It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationists Agree With Darwin

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Creationists Agree With Darwin


www.wlky.com

A new exhibit at the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum argues that Darwin's theory of natural selection can coexist with the belief that all the creatures of the world were created just a few thousand years ago.

That might seem odd to many who have watched the battles between evolution scientists and creationists.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   


Museum founder Ken Ham said he wants to show that creationists accept natural selection. But he says that doesn't mean they accept evolution theory.


Now what?

Is this the sign of things to come? Are creationists more open now?

Perhaps the creationists are loosing their grip on the debate. Hopefully this is the sign that Christianity is losing it's control on the populace.

No more conspiracies in religion or origins/creationism conspiracy?


www.wlky.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
How can anyone honestly believe that the Earth is only a few thousands of years old?

Religion doesn't make a lot of sense to me.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
Is this the sign of things to come? Are creationists more open now?


No they're not. This is just a sign that they continue to be ignorant about Darwin's theory of Evolution, even when they admit they accept a certain component of it.


A new exhibit at the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum argues that Darwin's theory of natural selection can coexist with the belief that all the creatures of the world were created just a few thousand years ago.


A few thousand years ago? Really? I'd like to see Ken Ham's paper and theory for demonstrating that natural selection could explain the variations and complexity we see in organisms, in just a few thousand years.

Sorry, for a moment I took Ken Ham for a serious and real scientist, and not just an ignorant religious extremist.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Right.

You can't have a cake and eat it too. I think this is the beginning.

I have met Ken Ham personally at my church long time ago and listened to his lecture. A lot of Christians listen to him.

First step is to accept natural selection. The next step is to accept that the Earth is more than 6,000 years.

Personally, I believe in ID. But the damning thing is that I understand natural selection and evolution theory.

Like I said, I think this is the beginning.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
Personally, I believe in ID. But the damning thing is that I understand natural selection and evolution theory.


If you say you understand natural selection and "evolution theory" then I don't understand how you can believe in Intelligent Design.

It seems to me that you either don't actually understand natural selection and Darwin's theory of Evolution, or you are thinking about a different Intelligent Design than I am.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by converge
 




A few thousand years ago? Really? I'd like to see Ken Ham's paper and theory for demonstrating that natural selection could explain the variations and complexity we see in organisms, in just a few thousand years.


Did you miss where it said that they accept Darwin's theory of natural selection?

Creationists have always objected to the theory of natural selection.

Pope announced that the Catholic Church accept evolution. Now the Baptists.

In case you missed it, THIS IS GOOD NEWS.

Baby steps... baby steps....



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by converge
 




It seems to me that you either don't actually understand natural selection and Darwin's theory of Evolution, or you are thinking about a different Intelligent Design than I am.


Okay what did you think I meant by Intelligent Design?



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Funny thing about you all and your definitions of Scientists. How many of you would call Galileo an idiot, Newton, Pasteur, Einstein, Frankilin, Etc Etc..

Every major True Science was made by a creationist, but I get your points, you all think Galileo mad and Newton Nuts, GOT IT..

Thanks for sharing...



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 




Funny thing about you all and your definitions of Scientists. How many of you would call Galileo an idiot, Newton, Pasteur, Einstein, Frankilin, Etc Etc.. Every major True Science was made by a creationist, but I get your points, you all think Galileo mad and Newton Nuts, GOT IT.. Thanks for sharing...


What are you talking about?

Muslims made advances in science too. And not just them, but others of different religions.

Are you implying that if Christians made advances in science, then they MUST be right about their beliefs?



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
Did you miss where it said that they accept Darwin's theory of natural selection?


No, that's why I said I'd like to see them make natural selection work with the young Earth nonsense.

It's not just a matter of accepting, it's a matter of understanding. If they are claiming that they accept natural selection and yet believe the Earth is 6000 years old, then clearly they don't even understand natural selection in the first place, much less accept it.



In case you missed it, THIS IS GOOD NEWS.
Baby steps... baby steps....


Baby steps? They've had 150 years to do it.

Evidence of Evolution is more abundant and easily accessible to people nowadays, and yet these morons not only don't believe in Evolution, they believe the Earth is 6000 years old.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Funny thing about you all and your definitions of Scientists. How many of you would call Galileo an idiot, Newton, Pasteur, Einstein, Frankilin, Etc Etc..

Every major True Science was made by a creationist, but I get your points, you all think Galileo mad and Newton Nuts, GOT IT..


