Anyone know creationists that believe this?

[Ryft]

Creationists that I know: Change is limited; evolution can occur, but only on a small scale within species. Dinosaurs? Oh, they didn't get on Noah's ark because they were creatures created by man within a period of less than 2,000 years from genetic experiments. Anybody else know anyone who knows creationists that believe that dinosaurs were created by genetic modification and/or selective breeding?

Well, I know me. Does that count? When I became Christian I was a young-earth creationist who believed that sort of thing. It was inspired mostly by the sort of material that my mother used to read, such as Seventh-Day Adventist books (Ellen White believed dinosaurs were "confused species" produced by "amalgamation" and this is why God destroyed them in the flood) and stuff by Rene Noorbergen (who drew extraordinary conclusions from "ooparts" or out-of-place-artifacts). My rather vivid imagination took stuff like that—in addition to other young-earth creationist beliefs like pre-flood populations being so much smarter and longer-lived because they were still close to the original perfect creation—and created an antediluvian society that was far more technologically advanced than we would expect.

No, I am not kidding. And I just hit "Post Reply," which means I now get to live with this being public knowledge.

[libalchris]

I used to believe it myself. I'm actually a former seventh day adventist.

[Polaris]

I've never met a Creationist, nor did I know any existed. I did know that there was talk in the South (well the South plus the now [used to be Democrats] Red States that there were not exactly friendly to evolution in the early 20th century, but I thought that was a thing of the past until I saw atheists whine about creationists constantly.

The closest I know of is a simplified version of Intelligent Design (though detached from its Creationist origins of course), which is evolution for people who still like to believe God is in control. When you think about it, it does offer an explanation for the evolution of man (but I doubt many of you would ever consider this, since it is taking the easy way out), which many scientists believe was just a fluke.

[libalchris]

I've never met a Creationist, nor did I know any existed. I did know that there was talk in the South (well the South plus the now [used to be Democrats] Red States that there were not exactly friendly to evolution in the early 20th century, but I thought that was a thing of the past until I saw atheists whine about creationists constantly.

The closest I know of is Intelligence Design, which is evolution for people who still like to believe God is in control. When you think about it, it does offer an explanation for the evolution of man (but I doubt many of you would ever consider this, since it is taking the easy way out), which many scientists believe was just a fluke.

Depends on the Intelligent Design advocate you talk to. Some ID advocates like Michael Behe accept the idea of common descent, but not the Darwinian mechanism, and believe that it was guided by a creator. Many ID advocates though, like the folks at the discovery institute, are creationists hiding under the guise of "intelligent design"

Myself i lived in a very very Christian town, and basically every one there was a creationist.

[Polaris]

I've never met a Creationist, nor did I know any existed. I did know that there was talk in the South (well the South plus the now [used to be Democrats] Red States that there were not exactly friendly to evolution in the early 20th century, but I thought that was a thing of the past until I saw atheists whine about creationists constantly.

The closest I know of is Intelligence Design, which is evolution for people who still like to believe God is in control. When you think about it, it does offer an explanation for the evolution of man (but I doubt many of you would ever consider this, since it is taking the easy way out), which many scientists believe was just a fluke.

Depends on the Intelligent Design advocate you talk to. Some ID advocates like Michael Behe accept the idea of common descent, but not the Darwinian mechanism, and believe that it was guided by a creator. Many ID advocates though, like the folks at the discovery institute, are creationists hiding under the guise of "intelligent design"

Myself i lived in a very very Christian town, and basically every one there was a creationist.

Well myself and the Christians I know (most of them at my old Church were either doctors or scientists so that may explain it) or at least they never lead me to believe otherwise, believe in evolution and just add God as the guiding force. I think we started as evolutionists and then just fit our religious beliefs into that mold instead of the other way around.

[Reforged]

Depends on the Intelligent Design advocate you talk to. Some ID advocates like Michael Behe accept the idea of common descent, but not the Darwinian mechanism, and believe that it was guided by a creator. Many ID advocates though, like the folks at the discovery institute, are creationists hiding under the guise of "intelligent design"

Myself i lived in a very very Christian town, and basically every one there was a creationist.

