You know what...Shame on anyone who teaches creationism...?

Question

When people actually grow up thinking there were two humans, magically created, that started our race, that makes me sick. Does it make you sick too, or am I the Devil?

Answer 1

Taxpayer money is being used to teach creationism.

Answer 2

I think anyone can believe whatever they want. It's their life and as long as it works for them, why not. Each to his own, right?However, when they start imposing their beliefs on others, that's when it bothers me. I just hate how some people can't even open their minds to other possibilities even for one tiny fraction of a second. The way they believe that they are absolutely right just makes me want to reject what they're trying to preach. I'm a Catholic but I don't take the biblical creation story literally (I don't know too much about the evolution theory other than the basics although I do think it is more logical than the Adam and Eve one), although I do believe in a higher supreme being. And I hate how some people immediately chastise me for not being a "true" Christian. I think people have the right to be exposed to both accounts and then they can decide for themselves.

Answer 3

Shouldn't make you sick to think you were created by a wise God and have been given a high standing as His Image bearer and put in control of all the rest of the creation on earth.
I would think the insignificance of evolving and being no better than a grown up germ would lead to a meaningless and depressing life. If its only a matter of the strong survive who knows but the flies may take over next.

Answer 4

I don't think you are the Devil at all, although I do disagree with your statement. "Magic" has nothing to do with the belief in God. Every faith has some sort of connection to the creation of life. As a Christian I do believe in how the world was formed by God, but I also believe that science plays an important role in discovering and learning about our world. I am notas strict of a creationist as some might be that share my faith. I do believe both can go hand in hand.

Answer 5

Well, you aren't Satan, but you are certainly thinking the way he would. He doesn't want anyone to believe in the wonder of creation. And, since you mentioned the Devil---where did he come from?. He was once a spirit son of God, but because he was created with free-will, he rebelled against his Creator and other angels followed his sinful course and are now demons and are now trying to mislead the entire inhabited earth.

Answer 6

It doesn't really make me sick. People should be given their options and they should research and find what feels right to them. They shouldn't just follow something because someone else told them to. You must be on an ego trip. The Devil, not just some lesser demon but the Top dog himself.
Love & Light
Sharon
One Planet = One People

Answer 7

I agree with you. It is ridiculous with all the information and scientific evidence that so many people choose to believe in mumbo jumbo from a seriously altered book written by uncivilized humans. Its their choice though I guess. Bizarre. And evolution doesn't mean you have to stop believing in God. Many scientists do believe in God just not in the literal veracity of a story made up thousands of years ago.

We're both the devil I guess. ;-}

Answer 8

I probably won't win best answer for this but here goes...
Believing in creationism against tons of evidence would be crazy, but the fact is that there is a LOT of evidence that points to an intelligent designer. The main field of evidence is in molecular and cellular biology. Go to school. Learn a little more and quit bashing those of us who are educated!

Answer 9

Not the devil, but someone who has selected a specific worldview.

I recommend http://www.answersingenesis.org to you. This site has some wonderful articles that use the same facts used to teach evolution, and shows how they can also support creationism.

Answer 10

You are not the devil but you are narrow-minded and others are too by not believing and giving God a chance in ur life. Sad 4 you and those who believe like u! Evolution can't be proven so why force it on others like you say about creationists. Practice what you preach,please!

Answer 11

Prayerfully you are not because an eternity in fire would not be too good, don't ya think? Try seeing if you can read this from the Institute for Creation Research. It is long, I know, but really states a lot from a totally scientific viewpoint. Blessings =)

How Coherent Is the Human Evolution Story?
by William Hoesch, M.S.

"Australopithocines evolved into Homo erectus around 1.5 million years ago and Homo erectus, in turn, evolved into Homo sapiens around 400,000 years ago." This is presented to school children as no less certain than Washington's crossing of the Delaware. The statement makes dual claims: (1) there are fundamental anatomical differences between these three categories, and (2) each occurs in the right time frame. Let us examine these claims.

The anatomical differences between these three groups must be very substantial for the statement to have any meaning. Any anthropologist should be able to spot a Homo erectus on a crowded subway train, even clean-shaven and in a business suit, as different from modern humans. Not so. In fact, leading anthropologists Milford H. Wolpoff (University of Michigan), William S. Laughlin (U. of Connecticut), Gabriel Ward Lasker (Wayne State U.), Kenneth A. R. Kennedy (Cornell), Jerome Cybulski (National Museum of Man, Ottawa), and Donald Johanson (Institute of Human Origins) find the differences between these fossil categories to be so small that they have wondered in print if H. sapiens and H. erectus are one and the same. Fossils classified as H. erectus all share a set of "primitive" traits including a sloping forehead and large brow ridges, yet these all fall comfortably within the range of what are called normal humans today. For example, the very same traits are found in some modern people groups, including Eskimos! Eskimos might not like being referred to as "primitive" humans, yet evolutionists must do so if they are to be consistent. There are a lot of problems with the continued use of this taxon, yet it is essential to the evolution story.

The second truth claim embedded within the statement given to school kids has to do with these fossils occurring in the right time frame. For example, fossils with a H. erectus anatomy should be found exclusively in rocks that are older than those with its youthful descendents, "anatomically-modern" humans. This is decidedly not the case. Putting aside the validity of age-dates for a moment, the range for H. erectus is usually given at between about 1.5 million years and 400,000 years. Studiously avoided in most museum depictions is the fact that fossils with a H. erectus anatomy that are younger than 400,000 years number well over 100, including some as young as 6000 years. Even more amazing is this: fossil humans that are easily interpreted as "anatomically modern" (i.e., non-H. erectus) have been found in rocks that are much older than 1.5 million years. From a dozen different sites have come cranial fragments, including one good skull, teeth, several arm and leg bones, a fossil trackway, and stone structure that each screams out "modern human." The trackways at Laetoli, Tanzania, dated at 3.6 million years, and tibia (leg bone) and humerus (arm bone) from Kanapoi, Kenya, dated at 3.5 million, are especially significant for these pre-date even "Lucy," the celebrated upright-walking ape. These embarrassments have been revised, reinterpreted, and re-dated, but will not go away.

Keep these things in mind the next time you hear of a "missing link" being reported, for example, between H. erectus and modern man (as has been in the recent popular press). God made His creatures to reproduce "after their own kind," and it appears from the fossils that they have done just that.