I just wish they were all Americans too.

Man.

That would be just awesome



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by converge
 




No, that's why I said I'd like to see them make natural selection work with the young Earth nonsense. It's not just a matter of accepting, it's a matter of understanding. If they are claiming that they accept natural selection and yet believe the Earth is 6000 years old, then clearly they don't even understand natural selection in the first place, much less accept it.


It doesn't matter. Christians listen to the likes of Ken Ham. This will open their minds a little more and help them understand a little more.

I have been a Christian for 25 years. It took me a long time to begin to understand. It came around through reading and listening and (gasp) through debating.



Baby steps? They've had 150 years to do it.


Which is a conspiracy in Christian religion. People need to start to think for themselves, instead of listening to those in power. See why this is important?



Evidence of Evolution is more abundant and easily accessible to people nowadays, and yet these morons not only don't believe in Evolution, they believe the Earth is 6000 years old.


Yep, I was one of the morons for many years... for listening to morons who are in control.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
It doesn't matter. Christians listen to the likes of Ken Ham. This will open their minds a little more and help them understand a little more.



Which is a conspiracy in Christian religion. People need to start to think for themselves, instead of listening to those in power. See why this is important?


What you're saying is that now listening to Ken Ham is acceptable because he somewhat accepts a part of Evolution. But isn't Ken Ham one of those morons who are in power, in control?

It seems to me that the problem is not whether Ken Ham and the likes accept Evolution or not; the problem is that people listen to Ken Ham in the first place.


[edit on 18-3-2009 by converge]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Both sides are so... Stubborn.

If you want truth go the the middle of the road, but be warned, you will get run over by the cars there.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by converge
 




What you're saying is that now listening to Ken Ham is acceptable because he somewhat accepts a part of Evolution. But isn't Ken Ham one of those morons who are in power, in control? It seems to me that the problem is not whether Ken Ham and the likes accept Evolution or not; the problem is that people listen to Ken Ham in the first place.


Unfortunately, that is true. The problem is not with those people themselves who have been listening, but how they were raised or have been taught.

They have been taught to respect and listen to those in authority, especially the pastors. I know because I have been raised in a strict Baptist home.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonking76
Both sides are so... Stubborn.


Doesn't mean both sides are equally right.



If you want truth go the the middle of the road, but be warned, you will get run over by the cars there.


If you want the truth you deal with the facts and you study them. Guess which 'side' does that.


[edit on 19-3-2009 by converge]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
What is missed on this thread is that the fact that many Creationist's do accept evolution.

They say that at some point along the evolutionary process there was a first man and first woman.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Studious
What is missed on this thread is that the fact that many Creationist's do accept evolution.

They say that at some point along the evolutionary process there was a first man and first woman.


What kind of Creationism is that?

And what exactly is the extent of the Creator's intervention in that Creationism story, that accounts for the 'creation' of man after (assumingly) only a few thousand years after the Earth's creation?



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Catholic Library



Adam, Eve, and Evolution The controversy surrounding evolution touches on our most central beliefs about ourselves and the world. Evolutionary theories have been used to answer questions about the origins of the universe, life, and man. These may be referred to as cosmological evolution, biological evolution, and human evolution. One’s opinion concerning one of these areas does not dictate what one believes concerning others. People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man:

(1) special or instantaneous creation,

(2) developmental creation or theistic evolution,

(3) and atheistic evolution.

The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God.

The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance.

The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone.

Related to the question of how the universe, life, and man arose is the question of when they arose.

Those who attribute the origin of all three to special creation often hold that they arose at about the same time, perhaps six thousand to ten thousand years ago.

Those who attribute all three to atheistic evolution have a much longer time scale. They generally hold the universe to be ten billion to twenty billion years old, life on earth to be about four billion years old, and modern man (the subspecies homo sapiens) to be about thirty thousand years old.

Those who believe in varieties of developmental creation hold dates used by either or both of the other two positions.

The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.


Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.


What this is saying is that the church does not require anyone to hold a specific position as long as it falls within accepted parameters.

That last line

"It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul."

This states that man (his body) could have evolved under God's guidance but that the humans must have had their souls created through special creation.

These first humans that had their souls created through special creation would be true humans and not primates.

Shorter example:

The church does not say this is true or false but says it is possible that...

Primates evolved and at some point the first humans Adam and Eve had their souls created through special creation making them the first humans. Adam and Eve's parents could have been primates but their parents did not have human souls.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Studious]

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Studious]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join