Well myself and the Christians I know (most of them at my old Church were either doctors or scientists so that may explain it) or at least they never lead me to believe otherwise, believe in evolution and just add God as the guiding force. I think we started as evolutionists and then just fit our religious beliefs into that mold instead of the other way around.

If your religious beliefs are interchangable to the point you can more or less mold them around the facts is there really any point in hanging onto them? At some point it has to be painfully obvious its being used to fill the gaps in our knowledge we don't yet have enough data to cover.
What happens when that gap becomes smaller yet again due to human advancement? Will the concept of God retreat further back into the gap? When is that gap too small to hide in?
At what point are we to admit religion is the equivilent of an aging band-aid on a gunshot wound it can't possibly treat? That band-aid is no more a substitute for proper medical treatment than faith is for research.
Why humor it?

[Gambit]

---

Flood geology? You mean creotards still try to sell that idiocy? I would like to hear any creotard tell me what the first thing laid down by a flood would be and what is seen in the geological column. They can even use the grand canyon for ease.

---

---

Well myself and the Christians I know (most of them at my old Church were either doctors or scientists so that may explain it) or at least they never lead me to believe otherwise, believe in evolution and just add God as the guiding force. I think we started as evolutionists and then just fit our religious beliefs into that mold instead of the other way around.

---

If your religious beliefs are interchangable to the point you can more or less mold them around the facts is there really any point in hanging onto them? At some point it has to be painfully obvious its being used to fill the gaps in our knowledge we don't yet have enough data to cover.
What happens when that gap becomes smaller yet again due to human advancement? Will the concept of God retreat further back into the gap? When is that gap too small to hide in?
At what point are we to admit religion is the equivilent of an aging band-aid on a gunshot wound it can't possibly treat? That band-aid is no more a substitute for proper medical treatment than faith is for research.
Why humor it?

I know the question wasn't addressed to me, however, I believe there is a reasonably probable answer. As long we still have unanswered questions about the origins of the universe; or, people do not understand the accepted answer, there will always be people who believe in God(s). You have to remember that not everyone who believes in a creator also practices a religion.

I still do not think that belief in God(s) presents the human race with a problem; but rather, it is organised religion, controlled by fallible humans, which stops us from progressing.

[Polaris]

Well myself and the Christians I know (most of them at my old Church were either doctors or scientists so that may explain it) or at least they never lead me to believe otherwise, believe in evolution and just add God as the guiding force. I think we started as evolutionists and then just fit our religious beliefs into that mold instead of the other way around.

If your religious beliefs are interchangable to the point you can more or less mold them around the facts is there really any point in hanging onto them? At some point it has to be painfully obvious its being used to fill the gaps in our knowledge we don't yet have enough data to cover.
What happens when that gap becomes smaller yet again due to human advancement? Will the concept of God retreat further back into the gap? When is that gap too small to hide in?
At what point are we to admit religion is the equivilent of an aging band-aid on a gunshot wound it can't possibly treat? That band-aid is no more a substitute for proper medical treatment than faith is for research.
Why humor it?

Well see the only thing I change is the first part of Genesis. Most of the rest, I view either as history or legend history (aka it's based off history, but the details have become corrupted over the years).

[Anomalocaris]

If your religious beliefs are interchangable to the point you can more or less mold them around the facts is there really any point in hanging onto them? At some point it has to be painfully obvious its being used to fill the gaps in our knowledge we don't yet have enough data to cover.
What happens when that gap becomes smaller yet again due to human advancement? Will the concept of God retreat further back into the gap? When is that gap too small to hide in?
At what point are we to admit religion is the equivilent of an aging band-aid on a gunshot wound it can't possibly treat? That band-aid is no more a substitute for proper medical treatment than faith is for research.
Why humor it?

Well see the only thing I change is the first part of Genesis. Most of the rest, I view either as history or legend history (aka it's based off history, but the details have become corrupted over the years).

If the whole foundation of why the world is related to god is not to be believed, then hardly would we credit any old time goat herder if he says he spoke to god or try to explain what he couldn't possibly understand in terms of god.

If foundation of bible is false, and its superstructure has no reason to be believed, why is it taken to have any unusual truth value?

[Minimalist]

Well see the only thing I change is the first part of Genesis. Most of the rest, I view either as history or legend history (aka it's based off history, but the details have become corrupted over the years).

Okay - so you aren't a fundie. There's hope for you.