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.

 

Biblical creationists teach Super-Evolution?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
OK everybody, I'm getting super confused here.

I thought Biblical creationists (the literalist branch) believed the world was only 4-6,000 years old, and evolution was a lie. I was just making peace with that concept, and that many people really believe it.
But now I'm super freaked out.
In the video below it states that Creationists actually do believe in evolution - super evolution.
According to the Creation Museum, most species were wiped out after the flood in Noah's time. The only survivors were the single breeding pairs on the Ark.
However, to get the varieties of species since then, God imbued these species with "super-evolution". So, in less than a thousand years, a single pair of say Tigers branched out into all the species of Tigers we had in historical times.

Is this true? If so, Creationists are lying when they say they don't believe in evolution!
Here's the video that confused/inspired me.
Somebody please explain?
www.youtube.com...




posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

Well, I re-examined the video, and according to the Creation Museum it appears correct - they believe in a post-flood super evolution.
But how can anything biological evolve that fast?
And even worse, aren't they borrowing a concept from a science they usually oppose?
Could it be fair to say they accept evolution, but just "miraculous evolution"?

But how confusing for the kids.


[edit on 3-9-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldmanBut how confusing for the kids.


[edit on 2-9-2010 by halfoldman]


Its perfect for the kids...it means that any kid with the IQ equaling or greater than a snapping turtle will see the whole lot as a bunch of nonsense...the ones that accept that logic, well, they really aren't the type that produces anything meaningful for society anyhow...window washers and such.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 

Maybe, I don't want to insult anybody either way.
There's probably rich and poor on either side of the debate.
It's just that I thought it was an either/or situation.
Either "God" created all these bodies and varieties we have or had, or they evolved.
But post-flood "super-evolution" really throws a spanner in the works!

Not only that - it also means all humans are descended from Noah and his clan. So before we look for a historical Adam, we should first look for a historical Noah and his wives?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
I'm really still trying to understand it all.
So, according to the Creation Museam, only a prototype eg. rhino was taken on the Ark.
From this "proto-rhino" pair, developed all the sub-species?
And all this within 2000 years since Noah?

Perhaps now I understand why they don't like homosexuality.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

However, isn't there proof that there was flood across the globe?
Isn't there proof for this?
And if that happened, howcome not all land-creatures drowned?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   
I must say, I am a bit shocked that no Creationists are willing to defend their paradigm of "super-evolution".
Can I thus assume that the 6000-year Biblical Creationist view is poppy-cock, and there was no global flood?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
I thought Biblical creationists (the literalist branch) believed the world was only 4-6,000 years old, and evolution was a lie...
In the video below it states that Creationists actually do believe in evolution - super evolution.

Is this true? If so, Creationists are lying when they say they don't believe in evolution!

Your conclusion is illogical.
You have just discovered that there are at least two groups of people calling themselves "creationist"- one that believes evolution is untrue, and another that believes in "superevolution".
There's no reason why either group should be lying about what they believe.




[edit on 3-9-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 

I don't have a conclusion, but admit confusion.
I can respect both viewpoints, but this addition makes it very difficult to write or teach on what defines Creationism.
But thank you for reiterating the difficulty.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 

Incidentally, there are many different "Creationists", ranging from indigenous myths to intelligent design. The Hare Krishnas, for example believe in very old, cyclical creationism.
However, these are marginal voices.
The Biblical view has massive media support, and has been spread globally.

But are there two groups? I can't say for sure, because the "super-evolution" only happens after Noah's Ark and the flood.



[edit on 3-9-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
I can respect both viewpoints, but this addition makes it very difficult to write or teach on what defines Creationism.


If you set out to write about Buddhism, seriously, you'll be forced to acknowledge that there is more than one variety- Mahayana, Therevada, lamaistic, and so forth.
This is no different.
This discovery is simply warning you of the dangers of making over-simplistic statements about "what creationists believe".



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
I've never understood why creationism and evolution have been so widely seperated?

Surely an "all-knowing" God would include the evolutionary process in the creation process as a means of both ensuring a wide range of survival and it would allow animals to perfect themselves for their environment?

I don't see "God" running around sticking His fingers in everywhere that doesn't work. He'd have set it up from the start, so that no intervention is required. In fact, that is one of the key aspects of the natural world, it is a self correcting mechanism, something not possible from either a purely evolutionary or creationist perspectives.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by harryhaller
 


Imagine yourself as a super genius. You created a world of robots, self correcting and self evolving through an initial well planned programme to maintain nature. You sit back and relax, but then what had you achieved but a cold world?

You may enjoy that solitude, but at the end of the day, you are alone. You will end up talking to your robots, but the robots will only respond to you as you had programmed them, to repeat your responses, talking to yourself.

Our Creator is one of love and warmth. He could have created robots to fill the universe, but in His likeness and image were mankind created.... That gift of life, love and free will can only comes from One who have such gifts Himself.

