Poll | Creator or Evolution?

Think about making a video, tying in today's events with our stolen history... so, wanted to solicit some info.

I have only two versions of how our world could come to existence. These are:

• The Creator aka God/Gods.
• The Bing Bang aka Evolutionary Theory

Basically wanted to see where people stand on the issue, and whether there could be other options outside of these two.

KD: Would appreciate your opinion on the matter.

Probably other people made us. We are deficient as creatures both physically and cognitively, so we're a product of other deficient beings which are guess what...people. A perfect being or creator would have made something better, stronger and definitely intelligent. lol

To be honest, if you mean that we are not the direct descendants of the proverbial Adam and Eve... I lean in the same direction. As in we were created by some iteration of the creation. At the same time it still suggests the Creator was the primary source of the creation of the world we live in. Vs the evolutionary path that is.

We are but a dream of water. The motion in universe.

By the book

In the 1882 and 1921 of the catechism (Deharbe's Large), the first question was about creation and who did it. But question one was about creating us:


By 1933, the first question in the catechism (Baltimore No. 1) was still about creation and who did it. But the question one was apparently about who made the world, which (to me) reads somewhat closer to the OP ("What or who created our realm"). As "reprinted from the 1933 edition":

I will throw my hat into the ring if you don’t mind KD.
The answer is Creator.
Most people just follow the narrative of the norms because it’s easier.
This sort of scenario could be likened to a deep pool of water that we swim in called Life.
If you can’t swim you sink into the depths and are unable to see the light of truth or breath life into the mind.
Sinking = Following the Narrative.
If you are a deep thinker with the ability to follow intuition you can swim.
Swimming = Seeing the Truth.
Sounds simple… But its not.
I had the fortunate/unfortunate experience several years ago to to have a DE as opposed to a NDE…(I died and came back)
Without going into a rant … I saw the ‘Face’ of the Creator.
The Creator is Dynamic and from the mind of the Creator flows all.
Dynamic is the Male aspect of God (I like the word God coz it’s easier to type)
But there is a female aspect of God that is Receptive.
The Dynamic and Receptive CANNOT be separated and this causes what I would call the Flow of Creation… without the Flow nothing would exist.
We as ‘Humans’ in the physical part of creation are limited creator Gods.
Hu = God.
Man = Physical organic body full of many other living organisms.
Man‘s organic influenced mind has a time lapse of a micro-second between when the body senses its environment and when it is revealed to the consciousness.
So… we RE-CREATE everything and every ‘non-thing’ every milli-second.…we’re are sort of stupid in that respect.
Our Soul which is our ‘motivator’ and true self is God… but our physical makeup and time lapse disconnects us from God.
There is absolutely no distinction between God and our Soul. (that is within us)
So living in the physical is a very creative way to be… Creative in a weird way.
Any human that can close that time gap is and will be God on Earth… The absolute Creator in full flow.
But don’t forget the Female/Receptive aspect of that condition is also there in complete balance.
That is why they are seen within and expressing a Clear Light radiance… (which is the Light and ‘Word’ of God)

Hung out with DMiTri over a decade ago. Ever since then I've believed in creation. DNA is code. See the i-ching.

"What is is what was" : Applied Epistemology viewpoint, shared by a handful, Mick Harper for example.
Cheers KD et al

NickWeech said:

"What is is what was" : Applied Epistemology viewpoint, shared by a handful, Mick Harper for example.
Cheers KD et al

Click to expand...

Steady-state model - Wikipedia ... " From the 1940s to the 1960s, the astrophysical community was divided between supporters of the Big Bang theory and supporters of the steady-state theory. The steady-state model is now rejected by most cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astronomers. The observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the steady-state model does not predict."
You gotta laugh out loud 'THE OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE POINTS TO'

In the 13th century, Siger of Brabant authored the thesis The Eternity of the World, which argued that there was no first man, and no first specimen of any particular: the physical universe is thus without any first beginning, and therefore eternal. Siger's views were condemned by the pope in 1277.

On the Eternity of the World, trans. Lottie H.Kendzierski (Marquette UP, 1964) [mainly translations from Thomas Aquinas, but the book includes selections from Siger of Brabant]

In Dante Alighieri's The Divine Comedy, Siger of Brabant is found in the Fourth Sphere of Paradise for being a positive example of Prudence, Justice, Temperance, and Fortitude. #JustSaying

Only logical choice is a Creator IMO. I think even atheists can get to this point, because nothingness would have just continued without an outside force. Or, we cannot create ourselves into existence (we are not God). The Creator is either good, indifferent (or "accidental"), or bad, and it's very hard to see "good" being the answer, and that's where something like atheism is actually born. Also, the Creator's creation (humans) isn't necessary is any obvious way, unless we get to a layered understanding where God created everything but then an angel class created us in order for the necessary, good reason to somehow "cleanse" our souls. This loses people too. But, if the question is just "Creator" or not, it's definitely Creator. Good Creator or not? Tough.