From the amount of reading I have done recently, it appears that creationists (particularly Young Earth Creationists) are muddying the waters and trying to make it seem as if they have an equal or greater amount of work supporting their positions.
Absolutely. Now, its not that all the laypeople are evil, its that they as congregations are being lied to and creationists are breed to be lazy thinkers. An average person claiming that there are Creation Science Theories probably heard it from someone else and never bothered to look for themselves if there actually was. Somewhere at the top, though, there's got to be the evil liars who are propagating it all. Have you heard of the Wedge Document? <-- clicky
But with sufficient digging (I am a researcher, its my thing) a lot of it seems to be the same inofrmation over and over again, or information that has been refuted a number of times.
Correct again, Sir! We even see where the original propagater makes some sort of typo, say writing 1976 instead of 1967, and then every other creationist that uses their work has obviosuly never bothered to check anything because they're all using the wrong number. IIRC (if i remember correctly), they've even based whole calulations that they think refutes evolution on a simple typo that could have easily been found if they simply looked up the orginal source and read it for themselves.
I believe that it would be of benefit to the regular Joe who does not want to wade through all of this info to have a resource like this.
I dunno... The regular Joe who's sitting in church hatin' on evolution with the rest of the congregation is being spoonfed creationist lies faster than you can reach him with a spreadsheet. Besides, if you're not showing creationism in a positive light, then you must be one of them there EVILutionists. So why should he trust it? More than the word of god!?
Colliding branes is strictly speaking no Big Bang theory already.
Not necessarily. The Ekpyrotic model has the Big Bang as a result of the collision of two branes.
quote:The ekpyrotic model of the universe is an alternative to the standard cosmic inflation model for the very early universe; both models accommodate the standard big bang Lambda-CDM model of our universe.
Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
The start of this topic said nothing of YECism. YECism conflicts with reality right from the Y. Who cares what their theory of the origin of light is.
I think its implicit to the questioning, and to your mention of "creation science".
Its not really worth questioning if the normal scientific explanation is the answer, why even mention creationists in that regard? And the deist creationist aren't limited to explaining what when on in Genesis.
There is an abundant supply of people, including the deists, that believe in some variety of Godly creator without having any problem accepting the scientific explanations of how things came to happen.
And they're irrelevant to the motivation for this topic. From the hidden parts of the original OP:
quote:I have noticed nearly all of the debates on all evolution vs creation debates seems to be people defending very small elements of evolutionary theory.
I would like to see their theory, including back up data and researched, peer reviewed work on each of the steps in the Genesis creation week.
quote:I am interested in finding out what the scientific basis for creationist theories are.
Deist creationists don't have "Creationist theories", they just go with the science. Most of the "creation science" folks are YEC's.
The topic only makes sense if its for dscussing the YEC explanation for light.