evolution vs. creationism

[natalie-1984]

Do you guys think that the human race was designed by aliens? Are we some kind of alien hybrid? Or did we really evolve from ape like creatures? I am starting to believe that we were genetically designed by God or some higher dimensional beings. I watched a movie called The Case for a Creator (or something like that) and it's got the wheels in my head turning.


-natalie

[Beekeeper]

Maybe or maybe not. What I do believe is that we're essentially spiritual and immortal and we probably incarnate as different beings on different planets anyway.

Zachariah Sitchin is often credited with finding the evidence for manipulation by aliens but his scholarship has drawn criticism and his credentials have been questioned.

[Sinera]

evolution is creation for me, I find this discussion highly overrated in the public view, it only deflects from the real issues, but that is the "Zeitgeist" we are in right now, the "dichotomic" debate of evolutionism vs. creationism prevails

I love Bruce Lipton's view on this (which is also that of many other open-minded thinkers), he reflects all the way I think about this, too:

„The fundamental argument about evolution is, excuse the expression, a bunch of BS. Belief Systems, that is. We have two opposing belief systems that are like two barking dogmas making so much noise the rest of us can't hear ourselves think.
On one side, we have scientific materialists who insist we got here by random chance. Their argument is akin to the belief that an infinite number of monkeys pecking away on an infinite number of typewriters would in infinite time produce the works of Shakespeare.
On the other side, we have religious fundamentalists who insist that God created the world just like the Bible said He did. Some of these believerss have even calculated that God initiated Creation at precisely 9 a.m. on October 23, 4004 B.C.E.
While these points of view, respectively, are in all possibility wrong, when taken together they paradoxically point us in the right direction. The latest science is telling us that, while Creation didn't happen in seven days, it was not the result of random evolution, either.“
- B. Lipton

Can't say it any better. :)

btw, regarding UFOS ... I love to watch the Ancient Aliens series of the History Channel, here is the first one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdir1j6zHeM

[natalie-1984]

wow! Maybe both sides are right. I'm back in this habit of thinking too much and trying to make things fit, when I should just try and stay in the now. We humans have a way of getting our minds boggled ;),

Thanks for the youtube video, I will check this out.

[CFTraveler]

As a religious person who studied anthropology, it became very clear that the debate between evolutionism vs. creationism is about power and division. What Darwin observed and dared to write about all those years ago, and what we know about biology are different but consistent in many ways- that organisms change with the environment, that some do more than others, and that the universe and the earth are far older than the fundamentalist creationists state.

The concept of evolution that is often used to debate in most nonprofessional venues is also false- you hear the idea that evolution states that "humans evolved from apes", and that of course causes anyone to recoil in disgust, but that is not what evolutionists teach or study, which indicates to me that statements like that are designed to inflame and provoke criticism, and there is no desire to educate or even put ideas back and forth that have any value towards the study of how and why we became what we are today.
Evolution does not say "God didn't create humans" because that is not up to the scientist to prove or disprove; the existence or study of God is not within the realm of science, that's what religion and philosophy are for. Evolutionism, at least the way I studied it, states that "al animals evolved from something else, including humans", with some exceptions (the croc being one of them, for example) and Human Evolutionism proposes that both humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, whatever that was. The common ancestor could have been more humanlike than apelike, or more apelike than humanlike. But all that it says is that apes and humans are related.

As to me, I don't know why people couldn't speculate that evolution is God's way of creating us, or even panspermia or alien interference isn't also God's way of creating us.
Why? Because if you believe in God (and not in a limited being called a god), there is no reason to think that God couldn't have created everything that is via the Big Bang, the Big Crunch, the Big Bubble, or the Parallel Matrix universes theory. God creates the universe (or multiverse, or whatever you want to call it) every day, every moment. Why does God have to be limited to someone's interpretation of a creation myth that was written in the bible after possibly thousands of years of oral tradition?
It is interesting to note that scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Consolmagno) in the Vatican Observatory have commented on more than one ocassion that the creation myth written in Genesis is simply leftover paganism, from ancient middle eastern traditions that persisted and were mythologized.

[Sinera]

... the Vatican Observatory have commented on more than one ocassion that the creation myth written in Genesis is simply leftover paganism, from ancient middle eastern traditions that persisted and were mythologized.

Right, Christianity has taken a lot (if not almost everything) from pagan religions. However, as much as I do like the first part, I do not like the last part of Consolmagnos' statement: ""Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism – it's turning God into a nature god."
This latter statement sends some bad vibes to me - even more in view of the latest enviromental Earth developments. Wouldn't we NEED desperately to have "nature as god" right now in this point of our history?

