Creation Science Challenge

[Nonpareil]

Creationists say that evolution is wrong, that the earth couldn't have been formed except through God's will, and that humans didn't evolve. In fact, they deny that evolution works at all.
But the major flaw that I've noticed in their arguments is that all they can do is tear evolution down (and they're not very good at that). They never, ever come up with an independent theory (that isn't Bible-based) that states that creationism is the right way to go. All they can do is say that evolution isn't the right one, so creationism must be it.
Can any of the anti-evolutionists on this site actually come up with an independent theory that supports creationism without bashing evolution?

EDIT: If this has been asked already, my apologies. Feel free to ignore it. But if it has been asked already, could you give me a link to the last thread?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Creationists say that evolution is wrong, that the earth couldn't have been formed except through God's will, and that humans didn't evolve. In fact, they deny that evolution works at all.
But the major flaw that I've noticed in their arguments is that all they can do is tear evolution down (and they're not very good at that). They never, ever come up with an independent theory (that isn't Bible-based) that states that creationism is the right way to go. All they can do is say that evolution isn't the right one, so creationism must be it.
Can any of the anti-evolutionists on this site actually come up with an independent theory that supports creationism without bashing evolution?

Does it have to be a scientific theory, or will a metaphysical one do?
Are you talking about YEC or ID or both?

 

[Nonpareil]

Does it have to be a scientific theory, or will a metaphysical one do?

A scientific one, please - though metaphysical ones could be interesting, so feel free to post them.

Are you talking about YEC or ID or both?

Either one.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Don't anyone dare mention quantum mechanics.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

A scientific one, please - though metaphysical ones could be interesting, so feel free to post them.

Either will do.

There aren't any. There's no scientific support for either theory. You could defend the possibility of ID using a part-scientific argument which suffers from philosophical and theological flaws and YEC can only be defended with bizarre, supernaturalist metaphysics.

 

[Nonpareil]

There aren't any. There's no scientific support for either theory. You could defend the possibility of ID using a part-scientific argument which suffers from philosophical and theological flaws and YEC can only be defended with bizarre, supernaturalist metaphysics.

Than my point has been proven, and this thread can end here, its purpose accomplished.
I was just curious.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, as you probably realize, nobody on Earth wants creationism for creationism sake. They want creationism so their Bible (or other suitable holy book) can be 100% literally correct.

The purpose isn't even as much to have a theory of how life evolved. I suspect that if it weren't for that Genesis part of the Bible, most of them wouldn't even give a flying f-word about how life really started. The purpose is basically to be able to tell oneself with a straight face, "my holy book is 100% correct, nothing contradicts it, hence I'm 100% sure I'll go to heaven."

So asking them to come up with a theory for it that's not Bible-based is IMHO a bit cruel. It's like asking someone to make the case for communism without basing it on Marx or Lenin.

On second thought, it ought to be funny. Cruel, but funny. Forget I said anything

 

[Nonpareil]

On second thought, it ought to be funny. Cruel, but funny.

I live to entertain.

 

[Beerina]

Creationists say that evolution is wrong, that the earth couldn't have been formed except through God's will, and that humans didn't evolve. In fact, they deny that evolution works at all.
But the major flaw that I've noticed in their arguments is that all they can do is tear evolution down (and they're not very good at that). They never, ever come up with an independent theory (that isn't Bible-based) that states that creationism is the right way to go. All they can do is say that evolution isn't the right one, so creationism must be it.
Can any of the anti-evolutionists on this site actually come up with an independent theory that supports creationism without bashing evolution?

EDIT: If this has been asked already, my apologies. Feel free to ignore it. But if it has been asked already, could you give me a link to the last thread?

Computers have shown evolution, and it's key concept, gradient descent, work just fine to solve problems and adapt things and generate new information. Indeed, this was known before computers, technically speaking.

The only question is whether actual atoms and chemicals and environmental pressures and reproduction would yield change. Given this is exactly how such is done in simulations, I don't see why it is even an issue anymore.

 

[shadron]

I would assume that if there were one such non-evoltion theory it would be touted by some scientists somewhere. The only alternatives only differ in small respects to modern evolution (as in Lysenchoism, which only differs in one major tenet and has been thoroughly criticized) or the two crazy competitors, creation science and Intelligent Design. And then, of course, there are those who disagree about specific mechanisms and explanations within evolution. Many do combine evolution inside a creative designer idea (old earth creation, most common in non-evangelical religious circles) and simply live with whatever relatively small cognitive dissonance that that raises.

Insofar as I've read anything by non-evolutionists on the site (and as far as I've been able to reasonably assume that is what they are), it has all been classical young-earth creationism that they claim is correct.

 

[Psi Baba]

Creationists say that evolution is wrong, that the earth couldn't have been formed except through God's will, and that humans didn't evolve. In fact, they deny that evolution works at all.
But the major flaw that I've noticed in their arguments is that all they can do is tear evolution down (and they're not very good at that). They never, ever come up with an independent theory (that isn't Bible-based) that states that creationism is the right way to go. All they can do is say that evolution isn't the right one, so creationism must be it.
Can any of the anti-evolutionists on this site actually come up with an independent theory that supports creationism without bashing evolution?

EDIT: If this has been asked already, my apologies. Feel free to ignore it. But if it has been asked already, could you give me a link to the last thread?

No need to apologize, but yes, it's become painfully obvious to critical thinkers that all arguments for creationism (or its tricksy false alter-ego Intelligent Design), are purely refutation-based. When all the layers of circular reasoning are stripped away, one sees that there is no real theory, just a refuting of evolution. I've said before that the litmus test is to ask an IDer to explain the "theory" of Intelligent Design without once mentioning, either directly or indirectly, the concept of evolution. They can't do it. All the arguments come back to the false dichotomy that you've observed.