Creationists

there is no god
there is no decent mc donalds fry

humanity is a variable

a random pattern in the development in the universe, however minimal we are. nothing created us. at present anything we say isn't known to be true, nor is it proven false, so until we know what happened on the first day, we can't expect to know

Originally posted by mouko_ryuu

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

Not really now, Evolutionists, are one, not always atheist (I, myself, am Roman Catholic, but I am also an evolutionist in the sense that I believe in evolution.) But a major fact I want to point out is the fact that Religion and zealots cause the most chaos and violence in the world. Jihads and suicide bombings occur as an everyday thing in the Middle east as people blow themselves up, and others, for their religion. The Crusades slaughtered innocent people in the name of religion. 90% of all wars are caused by religion, or religious views that differ with one another. The Nazi's were Christians, not evolutionists (or atheists.)...To say that evolutionism is the cause of much chaos, is just a fabricated lie used to give people a Tabula Rasa.

Originally posted by WolfofWar

Originally posted by mouko_ryuu

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

Not really now, Evolutionists, are one, not always atheist (I, myself, am Roman Catholic, but I am also an evolutionist in the sense that I believe in evolution.) But a major fact I want to point out is the fact that Religion and zealots cause the most chaos and violence in the world. Jihads and suicide bombings occur as an everyday thing in the Middle east as people blow themselves up, and others, for their religion. The Crusades slaughtered innocent people in the name of religion. 90% of all wars are caused by religion, or religious views that differ with one another. The Nazi's were Christians, not evolutionists (or atheists.)...To say that evolutionism is the cause of much chaos, is just a fabricated lie used to give people a Tabula Rasa.

To mouko_ryuu: Do you have anything to prove your views? Any referances?

To WolfofWar: To give Islam the blame for suicide bombings is like giving Christianity the blame for World War 2. You're talking about brainwashed extremists who are psychologically manipulated into believing that what they are doing is right, but in reality they are perfect tools for people like Osama bin Laden and Adolf Hitler to boost their power and wallet. Make people believe that you are some kind of holyman, fulfill a couple of prophecies and you'll have the most perfect army in the world. Soldiers who are willing to risk their lives for religion while other soldiers protect drug factories and illegal weapons shipments. If there hadn't been religion the powerful men would have found something else they could use. Perhaps even evolutionism. To use the Koran and Islam to justify suicide bombings is just as absurd as using the bible to justify the killing of six million Jews. Islam is a religion of peace, so is Christianity, but when people are in faith-mode they are easier to manipulate and deal with. People need to believe. I wouldn't've liked to know how this world would have been whithout faith and divine standards

Blessings,
Mikromarius

The thing about Darwinism is that its not that cut and dry. It has so many holes in it yet its almost routinely accepted for truth and its the only scientific principle accepted that way that I know of. Darwin himself abandoned his theory before his death because as he searched further he discovered that he had only uncovered enough evidence to assure himself he wasn't close to knowing anything.

The fossil record only assures me of one thing. Major dissasterous events have happened in the past and now I'm not too sure I'd put an ounce of faith in an archeologist. I remember Dragon Rider posting something about protecting pet theories and I think a lot of these guys have abandoned true research in lu of being political scientific hit men. Sorry if that steps on anyone's toes. Its not meant to personally attack anyone. But the kind of pressure it would take to fossilize something before it rots would be tremendous. No mere sediment over time could do it and getting trapped under rockslides and things doesn't generate the pressure that a dynamic compacted roadbed has, yet we tear those out 50 years old with rotted remains of vegetation in them and now, vegetation is prohibited because even under compaction, it rots. Not talking diamonds or coal because thats mineral compaction. Only the remains of biological life that keeps its form. From a true scientific point of view, I can't buy it.

As for the question, I do believe in creation. I guess I will until I can get a grasp on something else. For now, however, I think politics and greed have clouded the scientific community to the point that no one person may actually know for sure. In fact, I'd say its a good bet to assume no one really knows for sure and just look at the theories of these guys as just that, theories. Possibly the worst of these come from Egyptologist who, in my opinion, have never really done anything different than the rest of us have and thats guess.

