Evolutionists claim creationism is not science because it is based on revelation. But if Genesis 1:1 is revelation, then there is a God and He did create all things. On the other hand, atheists say there is no God. Therefore, Genesis 1:1 is a conclusion based on human observation and is a legitimate scientific theory. Genesis 1:1 is scientific or it really is revelation. Either way evolution loses on both accounts
11 comments
Your first sentence is correct (aside from the neologistic term "evolutionist," but it happens so often I'll let it slide).
Your second sentence is based on pure assumption. How do you know that the source of this alleged revelation was, indeed, the god who created all things? It could have come from Satan, or some other lesser immortal being with a mischievous sense of humor. Even if it did come form the creator god, how do you know that said god was being honest? So far, you have nothing substantial to support your position.
According to Genesis there were no humans to observe anything at the time of the events of chapter 1, verse 1. Indeed, both creation stories have humanity being created well after the rest of the universe. The premise of your third sentence is wrong. You still have nothing to support your position.
Because you have given nothing of substance, the rest of your sentences are wrong. Oh, and by the way, evolution has the evidence. Evolution wins.
An arguement that, if valid, would apply to any and all creation stories.
What about Genesis 2:1? It contradicts Genesis 1:1.
Atheists say there is no evidence for the existence of any deities.
On the other hand, atheists say there is no God. Therefore, Genesis 1:1 is a conclusion based on human observation and is a legitimate scientific theory.
Except that the physical evidence we actually find does not match what we would observe if there had been a single, great global flood event a few thousand years ago, just as it doesn't match what we'd observe if this planet was created only a few thousand years ago.
Young-earth creationism was a perfectly valid scientific theory when we had little or no idea how the universe we lived in worked and no evidence that said likewise. It was decisively disproven more than a century ago.
Cretinism is not science because it doesn't follow the scientific method.
That's a pretty big IF, honey. What about Genesis 2? It doesn't correlate with Genesis 1. Did that god of yours create the world twice, in different orders?
Atheists say there's no evidence for any gods.
IF it's a legitimate scientific theory, it must have passed the scientific method, dolt. When was it peer-reviewed? Oh, and eyewitness account is the LEAST reliable form of evidence.
No, evolution isn't involved at all, as you only talk about the beginning. That's abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is change in already existing life.
"Evolutionists claim creationism is not science because it is based on revelation."
Well, no. We don't KNOW that it's based on Revelation. It CLAIMS to be revelation, but has never provided evidence for that.
Generally, Creationism isn't science because it works backwards, from Goddidit to the evidence it filters for the desired conclusion. That's not how science works.
"But if Genesis 1:1 is revelation,"
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
