Can anyone show me evidence in any "Scientific Journal" that "Creationism" is even a legitimate Theory.

Question

Please, no religious dogmatic websites full of convenient contrivances to try and "Look" legit. Like Snake Oil salesmen: they got something for what ails you no matter what ails you.

UH OH! Some of you people are scary! Comparing what's in the Bible (Biblical Babble) to Science is beyond the Pale!

Answer 1

FANTASY GIRL,

it was not asked if creationism is a theory. it was asked if it is a SCIENTIFIC theory.

--------------------------------------------------------------

BROTHER MICHAEL,

the evolutionary theory meets the criteria of science. the creationism theory does not. things that do not meet the criteria of science SHOULD NOT be taught in SCIENCE classes.

it is for this reason and this reason alone that teachers and professors who try to teach creationism get fired.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

WILLIAMZO,

you were not asked to show why evolution is false. you were asked to show why creationism is true.

but, let's look at the three conditions you listed:

LIFE HAPPENS:

it's not even the job of evolutionists to explain this. this is outside the realm of evolution. it's called abiogenesis. so even if you DO disprove this, you still aren't disproving evolution.

it's pretty basic though. if you understand how chemistry works (like how certain atoms stick to other atoms because of how many electrons they have in their valence shells), then it should be a snap to grasp this science.

amino acids and proteins (like the ones found in DNA) are actually molecules made of lots of atoms, but they still fit together like how atoms do. they're sort of like legos. so if you have a long train of these molecules, then only certain other free-floating molecules will stick to it. before long, this train of molecules will have a complimentary train of molecules stuck to it.

now,, if one train splits away from the complimentary train, you will have two, right? we will call them train A and train B. it won't be hard though for train A to form a second train B by picking up the little free-floating lego-like molecules. and it will be just as easy for train B to form a second train A. so now,,, the original double train has broken apart and formed into two new trains. this is replication this is life. (by the way, this exactly how DNA works. so if i explained it badly, then just think of the two trains as the left and rights sides of the double helix.)

what you need to understand is that DNA is just chemistry. plus, the simplest bacteria alive today is still WAY WAY WAY more complex than the first protobiont that formed 4 billion years ago.

now it is true that we currently don't (and probably never will) know the precise manner in which way this first protobiont formed (i.e.- we don't know if the DNA came first, or the other proteins in the cell, or the cell wall) but we have demonstrated tons of ways in which it COULD have happened.

so you need to recognize that as soon as we provide a POSSIBLE EXPLANATION, that it is no longer ok to call it IMPOSSIBLE. you follow? it certainly not IMPOSSIBLE, because we have figured out POSSIBLE way that it might've happened.

CREATIVE MUTATION:

ok, no one ever said that a lizard is gonna hatch from a bird egg. the creative mutations are believed to be virtually unnoticeable. some people argue that they move in jumps, but i personally don't think so. either way though, everybody can agree that MOST mutations are harmful. but the point is, the few that ARE better, are gonna create animals that survive better, and therefore spread their seed better. what's so hard to grasp about that?

don't expect to notice any of these mutations though. like i said, the ones that lead to evolutionary change are super small. plus, we've only been civilized for 10 thousand years, and we've only had the idea of evolution for maybe two thousand years. we've only had any explanations on how evolution could occur for maybe 300 years, and only about 150 years since we've known about natural selection specifically. noticeable accumulations of these tiny mutations would require well over a million years,, at the very minimum.

but,, you're obviously not gonna believe in that, which brings me to your next point.

LOTS of time:

what the hell are you even talking about?? who ever said that dead things come back to life?? i can't even begin to imagine what you are talking about here.

the reason volcanic rocks seem like they're millions of years old is because they burn up all of their carbon (or whatever exactly) really fast. and ordinarily it takes a long time for carbon to decay. when looking at on-volcanic rocks however, there aren't really any discrepancies.

you treat the world as if it can't regenerate. you say that after billions of years, that everything should be dust by now. that's just not how the earth works though. for example, there will always be fresh CO2 in the air as long as there are plants to make it.

the earth IS very old. we don't need to know this though in order to confirm evolution. to me, it makes a lot more sense to base the earth's age on our understanding of evolution than to base what we understand of evolution on the age of the earth. luckily for us though, we have loads of other techniques that DO confirm our speculations.

Answer 2

You obviously put your complete trust in scientists, who are more often wrong than right, which is sad. It is well known that creation scientists and their papers and research are routinely excluded from scientific journals. They are also denied tenure at colleges and often lose their jobs if they don't follow the party line. It is an attempt to shut up those who do not swallow the evolution hoax, who dare question their presuppositions and reveal that this emperor truly has no clothes. By the way, how many Nobel Prizes have been awarded for evolutionary studies?