I take heart in knowing that not knowing might be more of a blessing than knowing because it gives us the never ending thirst for the truth and it gives us hope that all isn't lost after our short time on earth.

Originally posted by JediMaster
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.

We didn't evolve from "monkeys", but humans and monkeys of today share a common ancestor. Monkeys are still evolving, just as we are still evolving. Will monkeys evolve into something humanlike? Who knows, these things take millions of years...not 7 days... You want some evidence? Take a look at your fingers and toes. See your fingernails and toenails? Ok, now look at those of a monkey...and then look at the claws of other creatures... You see? At one point, ours were claws too, but as we eliminated the need for them, they grew shorter, and blunter, until finally only serving as decoration. In eons to come, you can be sure that we won't have them anymore... Also, look at the average height of humans. This too, has been an example of evolution.... We are getting taller. The average man today is almost a full foot taller than those in our earlier history. Likewise look at the shape of your feet. Compare this to the shape of early mans. You'll see, that all of these years of wearing shoes, has slowly shaped our feet. Heck, if you look at your pinky toe...it's almost a joke appendage! As I said, these things take time. Look at whales... Many whales still have vestigal legbones, leftovers from when thier ancestors crawled from land back into the sea.

If you believe that God made man in his own image, then what a joke image that must be! Ineffectual claws with no purpose (fingernails and toenails), fur on only part of our bodies, leaving the rest exposed to the elements, sight, hearing, smell, and touch surpassed by many animals...he was working from a pretty flawed mold here.... What about aliens? If God made us in his own image, why are they (if they exist) so much more advanced than we are? Likewise, your arguement to atheists is likewise mute, as there is no proof that we are the ultimate life form in the universe (indeed, there seems to be evidence to the contrary)....

Yet, it is more believable that we came from dust than a monkey-like creature? Hmm....strange thought that is...

We had this discussion in my science class a month or two ago. For those people who don't believe in creation, almost all didn't believe evolution was the correct theory either(at least the general theory that is taught in public schools today). In fact my very liberal, and very intellegent I might add, friend Rick used to believe in evolution, but now believes that there has to be some supreme being. (Rick is a chemical-molecular-biology major and science is his bag.) I'm not saying that if you believe in evolution that you're not smart. I'm just saying that many people are drifting from the theory of evolution these days. To them, evolution(Big Bang included) and creation are BOTH far fetched theories.
Here's a good creation site:
www.icr.org...
(They have many more articles if you view the links on the left)

Creation....by whose standards? Everyone has thier own god, thier own view of the beginnings. People have tried to put a human face on the forces of nature, which, thousands of years ago, were frightening to man in his awakenings. Thus, religions were created, they made the in hospitable world more hospitable. The forces of nature had minds and personalities of thier own, thus, people felt they could placate, intereact with them, to perform tasks, give better crops, ect. Now we understand better the forces of nature, and no longer think of thunder as Thors smashing ettins, or Zeus smacking sinners, or Indra blazing mad, we know what lightng and thunder are explainable.

Thus with creation and evolution. Evolution exists, we can observe simple moments of it in our own lives. Evolution involves mutations of creatures, which, if they survive the test of natural selection, will go on to create more creatures like themselves with the same, beneficial mutation.

If creation is thought from a naeutral non religious specific standpoint, then its a good way to understand things. When it is taken from one religious persons texts and touted as universal law, then its ridiculous.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
...Now we understand better the forces of nature, and no longer think of thunder as Thors smashing ettins, or Zeus smacking sinners, or Indra blazing mad, we know what lightng and thunder are explainable.

And we also know that things like lightning is "easily" provoked through technology we possess today. What if God came from a star system that is 1 billion years older and a civilisation 1 billion years more advanced that our own. It could be possible for this God to maipulate everything that goes on here on Earth through his technology. If HAARP can trigger solar storms with their equipment, then where is the limit if you can also do interstellar travels?

