Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more


page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 06:44 AM
I would like to hear from any creationists who visit the board, or anyone who would like to comment. The views held by this group of people seem to be the most laughable I have yet across. I would happily believe David Icke and his load of rubbish over this. Yet, even in view of the evidence people still believe in this *theory*, so the simple question is people, why?

Is this just a question of rabid faith over hard evidence or is there something I`m missing.

[Edited on 14-4-2003 by cassini]

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 02:01 PM
Well Cassinni I bet I am the only creationist left at the board. Just have some respect for others opinions.

I see it as this. If we evolved from monkeys, the chimps would still be evolving. And if we did evolve then how come we stopped? Would'nt we be evolving into a new creature? Or like I said earlier a chimp turn into a human?

According to the Bible which I belive in. It states that God made us into his image. So is God a giant monkey? King Kong is God then?

My agruement to aethists is that if you do not belive in God then we humans are the highest form of life in the universe. Just look at humanity!

I belive that God created us from dust or by some other means, I strongly doubt that we came from a gorrilla or a chimp.

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 02:10 PM
Jedi, apologies. Did n`t mean to offend although my choice of words I see is somewhat unfortunate.

So do you take Genesis at its word then? What about the fossil record? Successively more advanced record of primates. I`ll admit some things about Darwinism don`t add up completely.

"Would'nt we be evolving into a new creature?"
" So is God a giant monkey? "

LOL, the arguement seems reasonable but surely if we are talking about evolution then this takes millions of years, who is to say it is not happening?

"My agruement to aethists is that if you do not belive in God then we humans are the highest form of life in the universe. Just look at humanity!"

That would be a sad thing, nothing better than humans, shudders.

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 02:33 PM
Now I never said the Earth is only 10,000 years old. I do belive that the world was created a billion years ago or whatever it was. I doubt that some idiot went around and planted the fossils around the world.

Just imagine if humans were the ighest form of life.

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 02:42 PM
Three strange things in the world: loving war more than peace, loving excess more than sufficiency, and loving falsehood more than truth

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 02:48 PM
I am a creationist-evolutionist

Supreme in design life is.

So if something didn't create the big bang then were did the energy/mass/whatnot come from to form the universe? It just appeared for nothing? That sounds unscientific *gasp*

I believe (edit: sleepy
) a lot of the bible is fake because man has written it to suit him. Just as history is written by the victors.

[Edited on 14-4-2003 by Lysergic]

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 03:32 PM

Originally posted by JediMaster
I see it as this. If we evolved from monkeys, the chimps would still be evolving.

Quick refresher course in evolution:
a) Humans did not evolve from apes.
b) humans did not evolve from monkeys.
c) At some point in the very very distant past, two groups of mammals went along different evolutionary paths (probably because of being separated through migration or other natural forces.) One became pre-monkeys, one group became anthropoids.
d) The early anthropoids split into several groups. One became apes. One became humanoids. The humanoid line evolved to become modern humans. Apes are our cousins.
e) We still see evolution in progress, even in the human lineage. 100 years ago, my 6'2" great-grandfather was considered unusually tall. Today, someone 6'2" - 6'5" is considered tall, but not freakishly so. Heights of 7' and more are not unknown.

And if we did evolve then how come we stopped? Would'nt we be evolving into a new creature? Or like I said earlier a chimp turn into a human?

Oh, we are and they are, but our lifespans are too short to record it properly.

My agruement to aethists is that if you do not belive in God then we humans are the highest form of life in the universe. Just look at humanity!

And what's wrong with us? As a species, we're a hormonal teenager, rising above the pure childishness that we exhibited in the thousands of years before modern times. I see us becoming more sophisticated and more mature as a social creature.

And what's wrong with that? I think it's a good thing!

posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 02:13 AM

Originally posted by Byrd

Oh, we are [evolving] and they are, but our lifespans are too short to record it properly.

Would you agree that our evolution has now taken a different direction than animals?
Because I consider every animal still to be evolving towards a better method of adaptation for survival.

