Can Creationism be defended without the Theory of Evolution?

Question

I've seen much debate on Creationism vs Science, but the side of Creationism usually ends up just attacking science as if that proved they were right.

Okay, then let us pretend evolution is proven wrong. How would Creationist defend against any other explanation? Such as all life has always existed and that time is a continuous loop or that humans are the only life form and anything that doesn't seem to be human is just people really good at disguising themselves. Anything would do, you need to prove your position instead of disproving every sillyassed idea anybody can think up.

"Time is a continuous loop: Still doesn't explain how things came to be" can be explained as in the future, scientists time travel back in time and plant the seeds of life. Like I say, you need to defend your explanation, not attack others. I can't prove my eyes are green by proving they aren't blue. If there are infinite possibilities (which for explanations for life, there very well may be), you have to prove YOUR CASE.

Answer 1

Their only proof is their faith, and as well all know, that is no proof at all.

Of course, creationism can be defined simply this way:

"There is not a natural explaination for the existence of the Universe, it can only have been brought about by a supernatural force such as a God or Gods."

Which is not only a ridiculous proposition, but unprovable as well.

Answer 2

That is common practice though, when you think about it. I can't defend what I think, so I will try to just disprove yours, then mine is right by default. That is why the biggest argument people of religion have against evolution is saying "but it's just a theory". I guess that equals "therefore my position is now proven."

This isn't only contained to this debate. Politicians are well known for this. I can't answer your debate question with a well thought out answer, so I will just tell you why my apponents answer is not credible. They even have the nerve to do it before the other person may have a chance to answer.

*Added* Concerning the answer stating you should read Case for Creation. I have read it. I have read "A Case for Christ" as well. Neither cleared anything up for me. Given the logic they used in those books, I could right "Case for Pink Unicorns" if you want me to. I have the spare time, it wouldn't take long. Those books really proved nothing except that anyone can right anything and call it fact if they want to.

Answer 3

Salaam Alaykum
Depends. The smart Creationists usually don't say anything, as opposed to the dumb ones who attack science (which is what Allah created!).

However, you have people called "Theistic Evolutionists". Yes, they exist in Islam and even Christianity. I'm not sure about Judaism and the other religions, though.

Theistic Evolutionists believe that Allah (God) created man using the process of Evolution.

I don't know how Christians defend Theistic Evolutionism (when I was a Christian, we Theistic Evolutionists were shunned :D). However, here's how Islam defends it:

"Was there not a time in the past when the human being was nothing to even be mentioned?" (Qur'an 76:1)

"And your Lord is Rich with Mercy. If He wished, He could remove you and bring after you whom He pleases, just like He established you from the seed of another people." (Qur'an 6:133)

"While He created you in stages?" (Qur'an 71:14)

Answer 4

Creationism can never be even a theory because even a theory requires some basis in provable fact to support the presented idea. Since there is no evidence to support the belief of creationism it can only be a religion since that is the only thing that doesn't require you to have a reason for what you claim to think is true or false.

Answer 5

No. all they have to do is help keep the money rolling in for the TV preachers. Most of the people supporting them are illiterates. You are seeing their versions of rocket scientists on here so look at their spelling and tell us your conclusion.

EDIT:
Read Gary's Quotes then go here and read them in context.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

Quote mining sucks, it is one of the worst forms of lying!
Unfortunately most of the time people are unable to,or too lazy to, check the quote against its source and the Creationists NEVER give a source beyond a name for the quote.

I did not want to take up space with a long cut and paste, but the thumbs down means I should give an example of what I mean.

Quote #2.6
[Re: "lack" of transitional fossils]

But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859).

Representative quote miners: The Theory of Evolution vs and Creation Evidence Discredits Evolution

There is no surprise here. Darwin is proceeding by his usual method of asking a question and then answering it. Creationist quote miners classically omit his answer.

In the sixth edition this appears in Chapter 6, "Difficulties on Theory", on p. 134 (in the first edition it appears on p. 172 with a different follow-up):

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time.

Besides leaving out the context, this is misleading in a subtler way when used for the proposition that there are no transitional forms. Darwin is not talking about the existence or nonexistence of transitionals here, but of an "innumerable" series of finely-graded transitionals linking together all extinct and existing forms. As he says later in Chapter XI of the sixth edition on page 342:

These causes [the imperfection of the fossil record, the limited exploration of the record, poor fossilization of certain body types, etc.], taken conjointly, will to a large extent explain why -- though we do find many links -- we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all extinct and existing forms by the finest graduated steps. It should also be constantly borne in mind that any linking variety between two forms, which might be found, would be ranked, unless the whole chain could be perfectly restored, as a new and distinct species; for it is not pretended that we have any sure criterion by which species and varieties can be discriminated.

