However; regardless of ones personal views of creationism or evolutionism, cryptozoology must be available to everyone and anyone who wishes to search out (whether through lore, legend, historical reference, or field work) these hidden animals simply to allow for a better understanding and appreciation for the vast differences in animal life that exist in our world.

Excluding any person from study based on their personal beliefs would be like telling religious villagers who know of cryptids existing in close proximity to their communities that they aren’t allowed to take part in the world around them.

The question was: are those who hold to a creation model for origins allowed to participate in cryptozoology and commentary on cryptozoology on cryptomundo.

My response, which I reiterate, is that of course we are. This isn’t the place for origins debate, this is a place for news about cryptids.

Can’t we work together in this field without trying to exclude people based on what they think is true in another field?

The reflective and simple answer is, I hear you, yes, of course.

The other purpose of this moment was to serve as a safe and intelligent forum for this debate, while having everyone remaining friends and colleagues, if not lovers. This has been successful.

Now we need your opinion back within the mainstream of Cryptomundo. For example, can a positive and yet skeptical approach (click here) to Bigfoot investigations include throwing out various “Holy Grail” photos of well-known tracks? What do you think of the Russian photo and various new bits of footage that Craig has posted?

Thank you for your opinions here. Now, feel welcome, with this off your chest, to return to more specific cryptozoologically topics. In the northern hemisphere, the calendar creeps along and warm weather (with its associated higher numbers of sightings) is around the corner.

We have to get back on point, because there is a lot to discuss, everyday.

Thank you.

There are three options:

#1. You believe there is a creator.
#2. You believe there is no creator.
#3. You profess not to know whether there is a creator or not.

If you are #1 then you probably believe evolution is a planned process. This is perfectly feasible of a creator exists.

If you are #2 then you probably believe evolution is an unplanned process. This is perfectly feasible if a creator doesn’t exist.

If you are #3 then you probably don’t profess to know whether or not evolution is a planned process.

The whole point being that no one has proven that God does or doesn’t exist, and therefore no one can claim that evolution is or is not a guided process, and to do so is entirely unscientific and not based on any evidence whatsoever. It doesn’t matter whether or not you think the Bible contradicts itself, or if any Creationist believes God created morality. Naturally if God created all things then God is responsible for morality, whether morality existed before humans discovered monotheism or not.

Incidentally, I am a theist who does not believe in sin or a moral God.

But I don’t notice myself changing my opinion of anyone’s qualifications to talk about cryptozoology.

After all, crypto is the tip of the iceberg of what we don’t know. Another thing we can never know is everything behind another’s beliefs - and sometimes we have no way of knowing which one of us is right. It would be impossible, I think, and probably not desirable, for any two of us to share all the same interests. And those angles leaven our discussions, bring out the richness of the topic, and allow all of us to learn. It’s just like Meldrum analyzing tracks, Fahrenbach analyzing sighting reports, and the TBRC going looking in the field.

You need all of it. And it looks as if all of it’s here.

On with the search.

By definition a creationist must be a believer in a Creator, but I don’t think they are all “literalist fundamentalists”. Plenty of them believe in the concept of a Creator but reject the concept that the world and all the life on it was literally created in six days.

Having said that, i can’t resist a couple of parting shots;

You say;

“I won’t be so arrogant as to claim to understand why God does everything He does. But I know that He does have reasons, and I know that everything He does is consistent with His nature.”

Anyone else see a contradiction to claiming not to know why someone does something but also claiming to know that the reasons for their acting are of a certain kind? If you don’t know why someone does something, that logically rules out you being able to confidently assert that they are acting in accordance with any principle.If you suggest that everything god does must be, by defintion, in accordance with his nature, and also assert that his nature just is all loving, then your argument is fundamentally circular.

The circularity of this statement, and the way in which it enables the believer to incorporate any case into their worldview is typical of faith based belief (i.e., it is not amenable to any kind of evidential assessment). Note that this strategy is also apparent in the claim that the only reason we can make moral decisions is because we made able to do so by god.

Secondly- once again you refuse to take seriously your own claim that god is all powerful. Let me try again: IF GOD IS ALL POWERFUL THEN HE COULD DO ANYTHING. HE COULD, FOR INSTANCE, MAKE IT THAT FULFILMENT DID NOT REQUIRE A BACKGROUND OF SIN AND SUFFERING.
(Incidently, if god can make it that new born infants ‘go straight to glory’ when they die, then why can’t he do that for everyone? Clearly in at least some cases he manages to grant spiritual ecstacy or whatever without it requiring it to be preceeded by sin and suffering. why then condemn some to such a life of suffering?)

Incidentally DWA, if believers are willing to admit to the fact that their god might be not omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent (or perhaps, not the creator), then this might get round the problems of suffering and evil. However, a whole load of new problems arise if the concept of god is so changed. And, in any case, it is very rare to meet a believer (especially a creationsit believer- given that, by defintion, they are literalist fundamentalists) who is willing to retreat from this position, rather than obfuscating with the ‘God moves in mysterious ways’ evasion.

alright- thats it, no more posts from me unless its about sasquatch…