Amazon.com Widgets
  • If you wanted to be technical...

    Actually mythos is better than scientific methodology. It is a closed-ended functional explanation for the things in the universe and no given processes are really capable of disproving them with the only thing offering a failure of the system being the system, or theological mapping, itself; for instance Norse religion fails because Ragnarok already happened. Most religions actually self terminate.

    In Creationism (not Young earth Creationism) the only counter evidence that would provide a scientific problem is abiogenesis. So far so good.

  • No, not because I dont believe in creationism, but because I can back creationism up WITH science

    Creationism IS science. I simply don't believe in most evolutionists theories about how the universe came into existence, as something cannot come of nothing- if this were so, many things would keep popping out of thin air. That would be quite a havoc wouldn't it??

    Something needs to be created by a being not bound by time and that being is God.

  • Creation is science

    Creation is supported by science. Evolution is disproven by science. Creation is the most supported explanation for the origins of the universe ever available to the scientific community. There are tons of PhD scientists who agree and have evidence to back it up that work in astrophysics, genetics, geology, and every field of science out there. Iv had the privilege to here about their scientific findings directly from them, and I cannot disagree with creation. Its not my own opinion, its just the way things are. I would have to deny Science in order do deny creation. You can disagree with me, but ill agree with the experts

  • Yes it is

    Creationism is more logical. I want some one to explain how a random explosion that just decided to explode from something that just existed made a planet so perfect with conditions so exact to sustain such intelligent life just happened. Listen to this A creator more powerful than anyone or thing made the universe and made the perfect conditions for us.

  • Well, beneath science

    Is the ideology that truth can be discovered by naturalistic means (what we observe in nature using our five senses). Now this ideology does exist in christian thought and creationist thought. The fault of this question is that it doesn't acknowledge that Creation theory does use scientific method in it's hypothesis. I think the what the author of the question is truly asking is, does naturalism (that everything can be explained by natural means) supersede creationism (which, as well as science, includes other methods for discovering truth or fact). So I say yes it's "better" because creation does not limit itself to the discovery of truth by mere natural methods, yet also includes them.

  • CT is primary and science 2nd primary.

    Everything needs a cause; not only because everything is a consequence but also because everything is changing. Creation theory does not defy Science as Science is a deductive study and we have no data/information about the universe, before the big bang. The reason scientist argue otherwise is because of absence of Data but hello! Logic lies right in the void of confusion!

    I support the Creation theory because our life is not only deductive science but also philosophical metaphysics.
    I believe "Science is the sarcasm of Almighty's providence".

  • Not much is better than Science.

    Science has been the driving force of much of human progress for the last several centuries. While science has made some heinous acts possible, this is vastly outweighed by its enormous benefits. To list just a few:

    1. Vaccinations
    2. Antibiotics
    3. Computers
    4. The internet
    5. Automobiles
    6. Refrigerators
    7. Air conditioning

    And, of course, this list is just the tip of the iceberg. Some people may argue that the CONs of science outweigh the PROs, this is unlikely to be correct. Even if you only credit science for extending life expectancies by 10 years, this equates to 70 billion life-years for just todays population, which equates to roughly a billion lives. Thus, even if science is responsible for 500 million deaths, the PROs still outweigh the CONs from a utilitarian perspective.

    Creationism, on the other hand, has caused very few (any?) benefits and has create social opposition to some fields of science, thus reducing the benefits they create.

  • An allegory at best.

    Most of you know what an allegory is. A story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one. One trait that many allegories have is things that speak that would not such as a talking animal. Obviously, a talking snake would be good example of an allegory Satan.

    One thing I always thought was odd was Eve's response to the snake. Not that she ate the fruit but her initial reaction.

    Genesis 3
    1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, “Yea, hath God said, ‘Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”
    This was her reply:
    2 And the woman said unto the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden,
    3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, ‘Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it,lest ye die.’”
    In reality, if anyone ever had a snake talk to them, their initial response would be something like "Holy sh*t, a talking snake!" They would not just calmly take on a conversation like it is normal.

    Obviously, Genesis was an allegory and not based on true events. Seeing that Genesis is their creation story, then we must admit that their creation story is made up and is not factual.