Answer 3

you're wrong on a pair of things: Evolution is the final scientific concept we've based on the inductive evidence we've. it is no longer sufficiently supported with the aid of deductive evidence to be on the comparable point as Gravity, which a man or woman can try, because of the fact we won't be able to time shuttle. All theories are open to question in scientific concept. that could desire to by no potential be a concern. Noah's Ark isn't a concept (as you understand), yet a mythological tale (does not make it unfaithful) and has no longer been subjected to scientific study. the best challenge is that a huge form of human beings use evolution as a club to attack faith, which has no longer something to do with technological know-how and each little thing to do with non secular bigotry. Your assertion that "clever layout has been contradicted with the aid of each test you may likely think of of doing" is utter nonsense. No such experiments have ever been made and that i challenge you to call ONE. do no longer make up rubbish. There are some people who've started attempting to prepare the trials of scientific concept to "clever layout" and that can purely be for the sturdy as they locate evidence (or fail to discover it). To be a concept, there must be a hypothesis a pair of phenomenon it is repeatable and testable. in the event that they fail to try this, it won't be able to be called a concept. motivate them to attempt it. it could purely help settle this challenge ultimately. we are bored with the Creationists pretending to a scientific rigor they do no longer genuinely use and we are bored with non secular bigots attacking religions with the aid of attempting to apply technological know-how as a club. end it.

Answer 4

lol, why would you want to look in a scientific journal for creationism? That is like looking in the bible to prove evolution.

It is a forgone conclusion that science proves creation pretty closely. Beyond that, you need faith. Take care.

Answer 5

Science doesn't believe in creation; so how would you find such things in a scientific journal?
Science believes that things don't just appear...it had to be made. In this case, science would have to believe in a God who made our world since 'science' didn't make it. Yes?

Answer 6

Who or what controls scientific journals? Do you actually think they will print material that makes them out to be a lie?
Where is free speech, and honesty in science when you need it.

Answer 7

of course not, creationism isnt a theory its a story in a book that someone made up because he was feeling like he needed to spread a dogma to make a certain group of people superior to others.

Answer 8

Any theory is legitimate because they are just a belief that something is a certain way. Just like evolution is just a theory. There has been nothing that has conclusively proved it.

Answer 9

I'll be surprised if you even find a reference to 'creationism' in a scientific journal. 'Cause it has nothing to do with science.

Answer 10

Why Science is Against Evolution
The theory of evolution depends upon three conditions.

Life Happens
Creative Mutations
Lots of Time
Let's look at each of these conditions, one at a time.

Life Happens
According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals had to combine to form Frankencell, which came to life somehow. (Presumably, a lightning bolt and a deformed assistant were involved.)

The February 1988 issue of EARTH magazine is a special issue on Origins. The cover promises an article that will tell us "How Life Really Began". The article itself, however, says that scientists just don't know. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, states in that article that the origin of life is still unknown.

There are only two documented cases of inanimate objects coming to life.

Pinocchio
Frosty the Snowman
Most scientists consider these two reports to be false.

The notion that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.

Creative Mutations
Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. One does not expect a lizard to hatch from a chicken egg. Chickens have baby chickens. It is established scientific fact that like begets like.

On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Only a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are arguably beneficial. It is well known that mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.

It is claimed that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals

scales had to have mutated into hair
breasts had to have evolved from nothing
hard-shelled externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb
etc.
None of these transformations have ever been observed in a laboratory.


The notion that random genetic changes can produce creative mutations is not consistent with scientific observation.

Lots of Time
Sadly, it is well known that living things can die. This has often been observed. It has NOT been scientifically demonstrated that a dead thing can come to life. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, something dead will come to life by some method or another.

It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some critters will eventually evolve into other critters.

Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that you can toss a coin and have it come up heads 100 times in a row. But if you toss coins long enough, eventually it will happen. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.

If we observe present processes, and make the assumption that they have have been going on at the same rate since they started, we generally come to the conclusion that the Earth could not be billions of years old. Some of the processes that have been studied that give young ages for the Earth are:

Continental erosion
Sea floor sediments
Salinity of the oceans
Helium in the atmosphere
Carbon 14 in the atmosphere
Decay of the Earth's magnetic field

The old ages for the Earth come primarily from the ages of rocks, which are dated by the presumed ages of the fossils in them. Radioactive measurements of rocks are based on assumptions that were chosen to make the radioactive measurements agree with the presumed ages of the fossils.

The eruption of Mount St. Helens produced many feet of stratified rocks which look millions of years old, but were produced in days or hours. Radioactive measurements of these rocks show them to be millions of years old, too. But we know they were formed in 1980 because scientists saw them formed.

The notion that the Earth is billions of years old is not consistent with a considerable amount of scientific observation.
Conclusion
The theory of evolution is not believed because of scientific evidence. It is believed DESPITE scientific evidence. Science is against the theory of evolution.