And within such gifts came a guided path based on free will, not a forced and preprogrammed path, to maintain nature and the Universe, a role of dominance that we had been given on Earth as a trial for we dominate other lifeforms and species, but only if we can adhere to the path to progress and to grow our capacity to comprehend more evolutionary science

[edit on 3-9-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 

Nope, never mentioned Buddhism.
If you refer to the Hare Krishnas, they are not Buddhist.
Not sure of your point, but still unsure of having both creationism and post-flood "super evolution" in the Christian fundamentalist Creation Museum.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
Nope, never mentioned Buddhism.
If you refer to the Hare Krishnas, they are not Buddhist.
Not sure of your point, but still unsure of having both creationism and post-flood "super evolution" in the Christian fundamentalist Creation Museum.

I didn't mean that you mentioned Buddhism.
I was using an analogy.
If someone, anyone, sets out to "write and teach about" Buddhism, this involves them in recognising that there are different varieties with different forms of belief.

My point is that if I have gained an impression of "what Buddhists believe" based on something taught by the Theravada school, and then discover that other schools have a different view of this point, the rational reaction to this discovery is "Ah, this 'Buddhist' label obviously covers a greater variety of viewpoint than I first realised. I must be wary, in future, of making sweeping generalisations about 'what Buddhists believe'."

Whereas the non-rational reaction would be "I thought that all Buddhists were Therevada Buddhists, but I have just discovered a book based on Mahayana teachings, doesn't that show that Buddhists have been lying about what they believe."

The point I am making, by analogy, is that the reaction "I have just discovered there are different varieties of Creationism, this shows that Creationists have been lying about what they believe" was a non-rational reaction.



[edit on 3-9-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   
The Creation Museum is a farce and a terrible joke. I would not take anything they state as fact or anything resembling the truth

The flood did happen. Or something like it, anyways.

All the animals (super-evolution indeed) would not have fit in a boat that could have been constructed at the time or even now for that matter. None of that makes sense. And creationists, use GOD as excuse, to explain all the little holes their "theory" have.

In this time we live in, I find it extremely harilious that people (if I can use that term) cannot use their own logic and reasoning to see that it just does not work that way.

edit to add: Creationism does not have to be confined to 6000years. That date is just plain silly. Creationism, I suppose, can walk hand in hand with Evolution, as long as we discard that ridiculus date.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by Le Colonel]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 

Point taken - although I did try to be as specific as possible in my OP about which creationists I mean:
- Biblical literalists, as represented by the
- Creation Museum (as shown in the clip).
I suppose Biblical literalists must concede that Noah's flood changed the initial/original creation.
So I do hope that fundamentalist Biblical creationists are fully informed on what their beliefs entail.
The problem is sometimes that some of them don't know their full ideology.

It is indeed this obsfucation that is conspirational. It deliberately downplays the whole story to make it more acceptable and less contradictory in part.
Not fully informing the convert at the very start is cultish behaviour.

So, the next time I'm approached by evangelists and they mention "God's creation" - I'm gonna ask them why they don't mention God's post-flood "super-evolution", and why they have all these anti-evolution programs, when they actually believe in a form of evolution.



[edit on 3-9-2010 by halfoldman]

[edit on 3-9-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
I must say, I am a bit shocked that no Creationists are willing to defend their paradigm of "super-evolution".
Can I thus assume that the 6000-year Biblical Creationist view is poppy-cock, and there was no global flood?


Oh, there was global flooding alright, but not a global flood...the world wasn't a ocean, but some populated areas did get wet.

few theories about this, including ending of a ice age, some global warming trends, etc...that kinda thing. You gotta consider perspective though, if someone looks over a landscape that used to be a farm valley and suddenly theres 10feet of water covering it, to him the world is flooded...even if it might only be a local phenomona...especially since he couldn't flip on CNN and see where the flooding was occuring.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Sounds like Christian scholars grasping at straws again, they try this every time new science proves something in the Bible wrong, and of late, that is a lot of things. We all know now that the Earth is much older that the Bible and Christians think it is. Eventually the truth will all be known, and bibles will be thrown out in disgust. They even have a Creation Museum in Kentucky... creationmuseum.org...



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
It sounds like creationists are giving in to Science a little bit in regards to Evolution. This is nothing but a good thing for all of us.

IN MY HUMBLEST OF HUMBLE OPINIONS I think that the words

Creationism
and
Intelligent Design

should have different meanings. As it is now we are not sure what predated the expansion of our Universe. I believe that there still exists room in Science for the concept of a supreme Intelligence outside of our Universe (although I have not seen experimental evidence to back up this theory YET).

I DO believe that the theory of a God or God's instantly creating all life on Earth exactly as it is now has been trumped by our study of the Fossil record, dating techniques, studies of adaption and mutation etc.

Can we have one without the other? Can we have room for the possibility of a supreme final intelligence predating the expansion of our Universe and drop the instant creation of all life part?

It would be a lot cooler if we did mannnnn!

Perhaps we need some new vocabulary terms to indicate the difference in these two theories?




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join