becasue the message not the speling and grammer is i feel the important part?

I can Not possibly become like you.

knowledgable on the subject? able to condense rediculously complex ideas to a simplified badly butcherd version for anyone to understand without background knowledge of the theories? a blatant ignorer of correct spelling becasue the message not the speling and grammer is i feel the important part? sarcastic? funny? an atheist? an english male? blue eyed? a smoker? a lover of life? an understanding friend?

This is Not against others putting forward their beliefs in evolution.

guess im just a big meanie who makes the bwaha bunny cwy *sob*

If I can Not accept the Theories of Evolution, it is purely based on

impiracal scientifc evidence from a wide ranging array of fields of sceince including physics chemistry geology archaeology palentology dna analysis anatomical medicine. that makes predictions and then goes hunting for evidence based on those predictions and you guessed it, its exactly where the predictions said it should be

Tiktaalik wasnt an accidental find they knew the rough area to look to find somthing like it so they went and they found it becasue of predictions

same with whale evolution the identified the indus river basin an area between india and pakistan as the most likley place for whale evolution to have occured so off they went and they have found multipul tranistional fossils from a 4 legged land carnivour to what we class as modern whales

this persons attitude,

that i react to bieng attacked? im an athiest not a Passafist. if you really want to start a flame war go right on ahead ill happily sit back and laugh at the insults the fact you need to tells me ive broken your argument and its all you have left to do

toward Science and humankind.

well ive expressed my intrest attitude and desires in science

but never once have conclusivley stated the same for how i feel on humanity beyond i believe equality should be equal for all ive barely even hinted my beliefs so what can i say you must have read my mind

**** again sorry folks back to the topic hopefully ****



[edit on 24/11/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 24/11/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by ReelView
evolution being so statistically ridiculous with odds that I suspect

You got me thinking here. Anyone calculated the chances of the god from the bible exsisting? How about the odds that any god exsists? I mean if evolution can be tossed away because of odds, then should not a god be held to that same standard?

Allow me to make an observation. I get the distinct impression that people here think there is no alternative for the non-religious person other than to believe in evolution. Granted, there is some logic to the theory, such as distinct similarities between species such as apes and humans, but there is so much that is overlooked with the theory, I cannot understand how it enjoys such widespread acceptance.

Aside from the obvious shortcomings (something from nothing, non-living to living, impossible odds, lack of transitional species), some of the questions evolution raises to me are as follows:

How does a single living cell which does not think and is only able to divide itself, randomly develop into all known complex life without any direction?

Why are there so many more species now than there were in the beginning, when natural selection is so much more efficient at reducing the number of species, than the number of new species that can evolve?

Why are there so many near-identical specimans of each species? Shouldn't they be more and more diverse within the species given the increased population?

Why is it that cells are so much more susceptible to mutation when a new life begins than during an existing life?

Why is there only one species of human yet many species of ape today?

Perhaps there are logical answers to these questions, but currently, to my mind, these are just a few glaring inadequacies with the theory.