What other theories do creationists reject?

Question

Based on my previous question (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApFyUq3aVvuZr8VwxQpp7_vzy6IX?qid=20060718201901AA3CoKP ) I see that most creationists who answered don't know what the word "theory" really means in a scientific context. It doesn't mean, "guess". A theory is: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, ESPECIALLY ONE THAT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY TESTED.”
With that being said, do creationists also reject the theory of gravity? Or the theory of electromagnetic waves? Or what about the theory that the earth revolves around the sun?

Answer 1

I believe in alienism aliens planted man on earth!

Answer 2

I'm not a creationist but perhaps you should know that gravity is not a theory. It's a law. It is also not a theory that the Earth revolves around the sun. That too is a proven fact. You should have paid more attention in science class. Theorys are continually tested and if they don't hold up, they're thrown out or revised. Laws are standards.

Answer 3

" do creationists also reject the theory of gravity? Or the theory of electromagnetic waves? Or what about the theory that the earth revolves around the sun?"

No. God created an awesome universe. That was no accident.
I'm sure that there are other theories that I reject though. You would probably find theories that you aren't convinced of as well. Are you suggesting that everytime science calls something a theory, it is fact?

Answer 4

Just Evolution :)

--

To compare Evolution with Gravity or EM waves or Heliocentricity is to put Evolution at a strong disadvantage...

--

There is no evidence that proves Atheistic MacroEvolution (without Intelligent Design)...

I used to believe in Evolution. However, over a period of time I have grown skeptical of the claims of Macro*Evolution... this is largely due to the weakness of the evidence for Macro*Evolution, and the fact that the evidence, rationally interpreted does not support the overarching claims made by Macro*Evolutionists...

For scientific and intellectual critiques of evolution, see http://www.godsci.org/gsi/apol/evo/00.html .

Cordially,
John

Answer 5

As a 'creationist' - I fully reject evolution, i discover it hilarious. The encyclopedia in my domicile has in it 'the regulation of gravitation'. maximum organic regulations have as evidence a mathematical equation. guy has yet to locate the equation for gravity. Gravity isn't a concept. The heliocentric image voltaic equipment[solar in middle] - sure, of direction! yet[get this] even although the solar is the middle of the image voltaic equipment, the earth[Jerusalem] is the middle of the universe[tell me that's no longer remarkable!]. Plate tectonics - useful, however the earth is below 6000 years previous[want evidence?] I genuinely have not learn germ, atomic or specific to have know-how of them.

Answer 6

It's quite evident that in spite of your ability to copy the definition of 'theory', you still don't have a clue to it's meaning. Otherwise you would not have gone on and proved your ignorance.

Answer 7

the problem with the defintion of theroy has evolved into a different meaning.here is a very good article on it.

http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=2082