Creation Facts?

Question

Ok i just got done reading resposes to another question that was if all theists believe in creationism.

Nearly all of them stated that it was not a belief, but an acceptance of Scientific Fact. One guy stated that their was an enormous amount of FACTS to back it up.

Ok.. I would like to hear these Facts. Could someone please list them for me?

I would also like you to consider please that using a Scientific Theory that could be flawed to justify another scientific theory is not a fact.

That is funny how when this question was originally asked about evolution, an ample amount of evidence was provided. But when I ask this I get nothing. What do you suppose that means?

Answer 1

Oh come on, they don't know what actual evidence is. They'll say "look at the sky. God created that. There's your fact".

Answer 2

This is the second time you've posted this. Read the replies to the other question.

And I'm getting bloody sick and tired of explaining what scientific theory is to you fundi's because you're too afraid to become educated that you don't understand the difference between it and the lay persons meaning of the word theory.

If you want to be considered seriously, then you need to start learning at least the meaning of the terms you're spouting off.

Scientific theory means the body of related works to a given subject thats been thoroughly researched and understood. Kind of like the theory of music. Does music not exist to you?

Now, a lay persons meaning of the word theory means "guess". They are not even remotely the same thing.

Learn the meaning, and the information on the things you claim to be refuting, then come back here and we'll talk. Because until you have an understanding of things like genetic drift, mutation, covalence, etc, you cannot and will not be able to debate evolution with any accuracy and I reserve the right to get frustrated and annoyed, and to laugh at you, for your complete uneducated foolishness.

Answer 3

Well, to start with, you are correct in stating that the use of one scientific theory to justify another is incorrect. That is circular logic of a sort and is invalid.
Theories, all theories, are validated or dismissed by correlation of hard evidence. Correct theories are also _altered_ according to the collected data, the data are not changed to fit the theory.

Creationism is the belief that God created the universe and all that is in it. Period.
Fine, that's ok, He did.
What is not being considered is that He may have used such things as are described in 'Big Bang' and 'Evolution of Species' to accomplish this creation.
Remember, science tells us _how_, not who did a thing.
Some folks are so wrapped up in their pet ideas that they won't even acknowledge that there are other possibilities.
I suggest that you look into 'Occam's Razor'.

Answer 4

regardless of the indisputable fact that the creationism idea is a idea, there hasn't ever been any sturdy data to educate that there is any reason to have self assurance this style of narrative. that is usually a idea accompanied via people unaware of the perfect 2000 years of clinical progression who ought to extremely have self assurance that each and each man or woman of existence occurred suddenly extremely than gradually over the perfect 13.8 billion years. the in hardship-free words glaring data in favour of creationism is the 'note of God', from a textual content written 2000 years in the past - purely because concepts are tenacious, it does not mean that they are maximum ideas-blowing.

Answer 5

I do not know who told you that there is solid physical evidence to support creationism. There isn't. But there is belief. And, as Mircea Eliade, the great historian of religions and philosopher said: "You canot judge the sacred using the laws of the profane". We are the profane and we expect the sacred to have exactly the same laws of logic that we do. But it doesn't. That's why we cannot understand it and what we believe to be miracles.

Answer 6

everything that is known is our best guess subject to change and revision as we unmask more through time; history shows that ; so a scientific theory is only as much as we have discovered to date; it has taken us this long to learn or discover very minor scientific theories; if it was just us, why is it taking so long ; man has made it to the moon , that's it; big galaxy out there; big bang sure has a lot over us

Answer 7

Why don't you do some serious research on this subject? Far too many scientist reject evolution for this not to be a debatable issue. Most scientist who are creationist or evolutionist use 'modeling' to test their suppositions regarding their interpretation of the available evidence. Maybe you should take a look at it. I think you may be surprised as to how well this argument is going.

Answer 8

Well, there's this book, see. And the book says it's a real book, with no lies or nothing. And if a book says it ain't got no lies in it, well, I'm gonna believe that book. So that book says that creationalism is what happened. and since the book isn't lying (because it says it isn't lying) then that must be what happened, right? I mean, are you going to say Superman didn't really fly, when it's right there in all them books?

So don't you go showing me no "evidence," because I have a book! And this book says Jesus will set you on fire and eat your bones if you don't read this book!

Answer 9

Well, there's that fossil of a half rib-like, half human-like creature. The geologic record only goes to 4000 BC. Since we've begun the space program we have been able to show how the earth actually is flat, despite appearances on the surface, which backs up the Bible. Light is just now reaching the earth from 6000 years ago showing God floating far off in space as he created. We've got that scroll from 4000 BC that says "First Humans: Adam. Begat Eve of rib. Children: Cain, Abel, Seth, unnamed daughters who we will refer to as "Wife of Cain, Abel, Seth". That's all I can think of right now.

Answer 10

Scientific Theory:

Man grows food etc.
Man plants trees etc.
Man raises cattle etc.

Scientific Theory:

Man clones food etc.
Man clones trees etc.
Man clones cattle etc.

Scientific Theory:

Man creates food etc.
Man creates trees etc.
Man creates cattle etc.

Which one of these Scientific Theories is wrong?

Answer 11

Fact.....I believe and have faith in the bible. Fact...i choose to follow a literalist translation and interpretation of the Bible. Fact....according to my interpretation of a translation of the Bible, God created man, llamas, mosquitoes, the crabs, syphilis, and plague rats. Fact....according to my BELIEFS, creationism....errrrrrr.....i mean intelligent design........is fact. Now if we could just get these heretics who claim the Earth revolves around the sun burned, like in the old days, we'd be making progress.