Thus with creation and evolution. Evolution exists, we can observe simple moments of it in our own lives. Evolution involves mutations of creatures, which, if they survive the test of natural selection, will go on to create more creatures like themselves with the same, beneficial mutation.

If creation is thought from a naeutral non religious specific standpoint, then its a good way to understand things. When it is taken from one religious persons texts and touted as universal law, then its ridiculous.

Even if God is the source of this information. The creation stories (yes there are two, chapter 1 and chapter 2) in the bible have different intentions. One is a prophetic/scientific survey of the creation seen from ground earth perspective, it's a story of how man experienced creation from ground-earth perspective, but also a prophetic message of the major stages in the future devellopment of the human race. The other is an allegory of how wisdom came to man and how this became a curse to us humans and left us on our own. Before you say that the creation stories of the bible is hoax, try to understand them better. Using the glasses of science one can actually see that this is how it must have been, or most likely would've been observed from earth...

Blessings,
Mikromarius

There�s not much latitude on the actual account: it�s clear, unambiguous and literal: what you see is what there is and all further expansion is merely speculation, more or less well-informed.

The Hebrew and the Greek of the accepted texts are quite unambiguous: it�s a straightforward past tense in Hebrew of �bara�� =�make�; it�s �epoiesen� in Greek: both indicate a single completed action in the past: quite literally there was nothing and then, for want of a better word, there was everything. The Latin Vulgate follows this: �creavit�
I cannot see any plausible way of explaining this account of creation other than as a claim to be literally true. At which point, one accepts or rejects it.

The �two creations� notion is a trifle misleading as it refers only to the creation of man. Some will see contradictions between Genesis 1:26-28, and Genesis 2:6-7.
1. In chapter one, God�s will immediately produces vegetation In Gen 2 it is a result of rain and mist
2. the earth comes out of the water (so it�s wet) or the earth is dry (Gen 2)
3. Adam and Eve created together or Adam first
4. Adam is God�s image and ruler of the earth: Adam is dust and keeper of Eden
5. Birds and animals first: Adam first.
That�s the obvious presentation. I can, however, assure posters (I won�t risking boring you with details) that perfectly reasonable harmonisations of these have been made: generally to the effect that it is a matter of �purpose�: two accounts of the same thing with different emphases.

As for the �creationists�, well they�re a many-flavoured stew.
There are essentially three angles: the �interval� school which has two separate accounts of creation: the first of the material universe at some unspecified time in the past and the second an unspecified time later, around 4004 BC when Adam was created.
There is the �day = age� school where Biblical days are equated with huge periods of time.

It can be seen that these are, in principle, at least � an attempt to reconcile Genesis with geology.

The third group: largely inspired by a Seventh-Day Adventist (and not without its scandals) George McCready Price, goes an entirely different way: it rejects �geology� and denies any life before Eden: the fossils are relics of Noah�s flood and geologists� heads aren�t right.

My experience of studying this has been that the first two above were generally more widespread; but that it was Price�s version that took off in the 60�s with the publication in 1961 of The Genesis Flood and the formation two years later of the Creation Research Society (CRS).
This group: Prices �flood geology� group has been most influential and most aggressively assertive.

Now, the above is Estragon�s easy-to-follow account and is also meant to demonstrate that there�s not much room for manoeuvre beyond acceptance or rejection.
I would, however, still assert that the real problem is the educational one. Two States: Arkansas and Louisiana, did pass laws making the teaching of creation science whenever evolution was taught, mandatory.
On the other hand, the US Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that such laws violated the First Amendment to the Constitution, requiring the separation of church and state.

So which version of �creationism� (one, two, all?). And can it be made compulsory?
Furthermore, by whom will it be taught? What qualifications will be asked for? And, how much curriculum time will be involved �what should be omitted if this is introduced?
As an educational professional, I know that these humdrum and practical issues are what, ultimately, matter.
It may be that the easiest answer is for Mum and Dad to deal with the creationist view of their choice at home, and leave the school to deal with empirically-based scientific theories.

"Many whales still have vestigal legbones, leftovers from when thier ancestors crawled from land back into the sea. "

So you believe wales crawled along the ground? Eh.. somehow I don't see a huge frikken whale moving around on land...

