If Creationism was a real scientific theory, wouldn't it require "scientific evidence" and not "common sense"

Question

.

Answer 1

You've given me something to think about.
Scientific "evidence" isn't always reliable, and often, in the face of new discoveries, new "theories" must be made, or old ones re-thought. This is good...science should be always discovering, and always ready to change in the face of new discoveries.
"Common sense" tells me that all the "scientific evidence" is not in yet...
Common sense tells me that, no matter what science may think it has discovered, it will never discover God...
Does this mean that there is no God?
Of course not. There is a great deal science has not discovered yet, and even more science probably will never discover.
Life goes on....

Answer 2

As a former evolutionist of 20 years, I can tell you that creationism satisfies the "scientific evidence" requirement far better than evolutionism, even though both are religious, because they ultimately both must be taken on faith. It just depends where you want to put your faith.
For a good read, I would suggest "The Evolution Cruncher" by Vance Ferrell. It contains thousands of scientific facts that deny evolution and support young-earth creationism.

Answer 3

Do you have proof or feelings for the god you worship?

Big Bang fly in the face of science and the laws and principals of thermodynamics.

In the First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy cannot be created or destroyed. In the beginning to the Big Bang, there is nothing (zero-matter) present to explode, and zero energy to explode it. There are zero observations, or documented test results for spontaneous generation, let alone matter from nothing.

Expecting to have matter, and energy just show up, when none is present is like taking an absolutely empty box, and after billions of years, or any other amount of time, expect to open that box, and inside have a operational world in all its complexity. Spontaneous generation something out of nothing, used to support the Big Bang is in direct conflict with the first scientific Law of Thermodynamics.

Answer 4

There is a reason that there are no articles supporting it in any of the peer-reviewed scientific journals. They require some evidence.

Answer 5

It is reality not just a "theory" like the religion of those who BELEIVE in evolution.

Answer 6

Yes, and it would also have to be testable under the scientific method. That is why it is not science.

Answer 7

All I have to say is,,,,if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes???