Trueorigins Theory of Creation

quote:

---

A Theory of Creation
A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists

---

http://www.trueorigins.org/creatheory.aspI've been pondering the above page for quite a while, trying to figure out where to start the commentary. I still don't know.I think it might be good, for the creation side of the debate/discussion to have some time, to first make some comments on what they think of this theory. No real point of the evolution side jumping on it, if the creations side doesn't even like it.So creationists, what do you think of said theory of creation?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:

quote:

---

A Theory of Creation
A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists

---

​

http://www.trueorigins.org/creatheory.asp

​

I've been pondering the above page for quite a while, trying to figure out where to start the commentary. I still don't know.

​

I think it might be good, for the creation side of the debate/discussion to have some time, to first make some comments on what they think of this theory. No real point of the evolution side jumping on it, if the creations side doesn't even like it.

​

So creationists, what do you think of said theory of creation?

​

Moose

​

---

From what I've seen there is that it spends more time trying to refute Evolution than in actually proving Creationism. But then again the site is highly biased to begin with.I'll save everyone the trouble of reading this nonsense;The Theory of Creationism: Puff, God did it![This message has been edited by nos482, 09-08-2002]

I've just discovered that there is also another Theory of Creationism topic (but it is not the Trueorigins one, so this topic doesn't truely duplicate it).It is:
A Theory of Creationism, started by wj.
It is in the "Great Debate" forum, and can be found at:
http://EvC Forum: Information -->EvC Forum: InformationMoose

MooseI had a quick look. I am in basic agreement - the creationist stance is that the data is in agreement with creation. However, where we get our 'postulates' is strongly influenced by Scripture. But this does not make the 'crank handle' of the science we use any different to that of an evolutionist. Most of day-to-day science is a crank handle that turns postualtes and data into predictions or data into postulates.Do we sometimes get postulates from the data? Of course - just like mainstream guys do. The Bible declares the flood. We look at the data, we see the dinosuar footprints at many multiple levels, we see the alternating marine vs non-marine beds and we propose that the flood occurred in surges and stages. Is that in the Bible? No, and neither is the human genome sequece. That does not discredit creation or the flood one bit.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-08-2002]

Sorry Moose but I think Timothy Wallace's effort at trueorigins.org is even weaker than Plaisted's effort which I used in an earlier thread. Wallace seems to take it no further than "goddunit and the bible says so."It's interesting how Wallace claims that certain phenomenonal explanations by the "evolution hypothesis" have been empirically falsified, eg. ultimate primal cause of time, space, matter/energy; massive amounts of coded genetic information; apparent order or sequence in fossil record etc etc. What's lacking is the evidence to support such assertions.

Question, what does the human genome have to do with this post? I am a litle lost.If the bible was "infallible" as some claim to be, would it not have addressed these things. Would it have not mentioned somewhere what happened? Or is it just enough detail to be open in vaguness? I am not sure. We can not prove whether the bible is infalliable, so how can we accept creation and the flood account as the bible presents is, [outside of the Magesterium of Science on this one], you have to accept it by faith.Science is more grounded in facts and observations. It is from these observations that we make tests to test them whether they be in the world of application or in the basis of thoery.We cannot test creationism, we cannot even come up with a theoretical test for it, unless we accept it by faith. I am not postulating that we can come up with a thoeretical test for evolution, though much of the theory has these tests already in place. What, I am saying is that you cannot test things set forth in the Magesterium of Religion, these have to be taken on by faith. This Magesterium is about believing things without question or rather having faith in the belief system you hold, even though you have questions. You are to believe that what you believe is true, even if there is no test for it.Science makes predictions off the observations. The theory comes after the observations have been made, not the other way around. Besides, how can science grow if it does not take what it already knows and does not formulate hypotheses? It cannot, yet the Magesterium of Religion does not state that the belief system has to be tested over and over again and rewritten if it fails the test. It dictates that will be the way you live your life, and that system you believe in is the one true way, there is no other way. Either you are 100% or 0%. Religion leaves no room for predictions, everything you need to live your life by and how to interact with "God" - however you may define him to be, is defined quite rigidly within a system of beliefs within the Magesterium of Religion. It is taken entirely on faith or not at all.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day