About humans getting taller, one word: Nutrition

Does anyone here think that the white moths actually turned black? (You should know what I'm talking about).

To me, the idea that the theories of evolution and creation, along with science and religion in general being mutually exclusive, is absurd.

Science does nothing but trace the footsteps of God, shows us how some of the things we can currently comprehend have been accomplished.
It is not an alternative to God, nor does it disprove his existence. I do not think it tries to either.
Many of the greatest Scientists where devout believers in God, in one form or another.

Creationism and Evolution are not far removed from each other either.
Time is meaningless to God. Who knows how long a day, a week or an hour in Gods time relates to ours?
Or even if he exists in time at all?

The Creation has not finished, and the process of Evolution is the way it is acomplished.

It is like when you have a child. The child has to grow up. To us, the process takes around 18 years.
We are a child of God, and time is not an issue in our growth.

We started as the smallest of microbes on this Earth, and like a foetus in the womb we grew through the stages of the sea, onto land and into the trees, back down again and into the savannah. Only then did we leave the 'womb' stage of our creation. The process from ancient forms of man to the beginnings of modern man was like being a toddler and learning to walk and speak.

As far as we have evolved to now, I would say in the eyes of God we are maybe just entering adolescence. We have far, far, to go before we reach our full potential and have the collective wisdom, learning, experience and maturity gained over hundreds of thousands of years to be ready for the purpose that God has put us here and wants us for.

He wants us for something, but you don't send a child to do a man's job do you?
Only when we are fully grown will the creation have ended, and we can begin to live and know the purpose of our being.

Anyway, this is only my ideas but let my good scientific friend Albert Einstein back me up a little

Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.

There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.

Scientists were rated as great heretics by the church, but they were truly religious men because of their faith in the orderliness of the universe.

-Albert Einstein

[Edited on 23-4-2003 by kegs]

Just for the record...

Life just starting is not impossible, just highly improbable. If there is an infinate universe, then there is an infinite chance for there to be life.

"So you believe wales crawled along the ground? Eh.. somehow I don't see a huge frikken whale moving around on land... "

Uhmm...no, but it's descendants did... You can look at the fossil record and trace whales' ancestry. We're talking about MILLIONS of years here...not like the whales of today were just crawling around on land... I suppose you think it absurd that giant lizards once walked the Earth too?

But they wouldn't be considered lizards now would they Gazrok? Some don't get the idea of evolution because they can't envision things differently. This comes from their upbringing as a religious person. I'm not saying all religious people are like this, but a lot of them are.

They don't understand the concept of adaptation over a long period of time.

Originally posted by Gazrok
I suppose you think it absurd that giant lizards once walked the Earth too?

Giant lizzards once walked the earth????
I thought they were birds....lol, no wait lizards, I just don't know. Maybe they are a type of creature no longer on earth, neither lizards or birds...
The question I have is how come most tree fossils are upright??? What kind of disaster immediately covered the trees, because we all know they would have rotted before that much sediment would would have settled.

I have got it!!! They are not the remains of living creatures... They are carvings that ancient aliens did to show what their home planet was like...agghhhh... That doesn't make sense either, I just don't know.
_____________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS

Whales don't have the body for moving around on land....

You completely ignored my question!

BTW, I don't believe that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive. I also don't believe in placing a whole lot of stock in science's "best guess"

Sadly, sciences 'best guess' is much more credible than the assumption that is made in religion. There is, at least, some proof backing it up.

"You completely ignored my question!"

You completely ignored my answer...

Whales (as they are today) didn't move on land. Their ANCESTORS did. i.e. the creatures who eventually evolved into whales. They were large creatures, with short legs, who eventually found it easier to move around in water, and thus, over millions of years, evolved fins out of arms, and a tail out of legs (heck, just look at an otter, and you'll see how legs become a tail shape rather easily). Examples of evolution are all around us, every single day, and are a matter of common sense, serious scientific analysis isn't even needed, but provides more evidence nonetheless. If you choose to ignore it, that is certainly your choice...