It Is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE For Creation To Ever Replace Evolution As The Dominant Scientific Explanation For Life In The Universe??

Asked by: Sagey
  • Only a Scientific Theory Can Replace A Scientific Theory (Verified Explanation) As A Scientific Theory, Creation Can Never Be A Scientific Explanation:

    A Scientific Theory is an explanation of facts and phenomenon that has been verified by observation and experiment as being as factual as it is possible for humans to know.
    Thus any confirmed consistent objective elements within a scientific theory can be called scientific facts.
    Theories like Evolution contain many scientific facts and principles which are called Scientific Laws.
    How a Theory Is Formed:
    Firstly people are thinking creatures and have ideas.
    Developmental Stages Of A Scientific Theory:

    1: Argument: (concept, Idea, notion, general theory) If those ideas have no verified support from consensual observation nor objective experimentation, they are called Arguments, Notions, general/common theories or Ideas.
    2: Hypothesis: (partially proven argument with evidence, which can be further tested by experimentation/observation) If those ideas are presented with experimentally confirmed and well defined analysis and observational evidence.
    Note: a hypothesis must be testable using the scientific method.

    3: Theory: (A Proven/Verified Hypothesis); When a Hypothesis has been completely tested (attacked) by both Peers (fellow scientists and/or those of a higher qualification/knowledge) and those presenting the Hypothesis also as the most fun in devising a hypothesis is trying to destroy it.

    Here is how you go about making your Idea a Theory!
    This is how Creationists should approach their Creationism Arguments, if they want them to Succeed in the world of Science:

    Science is about destroying Hypotheses and Theories, not trying to prove them, which is less fun.
    The fun in science is like putting up toy soldiers and trying to knock them down.
    Stage 1: Making your Argument.
    You present what you think is true (Argument) and try to destroy it.

    If it gets destroyed, then it never gets to be a Hypothesis, it was just an argument.
    If you cannot destroy it but still have no supporting evidence found in your attempt to destroy it as trying to destroy an Argument often, but not always produces evidence for and against it.
    If there is any evidence against it, it stays an Argument.
    If there you found no evidence against it, it becomes a Hypothesis.

    Stage 2: Creating Your Hypothesis:
    Your Argument survived your attempts to destroy it, and you found no evidence against your Argument but Evidence/Observations for it, so you present both your argument and evidence found in detail as your Hypothesis, to a scientific establishment for further testing.
    Stage 3: Getting your Hypothesis to be a Theory:
    Scientists (peers) will then test your Hypothesis, with your evidence and any other evidence they find in the process of trying to destroy your Hypothesis.
    If your Hypothesis survives their attempts to destroy it, it becomes a Theory and the evidence found in the process, processes discovered, along with the evidence you presented, become the Facts and Laws within that Theory.

    Theology cannot be scientifically verified, they have no tangible scientific evidence, thus Creation cannot become a Hypothesis, nor a Theory.
    Thus the Creation Argument, cannot replace the Theory of Evolution, as it Must be a Theory to Achieve That Aim.

  • Theology is not science.

    Science is evidence based, so until Creationists start coming up with scientific evidences, it is dead in the water as a scientific theory. It is true that one cannot know the future. I can't completely discount flat earth theory, flying horses, fairies or big foot, but I'm willing to bet the farm that they and the Creationism will not make a come back.

  • There is no science in creationism

    It is entirely faith based. There is no evidence, there is nothing to teach. It is the codification of radical religious anti-intellectualism. It is the codification of imbecilic denialism.

    It is used by the radical right wing to cultivate a base of frothing, ignorant and uneducated fools who will work for cheap, eat and drink poison, and die quiet and young, wrapped in the flag and the sacred texts which betrayed what their ancestors likely fought and died for.

  • That isn't what evolution is about anyways...

    Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life so it cannot be the explanation. I am an Atheist and I even don't agree that creationism couldn't become the explanation if we found evidence that supported the existence of a god or many gods. If there was sufficient enough evidence and it was supported like evolution is, then there would be no reason to think god didn't create life. Unless we figure out how life started before we figure out that there is a god, if there is a god. In that case, it would not explain life in the universe.

  • You can't really know the future.

    Simply because public opinion is swayed towards evolution now, doesn't mean that it is "ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE" for it to be against evolution later. What if someone in a thousand years goes back in a time machine and finds that life originated from a chemical reaction or even divine creation, and sways public opinion against evolution? What if everyone becomes Islamic, and all atheists and evolutionists are sentenced to death?

    Simply because it probably won't happen doesn't mean it's absolutely impossible. The probability of life originating from evolution is incredibly minuscule, yet atheists believe that it is possible.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
The_Immortal_Emris says2014-06-25T16:49:22.090
The very moment creationists actually have peer reviewed evidence, maybe.

But that won't happen, because creationism is far more concerned with the denial of clear evidence of evolution.

Belief in creationism requires blind faith.

Understanding evolution requires only the examination of the evidence.
Sagey says2014-07-11T08:10:07.253
Well put Emris!