Do humans do this anymore? Only partially? Medicines keep us healthy or help us recover from illness, but does this perpetuate the advancement of genes which if left to nature would have been eliminated? Are these genes 'weaker' and if so does it make the species as a whole weaker?

Are advances in Gene Research, such as one day being able to eliminate the genes for illness susceptibilty or deformities, show an evolving human species? or does it merely show evolving technology? Is this bad? Are we evolutionarily linked to our technology?

In a society where our survival is virtually assured through society, are we still evolving animals? Or have we moved on to a point where our bodies are safe enough vehicles that we can practically ignore them and focus exclusivley on the evolution of our minds?

[Edited on 15-4-2003 by quango]

posted on Apr, 18 2003 @ 02:56 PM
hey jedi master i am a creationist too and you are not the only one left on the board. dont say that we are the most laughable because we certaintly are not CASSINA. i will tell you that creationist have the most hope than anyone in the world and the people that dont bleive are loony nuts they worship idols and they do spells what is up with that?????

posted on Apr, 18 2003 @ 02:59 PM
I don't know, but to each their own, right.

posted on Apr, 19 2003 @ 02:23 AM
Using the methods and figures evolutionists use we're not only alone in the universe, but we never existed. The chance for life to emerge without being created is so small it is not just improbable, but totally absurd. The evolution theory is a system game for atheists who has never made anything physical in their world, who has no sense of design and beauty. A scientist who believes in evolution is like a child who has been brought up by wolves and acts like and believes he is a wolf. One day when he meets other humans he will understand that he isn't a wolf, but something else. Lifeforms are created through genetic engeneering. Evolutionism is a product of political or civilatorical (?) mutiny

My theory of life: Life started like pure spirit or intelligent energy or concience. This energy learned how to create matter and created everything physical and made laws for it. This intelligent energy or *forces* is God. Like a man has life, a planet lives also just on another scale serving (a) different purpose(s) than us. We're like germs on the body of the Earth which is a macro-particle in this solar macrom (cool word isn't it?
) which is but one of zillions of macroms in an enormous macro-block within an enormous macro-body


posted on Apr, 19 2003 @ 02:28 AM
Hey, Jedi, don't I count for anything? I also believe Helen is a Believer, and so is Regs. WOS and N-C are not dead, either.

The Theory of Evolution really doesn't make it to teory, more to hipothesis. However, one look at my brother and you, too, could be a believer. One step from ape. I swear, he must be adopted.

posted on Apr, 19 2003 @ 02:44 AM
Maybe not "adopted", TC -merely "adapted".
I think a number of issues have to be carefully distinguished and clearly borne in mind when we return to this old favourite.
First of all: "creationism" is not the same sort of thing as "Darwinism" or some similar mainstream evolutionary approach. The latter, for better or worse, with greater or lesser persuasive force, depends upon an empirical approach to the here and now (I count fossils as the "here and now"). The sudden discovery of a fossilised ten-foot ant with gills and tusks will have countless repercussions for Darwinism, I really can't think of any for creationism.
This is to advocate or endorse neither. It is merely to point out that the suffix "-ism" is misleading. One can think of many great scientific minds that would have endorsed creationism (look at the contemporary reaction to Darwin, in many quarters) and blithering idiots who somehow "know" evolution must be correct.
The one is about faith and spirituality and to attack it as being indifferent to argument is probably not quite right. It is, rather, that it is indifferent to the same sort of argument.
Also, we must recall that "Darwinism" is not wholly accepted in the academic world -certainly not the fairly simplistic account offered at school-level.
In terms of public education, it would seem to me that little is lost by offering both and little is gained by merely offering one: other than the implications for staffing and curriculum time. On balance, I doubt a typical Biology teacher is a creationist and I doubt a typical R.E. (religious studies, where these are offered) would know his genome from his genesis.
One area of concern is, however, the context. Even with the contemporary near collapse of Western public education, "evolution" will be offered in some sort of context of prior scientific study. Creationism will not be so lucky. I know that religious education is an unexploded MOAB in the US; but in the UK state sector it tends to be a sort of pink, boneless, value-free " we all worship the same God" confection of drivel.
There is perhaps a need to examine religious education first. Also there is the staff issue: who will teach "creationism"? And how shall tax-payer and parent assess the quality of that teaching?
As I say, an old favourite and rather better treated at present on ATS than it has been in the past, it seems to me.

