other than the bible, does anyone have a real source for the theory of creationism?

Answer 1

Apparently not. Someone just "asked a question" about how evolution has consistently been proven wrong and creationism true. I asked for this proof and was told to "go google it" (I take that back, a couple of religious websites were listed, one of which had some British newspaper article that didn't refute evolution). I asked several times on several such questions and have yet to see it. I would assume, since none has been provided, that none exist.

Answer 2

r66lt has is, but Answers in Genesis has it even more. The link below it to their answer to the question "where's the proof" the answer is that there is none. THEIR answer is that there is none, they claim that both Creation and Evolution are systems of axioms for interpreting data. Basically they agree that the entire source of this axiomatic outlook is the Bible. The ENTIRE source, there is no reason to even look at the Creationist view of the history of life on earth unless you accept, not the Bible but THEIR VIEW of the Bible.

They then go on to justify that with some VERY dodgy philosophy. In a nutshell they claim:
1. You cannot approach facts without preconceptions (true)
2. You must use a concept of God in order to be able to evaluate ANY proposition (not true - "is the sky blue" is answered the same way by the Atheist, the Christian, Muslim and Jew)
3. Evolution assumes an abscence of God (not true. It is an explanation of facts without God built into it. An explanation of a washing machine does not have God as part of it, it fails however to become an atheist conspiracy against dirty clothes).
4. If you believe in God you MUST be lead to their conclusion (not true. They may think any Christian who disagrees with them is a bad Christian, but their belief in God is established).

Answer 3

No, of course not.

You should be careful about the language you use - you are using the term 'theory' incorrectly. When talking about science, the word theory relates to scientific theory. Creationism is not a theory in this sense. Scientific theories have to fit the facts and are subject to rigorous scientific discussion and testing - for example through peer-review science journals. Creationism looks for facts (which it tends to distory) to back it, which is a very obvious bias in the data gathering. Not a single paper has been published or been put forward for publishing in peer-review journals. It is based on propaganda rather than science.

Answer 4

Creationism is not a "theory". Theories in the phsyical sciences are "educated guesses" that answer the known facts, and make predictions about what will be found. Such as the Theory of Relativity which fits the known facts and is testable by predicting what will be discovered, but doesn't answer all questions. Creationism is "Divine Revelation". That means we believe it, because God has told us it is so. God told us it is so through his servant Moses. As Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. Man and woman are one flesh. This is given again by the Divine Revelation of the Bible. "For a man shall leave his mother and father to be with his wife and the two shall be one of the flesh." But you can think for a moment that God taking Adam's Rib and making Eve, is something like Cloning, which would make Eve, Adam's Clone, Bone of Adam's bones, and Flesh of Adam's Flesh. And so Adam and Eve are quite literally one flesh, as are all people born of the same flesh, even as we are born of the same Earth. And we are all created by the same God. - Love your neighbor as yourself.

Answer 5

If by 'real source' you mean written then the earliest creation story of which there is still a written account is probably the Ancient Egyptian or maybe the Babylonians or some culture from that time that already had a writing system.

Answer 6

I would like to recommend a few books. Evolution a theory in crisis by agnostic Michael Denton. The Icons of evolution by Jonathan Wells. And here is a great one Darwin's Black Box tenth edition by Michael Behe. He explains Intelligent design and irreducible complexity, and also answers critics in new chapter included in new tenth edition. There is also a new book by William Dembski called the design inference. I would suggest reading these books for yourself and not just reading the critics as they don;t always adequately reflect what the authors are actually saying. These are all excellent books and the reader may be surprised what he finds in them. Icons of evolution was criticised by Eugenie Scott head of NCSE but she also admitted the scholarship contained in the book was technically correct. I also thought of another book Darwin on trial by Berkley Law professor emeritus Phillip Johnson. I challenge all readers to read these book for themselves and get an accurate portrayal of what they are and are not actually saying. Too often I hear people criticise these authors then candidly admit they have never read any of there works. How unscholarly.

Answer 7

How do you explain those who've had near-death experiences and nearly all report the same phenomenon as a tunnel of bright light and looking down on their own bodies and seeing themselves from above their own bodies? Or visitations from those who have passed on and the various ways they can communicate their presence to their loved ones still here on earth? To me, it is neither creationism nor evolutionism, it is both! God, being the source, but God is still the force behind the conception of any organism and is the origin of the process we call evolution. Why would the influence of a higher power not be possible to exist in tandem with the process of evolution? God grants us free will, among other miraculous abilities. Why would it be beyond God's scope to have his organisms develop through the process of free natural selection? God is not a tyrannical dictator. He rather guides creation. Sometimes we need His help and other times we don't. What is the scientific reason for your ability to walk, talk, and see and feel? How is it life came to be and we can't even see the invisible strings we are attached to, that give us life, from God, the Source? Scientific explanations about life still do not explain the origin. They merely describe the mechanism, and even that, remains an elusive mystery. We can't yet cure all diseases or defects, can we? Science and religion are just two different sides of the same coin, the mechanical and the spiritual faces of God!

Answer 8

I believe in the work of Intelligent Design scientists. The Bible is very reliable source . Genesis is God's eyewitness account on what happened in the beginning. If we evolved, it would be in the Bible. We are made of the same stuff. I would not have a problem with the thing that we evolved if God was behind it.

Answer 9

Yes, it's called the Big Bang theory given to us by the greatest genius mind ever Einstein and a group of other scientists.

Answer 10

What do you mean "other than the Bible, does anyone have a real source" . Like the Bible is real !!!