what ARE the creationist theories?

Question

you know, besides 'god did it'. Is there anything more to it? Some peer-reviewed stuff I can go through? Because all I can seem to find is them attacking evolution, not positing any replacing theories.

(unless "god did it" is everything they've got)

joshuakane: yes, I am aware of wikipedia, thanks. I didn't ask that. I asked, what are the specific set of theories and hypothesis they are working with.

RickT: that is, again, a non-answer.

Lion of Judah: do you even KNOW what a scientific theory is? It is not a bunch of rambling non-statements and "proofs" that live only in the minds of the deranged.

PapaG: please, understand that "life is so complex, I don't understand that" is not a good argument for god. Even if I grant you your extended period of time for genesis there are still so many other missing bits and pieces in the bible, and some things they got plainly wrong. Does the moon emit light? Says so in Genesis. Wouldn't an omnipotent god, you know, realise the moon _reflects_ light?

Answer 1

Lion of Judah's answer is another lovely example of pious fraud.
Either they are half-truths, or outright lies.
I mean the one about the rate of helium 4 almost made me spit coffee on the screen!
Clearly this is cut and paste bull cookies designed to fool the foolish. Anyone with an ounce of brainmatter and an education above the 4th grade know it for what it really is; BS.
Sorry Lion, you should change your name to Lyin for jesus...

Oh and Ida, the supernatural is ALWAYS excluded because it doesn't exist.
Just thought I'd point out that small but irrefutable fact to you there...

Answer 2

Hmmm, it depends on the theist you ask. Basically it boils down to "God did it all" or "God guided evolution." Personally I'm inclined to the latter as God seems to use natural processes when possible. I don't know of any books or articles that specifically address this topic. I'll keep my eyes open and let you know if I find anything.

Part of the problem is that the majority of scientists in all fields are atheists. Most fields are very hostile towards theists. So usually the way it works is that some scientist (or team) makes a discovery that throws the religious world on its collective ear. The theists squawk about it for a while before someone with a strong science background (Behe, Hugh Ross, etc) says, 'Wait a minute, let's really take a look at this' and often it turns out that a better understanding of the world around us meshes pretty closely with a theistic or Biblical worldview. We owe a lot to the discoveries of atheists

In short there really aren't enough theist scientists (reputable ones at least) working on an alternative theory.

Hope this helps

Answer 3

“SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISTS” say that according to the Bible book of Genesis, the universe was created by God less than ten thousand years ago. They also say that the earth and its life-forms were created in six literal 24-hour days.

On the other hand, evolutionary thinking views Genesis as a myth. It teaches that the universe and the earth, with all its living things, are the product of a chance evolutionary process that spanned billions of years.

However, there are many who are uncomfortable with both of these theories. Parts of the scientific-creationist theory seem to contradict common sense and also go against the evidence we can see for ourselves throughout nature. Yet, the idea that life in all its wonderful complexity is merely the product of blind evolutionary forces seems hard for many to accept. Are these two views, then, the only alternatives?There is a third view. It is what the Bible book of Genesis itself really says

The opening words of Genesis tell us: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Do these words of Genesis say that this happened about ten thousand years ago? No, it gives no time period. “The beginning” could therefore have been billions of years ago.

Answer 4

Creationist Theories and Religion I believe stem from the human need to believe that what we do in the here and now on Earth does count for something, and that when we die it does not mean death and that's it.
People need to believe that what they do on Earth does mean something, they prefer to pass on a legacy and want to be rewarded for it.
So Creationist Theories try to maintain that there is a after-life by pointing out Intellegent Design in the works of life down here.
One popular way that the C.T or I.D. crowd use to try to justify their arguement is by using mathematics. They claim that the odds of a organism evolving to fulfil a task is very high, and because it is very high then Intelligent Design must be involved.
For example, take a silly example like the automobile.
If the I.D crowd wants to pick the Land Rover Discovery 3 and only that one as example of transportation,i.e taking someone/something from one place to another, then of course the odds are very high.
BUT there are other makes of automobiles out there, like Audi etc., and so the odds go down, and the odds go down further when you count in trains,ships,aeroplanes.
In other words, the C.T and I.D crowds try to pick a specific example within narrow and rigid guidelines when they are trying to prove their point via mathematics.

Answer 5

I've wondered this as well. I like how people can respond with 'evidence' and 'proofs' (all cut and pasted from very unscientific sources that have been refuted) but cannot actually answer the question. Are these the same people who want creationism taught in classrooms? How do you teach a 'theory' that none of it's promoters can actually describe?

Answer 6

A problem with "peer reviewed" science is that the supernatural is typically excluded. That becomes circular.

When I fell away from the superficial faith of my teen years, I felt evolution provided an explanation for "it just happened". In Darwin's time (and up until the 1980's or so), the cell was viewed as a rather simple clumping of chemicals. The Miller-Urey "life in a test-tube" experiments of the 50's assumed life was simple.

Micro-biology has revealed an explosion of complexity in cells ... they are ultra-minature "factories". To me, it is no longer even remotely conceivable that "it just happened".

Even Dr. Francis Crick, co-Nobel prize winner for DNA, argues for "directed transpermia" because life would be otherwise impossible because of the complexity. The "director" of this would obviously be a very intelligent designer.

Answer 7

A creation scientist is a person who is formally trained in a science discipline, but who approach their field of study and/or research from the belief that the universe was created by God. This listed here have at least a Masters degree in a science discipline. Many are actively engaged in research and publish in peer review journals.

Bill Hoesch is a creation scientist currently on staff as a Research Geologist, field tour guide, and speaker for the Institute for Creation Research. He received a bachelors degree in Geology from the University of Colorado and a Masters degree from the ICR Graduate School.

Answer 8

No, the BB thought does no longer say that it replaced into created out of no longer something. what's says is that we are somewhat specific approximately activities after a component referred to as the Planck epoch. The helpful difficulty with the BB thought that those human beings have is that it produces a vogue of calculating the age of the Universe as a results of fact the Planck epoch to interior of a quite small margin of blunders. That age is 13.7 thousand million hears plus or minus something like a hundred or 2 hundred million years, I overlook the blunders. it fairly is plenty too long to extra healthful with their backwoods "theology" which teaches that the Universe is at maximum a number of thousand years previous. they could't get around the maths or the evidence actually, as a results of fact they have neither of their own. so as that they lie related to the thought. that's all they have. Lies.

Answer 9

I just now found this website. I haven't read it, but it's the only reference I can find that gives some semblance of a scientific explanation of Creationism:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/

Do I personally believe in the "God did it" Creationism? Yes and no. I believe God did it, yes, but that He did it by EVOLUTION. Evolution is the process of Creation, and the world is far far faaaaar older than 6000 years.

Answer 10

does creationism and I.D. merit the label theory or should they just be hypothesis. as far as i can see they cannot put any cohesive and consistent evidence together. and other that some circus side show factoids that crumble when they are critically examined, there is nothing to show. also if the only predictive power of creationism is biblical scripture then i think you can safely say it isn't a theory.