Just wondering, what alternative theories do you have on the creation of the universe? Since both evolution and creationism are theories (one obviously much more flawed than the other, no prizes for guessing...), what do you think it could be?

Stoyve

more correctly evoultion is only a hypothosis not even a theory

personally i liked that cheese one the other day...

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

more correctly evoultion is only a hypothosis not even a theory

personally i liked that cheese one the other day...

...fair enough.

Cheese one? Didn't see that one.

Stoyve

LostCause said that there were other theroys, I am not sure what they are. Someone made It and It made Itself seem to cover all the bases unless you want to go into Someone helped it along.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

more correctly evoultion is only a hypothosis not even a theory

personally i liked that cheese one the other day...

A theory IS a hypothesis... when it's proven correct it becomes a scientific law.

To the main question though, your question is a paradox. You say what theories other than creationism do you have that explain the creation of the earth... lol. There's no possible explanation for the CREATION of something that doesn't fit into the definition of creationism.

I have noticed that it is very hard to argue with creationist. When "God did it" is an acceptable answer debate is pretty much imposible.

i have a theory that the only reality is the present moment, and that there are no laws governing it. therefore, neither god, nor evolution could have brought us to this point, because they hold no sway over the freedom of the eternal divine present.

and btw, the present moment does not exist, it is only felt and understood as pure light.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

more correctly evoultion is only a hypothosis not even a theory



Theory

n.

- A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

- The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice.

- A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena

<a theory of organic evolution>

- A working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.

^^^^

Exactly.

Creationism, on the other hand, is unsubstantiated garbage.

^^i still think cheese is a safe bet

MasterPython:

"Nobody did it" is on equally unprovable foundations.

5 7 0 Y V 3:

Master Python pretty much made it clear. If you have two theories, one saying "Someone made it" and the other saying "Someone didn't make it," there's little else left to the imagination.

Unless you want to talk Hinduism and suggest that, since history (and all of life, really) occurs in cycles, there was no beginning, there will be no end, and everything we know as history is a continuing repetition of already known events corresponding analogically rather than chronologically to one another... but I'm not sure that's a generally held interest in this forum.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

^^i still think cheese is a safe bet

Well, you have the same odds of being right as a creationist...

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



"Nobody did it" is on equally unprovable foundations.



I don't know, I someone did it why would they go to the trouble of making it look like it hapened on its own.

Semi relevant quote from Augustine I came across this evening:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason?"