[Edited on 19-4-2003 by Estragon]

posted on Apr, 19 2003 @ 02:53 AM
And my Dear cassini, a very fruitful choice of a thread; but I almost forgot to say that if these views truly represent "the most laughable I have yet across.", you really do need to read more political, financial, educational and cultural journalism.
You don't know what you're missing.

posted on Apr, 19 2003 @ 05:19 AM
Cheers guys for your words. Apologies again for my somewhat poor choice of words, hope I did n`t offend anyone.

posted on Apr, 21 2003 @ 08:34 PM
Why cant Evolution and Creation co-exist? Okay, well, you have a big bang starting life, could god started it up? Gods supposed to be imageless, so couldnt that mean whatever we become is the same as gods image? WHy cant it co-exist, your referring to a book that's been translated from Arabic to latin to many otherlanguages, and was held by a tyrannical and corrupt church for hundreds of years, inwhich they could've changed things as they see fit. The bible, if taken literally, contridicts itself way to much. And inside it, even then, if taken literally, it has no evidence that says that evolution cant be true. I have yet to see in the bible a phrase that says "And humans do not become from monkeys or apes." or anything like that, so why cant they co-exist? People say science and religion cannot co-exist, and are completely contridicting, all I see is people either
1) too afraid to accept the idea that maybe theres more to the story
2) people too lazy to figure it all out, and see the truth.

posted on Apr, 21 2003 @ 08:43 PM
Maybe there is a deeper side to the story, but maybe God hasn't left any clues for us? We will never know.

Oh, and the same people that are evolutionists, atheists, whatever, are typically more of the people that cause world chaos. (Nietze or whoever?)

posted on Apr, 21 2003 @ 08:49 PM
What exactly is a Creationists ? i think I might know but I want to make sure

posted on Apr, 21 2003 @ 08:57 PM
I have no difficulties iun believing science about the timeframes and physics of creation, but I don't believe it happened all by itself. And when the scientists starts speeking about how man came into being, I can't do anything but shake my head. I believe that the law of nature, or natural selection if you like favours the strong and well adapted beings. Nothing mystical about that. I believe to some extent that species evolve, that some genes are favoured, ex. good runners, and others lead toward extinction, ex. canibalism. But to turn these minor adaptations/selections into the meaning of life, the universe and everything is to me absurd. We didn't go from amoebae to supermodelchessplayerastronaut just like that. There are too many gaps to say anything like that. What about all the failed mutations. Why don't we see any of them on the big scale? There should be quite a few I guess using the theory of evolution as basis... If the overall beauty is the result of natural selection where are all the ugly that was never chosen?

This is a neverending discussion and only time will show the answers in the end i guess. When man himself can create new lifeforms and travel to distant stars and play God himself, perhaps that day man will understand what has been happening here on Earth... Even the scientists should be willing to accept the biblical accounts then shaking their heads saying "Oh my God. If I had lived back then I certainly wouldn't have believed what they did..."


posted on Apr, 21 2003 @ 09:11 PM

Originally posted by abstract_alao
What exactly is a Creationists ? i think I might know but I want to make sure

I guess a definition of a creationist would be that he believes that someone or something has made all life through intelligence and knowledge like genetic engeneering and that the universal laws of nature and physics etc. have been set by those creators, while the evolutionist believes it has all happened by itself, one coincidence leading to another.

If you realise that the evolution theory was introduced when the Catholic church fell with all that lead to politically and the change of our civilisation, even the most nuctern man should smell the rats here. I see evolutionism as the product of and the tool for civilatorical mutiny


new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in