  • No, not because I dont believe in creationism, but because I can back creationism up WITH science

    Creationism IS science. I simply don't believe in most evolutionists theories about how the universe came into existence, as something cannot come of nothing- if this were so, many things would keep popping out of thin air. That would be quite a havoc wouldn't it??

    Something needs to be created by a being not bound by time and that being is God.

  • Which has predictive power

    The most objective way I can think of to judge two different understandings of the universe is to look at their predictive power. Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, etc. are all meaningfully tied with reality and explain phenomenon occurring right now, as well as being capable of predicting future ones. The unfalsifiability of creation theory is its weakness; as it makes no such predictions of the future or even verifiable explanations of the present.

  • Creation isn't a theory, it's a story.

    And while it's a fun story to tell kids at bed time, it is criminal to try and substitute it as reality.

    Literally ALL the evidence that exists has been thanks to science about our creation, and creationism has done nothing but resist progress.

    I mean no offense when I say this, but there's no other way to put it lightly.

    If you think evolution is flawed, you're wrong.
    If you think creationism is right, you're ignorant.
    If you think they are on equal grounds, you're making a decision based on emotion and not reality.

    Again, I'm not calling anyone stupid. But you can't peddle this on to future generations and expect things to get any better.

  • It makes no sense

    Creation theories confuse me alot. Some include the theory on dinosaurs or the theories on how light from stars come to earth. I have grown with science so I admit I am more biased to science but it makes more sense. Creation theory of dinosaurs is that they are peaceful herbavors until Adam and Eve ate the fruit making them carnivorous. This confuses me how a large animal with teeth uses them for eating fruit and how a person nothing to do with the animal causes them turn evil (and Adam and eve probably would have been eaten being so close to the dinosaurs).

  • Creationism is Naive and Absurd, Can Never Be Accepted As A Theory:

    Science is mostly Inductive, but also has some deductive elements in it's logic. Creationism is entirely Deductive with an Unverified, Irrational and somewhat Naive primary premise.
    Since the primary premise of Creationism is Unproven, and Subjective, (God is the Primary Mover) all Conclusions are also Inconclusive and Subjective. Thus it cannot be scientific, since the Scientific model needs to be Conclusive in order to derive Predictions from it.
    Because Science is about Predictability.
    Creationism has absolutely NO PREDICTABILITY, thus it can never compete with Science, and Creation cannot ever be a Scientific Theory, because Scientific Theories need to have Predictability.
    No Predictability = Not A Scientific Theory.
    How can Creation (by God) be Predictable, because the result, depends on God's will, which itself is unpredictable.

  • Yin and yan

    The THEORY and practice of religion is not inherently better than any THEORY and practice of science. They are both points of view and when broken down to personal value neither outweighs each other. Science and religion go hand in hand and the differences between the two are political. A huge fallcy this motion says is that creation theory is better than science. What part of science? Your telling me that one religious theory is better than the entirety of science? That's is obviously wrong. On a more practical level the western world is based off of science. There is no escaping it. Science relates to fact. But one thing people don't get is just because science is fact and evolution is real (which it is), it does not debunk creation. At all. Even science says nothing comes from nothing. So give it a rest people

  • Because Creationism is also Science

    Creationists use the same scientific evidence just like anyone else does. The problem is how one interprets the scientific evidence. Many people are great, intelligent scientists, but they are poor philosophers and thus misinterpret the evidence so that it will follow their ideas. Science is built on philosophy. Bad philosophy results in bad science, and good science requires good philosophy. Why? Because science cannot be done without philosophy. Philosophical assumptions can dramatically impact scientific conclusions. Science doesn't tell us anything-scientists do. When those scientists who interpret the data let their personal preferences or unproven philosophical assumptions dictate their interpretation of the evidence, they do exactly what they accuse religious people of doing-they let their ideology dictate their conclusions. I personally believe in the creation theory because the evidence I've seen from science so far, when well thought out, points to a creator.

  • Creation by whom and for what purpose?

    I find it rather odd how humanity has and continues to evolve and advance we still continue to involve and teach ancient myths as fact. Im afraid science has by far, contributed far more than any religion has in terms of understanding where humans beings come from, what we can do, and unlocking untold mysteries. It continues to do so today and will continue to do so.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
SweetTea says2014-08-10T11:18:46.550
Are we comparing Creationism to Science (as a whole)? Or are comparing to the Big Bang? If it's the latter, both are "theories".