In short, the use of the quote to imply there are no transitionals misstates Darwin's argument, intentionally or out of ignorance. Darwin was not stating that there was an absence of transitionals but, in fact, stated there were "many links." Instead, he was discussing why there are not more transitionals in an easily read pattern of gradual change. As Darwin correctly noted, where the fossil record does not approach "perfection," it is difficult, if not impossible, to tell by morphology alone exactly where any particular organism would fall within such a graduated series. Thus, such an organism might be classified as a distinct species from either the original or the subsequent ones. However, such organisms, being general morphological intermediates between different forms, as in the case of Archaeopteryx, would, along with other evidence, support an inference of evolutionary change over time through common descent. The fossil record may not be easy to read, but it is not devoid of information either.

Even if the quote stood for what the quote miners claim it does, Darwin was writing almost 150 years ago, at a time early in the scientific study of fossils and when few scientists were expecting to find "transitional forms." Much has been learned since, some of which can be seen in various articles in the Archive, such as: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, Archaeopteryx FAQs, and 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, among others.

J. (catshark) Pieret

Answer 6

Life always existed: Nothing comes from nothing

Time is a continuous loop: Still doesn't explain how things came to be

Humans are the only life form: no I have a dog

All other life forms are in disguise: where do they buy their costumes?

Got any other bright ideas? I'm just getting warmed up.

Answer 7

Do you know what I think? I think it's a person's personal opinion on whether to believe in Creation or Evolution because techically, there's no proof set in stone of either one. I believe in God because of experiences I have experienced and I sometimes wonder how there couldn't be a God without all of the unnatural phenomenons that happen. Science is just a bunch of mysteries that can rarely be proven. I personally think it's kind of fun to believe in a superpower rather than my ancestors are baboons.

Answer 8

Blame the scientists that use a observe that has a very diverse which ability from that's primary use...maximum lay people equate an thought with an assumption or hypothesis which isn't inevitably based in reality. Why is the huge Bang referred to as that as quickly as that's no longer possibly a bang or explosion? yet another obfuscation? exceptionally humorous how technology likes to be precise and right and makes use of a few words that are no longer. who's in charge for the defective suggestions? "The observe concept has numerous diverse meanings in diverse fields of wisdom, finding on their methodologies and the context of debate. In technology, an thought is a mathematical or logical clarification, or a testable sort of one in all those interplay of a series of organic phenomena, able to predicting destiny occurrences or observations of the comparable sort, and able to being examined with the aid of test or otherwise falsified with the aid of empirical fact. It follows from this that for scientists "concept" and "actuality" do no longer inevitably stand in opposition. working example, that's a actuality that an apple dropped on the earth has been suggested to fall in direction of the middle of the planet, and the theories wide-unfold to describe and clarify this habit are Newton's concept of primary gravitation (see additionally gravitation), and the thought of primary relativity. In trouble-loose utilization, the observe concept is many times used to recommend a conjecture, an opinion, or a hypothesis. in this utilization, an thought isn't inevitably consistent with information; in different words, that's no longer required to be consistent with genuine descriptions of reality. This utilization of concept consequences in the effort-loose incorrect statements. genuine descriptions of reality are extra reflectively understood as statements which could be genuine independently of what people think of roughly them." source.....Wikepedia

Answer 9

There is plenty of evidence FOR Creation:.
First, the 'Cambrian explosion'...... the millions of fossil types in Cambrian rock (oldest fossil bearing rocks) appear suddenly and fully formed and without any previous forms...IOW, there are no transitional forms.

Most well educated evolutionists, when forced to, will admit it, but very unwillingly, and even then they always want to seem to make new excuses for it. Usually they just don't say anything about it and hope noone finds out.
....
It is amazing to me that those who push evolution theory so vehemently don't even know what most evolutionary scientists have said about the fossil record....

Even Charles Darwin was honest when he confesses in 'Origin of Species'; " But as by THIS THEORY innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we NOT find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" -Charles Darwin

To the above fact, even the most world renown (evolutionary) biologists agree...." New species almost always appear suddenly in the fossil record with NO intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks in the same region. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT for gradual change". - Stephen J. Gould (Natural History , June, 1977, p.22)
"The extreme rarity (of transitional forms) in the fossil record persists as the 'trade secret' of palentology. The evolutionary tree (diagarms) that adorn our textbooks is.....NOT the evidence of fossils". - Stephen Gould (Natural History, 1977, vol.86, p.13)

The thing to remember is that evolution is still just a theory - a hypothesis, a speculation, an unproven assumption, and certainly is NOT supported by the fossil record.

According to Scripture NOTHING evolved but everything was created "AFTER THEIR KIND"....which is directly consistent with the fossil record.

"From the beginning of the Creation God made them male and female..."-- Jesus (Mk. 10:6)

Scripture says God SPOKE all things into existence with His Word:
" By the Word of the Lord were the heavens created, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.... For HE SPAKE AND IT WAS DONE; HE COMMANDED AND IT STOOD FAST". (psalm 33:6-9)

Answer 10

You really need to read

Case for Creation

by Lee Strobel

That should clear up any doubts you might have about creationism