His statement is sth along the lines of "yeah, but in the end Christianity - if interpreted correctly and not superstitiously - is still wayyyyy better than any "pagan" cult. :roll:

I decidedly object to that. :x :evil: :wink:

I am not a pagan cultist (as a spiritual freethinker I do not belong to any religion now - but was raised as a Catholic, btw.) but I even see some great advantages in the "nature-connectedness" of the ancient animistic or nature-god(s) "pagan" cults.
Modern society has lost its connectedness to nature which the ancients still had. So I think that a kind of "nature god" (whatever it is) or "nature AS god" would still be better for our society than the anthropomorphic fear and awe-instilling guy that the Abrahamic religions created.

Therefore it is more than revealing to me that a while ago the Catholic Church uttered a statement to warn people of "nature worship" ... instead of worshipping "THEIR" God? To me that's an act of propaganda to "get rid of the competition' , since pagan cults are on the rise again among young people now.

„When one loses the deep intimate relationship with nature, then temples, mosques and churches become important.“
- Jiddu Krishnamurti

[Tutor]

neither. it is Love

[CFTraveler]

... the Vatican Observatory have commented on more than one ocassion that the creation myth written in Genesis is simply leftover paganism, from ancient middle eastern traditions that persisted and were mythologized.

Right, Christianity has taken a lot (if not almost everything) from pagan religions. However, as much as I do like the first part, I do not like the last part of Consolmagnos' statement: ""Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism – it's turning God into a nature god."
This latter statement sends some bad vibes to me - even more in view of the latest enviromental Earth developments. Wouldn't we NEED desperately to have "nature as god" right now in this point of our history?

His statement is sth along the lines of "yeah, but in the end Christianity - if interpreted correctly and not superstitiously - is still wayyyyy better than any "pagan" cult. :roll:

I decidedly object to that. :x :evil: :wink:

I am not a pagan cultist (as a spiritual freethinker I do not belong to any religion now - but was raised as a Catholic, btw.) but I even see some great advantages in the "nature-connectedness" of the ancient animistic or nature-god(s) "pagan" cults.
Modern society has lost its connectedness to nature which the ancients still had. So I think that a kind of "nature god" (whatever it is) or "nature AS god" would still be better for our society than the anthropomorphic fear and awe-instilling guy that the Abrahamic religions created.

Therefore it is more than revealing to me that a while ago the Catholic Church uttered a statement to warn people of "nature worship" ... instead of worshipping "THEIR" God? To me that's an act of propaganda to "get rid of the competition' , since pagan cults are on the rise again among young people now.

„When one loses the deep intimate relationship with nature, then temples, mosques and churches become important.“
- Jiddu Krishnamurti
I see what you're saying, but the guy is a Catholic priest (or monk) so his beliefs are going to be centered on the church he believes in. My point in quoting him was in saying that even the oldest christian institution has left this debate aside, and so should we. As you know (or maybe you don't, lol) I grew up Catholic, but go to a completely different church.

[natalie-1984]

I just started to go to church again. My pastor is awesome. He has a strong aura around him. Today he was talking about how God isn't the disconnected bearded old man that punishes mankind. He said that God is an omnipresence, that is is everywhere. And that is more of what I believe. He talks about the Law of Attraction in a round about way. And I like that as well. He is kind of a comedian and says a lot of funny things! He talked about bi-locating, and how if he could do it part of him would still be in bed ha ha!

Okay, back to the topic (sort of)... There is a lot of evidence in cave drawing and egyptian hyroglyphics that obviousely show aliens. I think that we used to be very involved with them and they helped us out a lot. I think that with all of the sightings going on and the pictures of the spaceships by the sun, that they are getting ready to communicate with us again :) .

I don't have tv so I do all my researching online. I had NO IDEA about all these UFO sightings, I was shocked! I stated googling and searching, one topic lead to another topic, and soon enough I was on some conspiracy website about reptillians! That was a new one for me! Some guy was talking about these reptillian creatures that come up from the ground and eat human children. And that the government allows them to do this so that we don't become their slaves! Man, I thought I heard it all! I guess anything is possible. But that would suck!

[Beekeeper]

I suspect the best cure for conspiracy theories is to keep reading and watching them. Eventually they proliferate ridiculously and cancel each other out through contradiction. Of course, the conspiracy theory around that is that this is deliberate misinformation.

There may be some truth in all these but most of the time you have no way of verifying, so the grain of salt approach is probably best. Don't let it shake your sense of security.

[Sinera]

Some guy was talking about these reptillian creatures that come up from the ground and eat human children.
No. They only eat hamsters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VObQfWMgmIM

So there is nothing to worry about unless you have a pet.

[natalie-1984]

Damn! Now I have to go flush my hampster down the toilet!