Is Creation Theory true

Answer 1

• Yes. God created you, me and everything else on earth. He even created Earth. It's the most believable theory.

• Creation is just a matter of opinion or belief. If believing is what makes creation true, then it is 'true'.

• Creation is true. Look around you and at your body. Someone more powerful than us must have designed the delicate body and everything around us to work together perfectly.

This is an improvement to this question, I hope you will see that evolution is false, and creation is the truth. First, look around you. Do you think that this all happened by chance? It's awfully complicated too; the systems in the world point to the creator God in heaven. Second, look at you. You do know that there is someone who made you, way way deep down, in your heart you truly know there is a God who loves you. So do you think you came from a monkey, I hope not, because scientists think they are just smart monkeys! Thirdly, the evidence. A while ago, people used to realize that EVERYTHING in the world pointed to God. Most (just about all) scientists around the time of Sir Isaac newton, were devout Christians. I'm not talking about catholic, or baptist, or ortodox. I'm talking about Evangalistic Prodastants, which most people today say is basphemy. But even Newton was an Evangalistic Prodastant! But people today think of him only for his idea's, not his main one. So there you have it, Creation is true.

AnswerI think that evolution is the only plausible answer to the origin and development of individual species. AnswerCreation and Evolution are the two most popular ideas on how the world (and quite frankly, the universe) was created. Creation's theory is based on The Bible, the Holy Scriptures. At the very beginning of the Bible, Moses writes on how the earth and universe was created; according to God Himself. It states that God created everything. From the stars, to computer desks (yes, God inspires man to create computers :), He created everything...with just His voice, and His awesome power. This was taken place around 6,000-9,000 years ago. The proof and evidence for creation is overwhelming, I can't quite name them all on this answer.

Evolution is the THEORY (not actually proven true) that man were evolved from one lowly state of nature, to what we are now. From once being ameba, to fish, to monkeys, and then finally ended up to being 100% Homo-Sapien (which means human being). Theory created by Charles Darwin, a scientist and evolutionist. But, the evidence for this theory is low. Evidence supposedly is found in the mix between two different creatures. E.g., a fossil that looks both like a reptile and a bird. But only few fossils are actually somewhat like this. And fossils aren't very distinguishing, they can be easily misleading. And the idea that earth was created millions of years ago isn't very accurate. The methods of time aren't at all precise. How can you tell how long ago everything was created by using technology? You can only use History. The Bible has very detailed historical time periods. Every one knows God is true. Dardwins theorys have to be wrong, there is not any evedece to back it up. Christiatity has tons!

Answer 2

'Creation Theory' is one of the several names for Creationism, whose proponents have searched for a name that will convince people that Creationism is science, or at least that it has 'theories' that will stand up against scientific theories.

Whether or not the Bible stories of creation are true, Creationism must establish its own credentials, which it spectacularly fails to do. When we add to this the further challenge that Genesis does not really describe how the universe was created, then Creationism, or Creation Theory', falls over at the last hurdle and must be regarded as totally untrue.

Old-Earth creation theory, while asserting that God did create the universe, includes the idea that Genesis is not a literal description of its creation. Otherwise, the proponents of various Creation Theory concepts insist that this is entirely consistent with what they interpret as a literal reading of Genesis, but seldom attempt to provide any evidence for their beliefs other than attempting to dispute the evidence of science.

For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

Answer 3

Yes, according to tradition. Consider the following:

• The staggering complexity of every organ and every cell in the human body.
  
• The vastness of our minds and emotions.
  
• The fact that the universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of atheism.)
  
• The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
  

See: More detailed evidence of Creation

Also:

1) The glaring lack of transitional fossils has been noted by the evolutionists themselves, such as this statement from the famous paleontologist and evolutionist George G. Simpson; quote: "The regular lack of transitional fossils is not confined to primates alone, but is an almost universal phenomenon."
"The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled" (Nilsson, N. Heribert).
"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation" (Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought).
2) Instances of falsifying of evidence by evolutionists, such as Haeckel's drawings, Archaeoraptor, the Cardiff "specimen," and Piltdown Man.
"Haeckel exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent. His drawings never fooled embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. The drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the standard student textbooks of biology. Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because textbooks copy from previous texts. We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks (Stephen Gould).
Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells states that the book shows that "the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin's theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."

3) Creationists see the "survival of the fittest" and the dating of rock layers by fossils as being perfect tautologies.

4) The fact that some qualified, educated, normal scientists do not believe in evolution. Or at least question it, even if they still preach evolution: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species" (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum).
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. It amazes me that this is swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest" (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner).

5) The fact that there is a shared, worldwide tradition among every ancient society that the world was created.

6) Evolving of new organs or species has not been witnessed during known history.

7) Mutations are harmful, not beneficial. One of the tasks of DNA and of long-term breeding is to avoid or repair any changes brought about by mutations. This means that our genetic apparatus is programmed to resist change.

8) Mutations, even if beneficial, do not create new organs.

9) The fact that a great number of fossils have been found in the "wrong" rock-layers according to what evolutionary Paleontology would require.

10) The fact that you need DNA to make DNA. No genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code and carry out its instructions. Information does not arise spontaneously; and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell.
"A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations" (Michael Denton, author).
"The astounding structural complexity of a cell" (U.S. National Library of Medicine).
Concerning a single structure within a cell: "Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection" (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).

11) The problem of the impossibility of abiogenesis in general. "The concept of abiogenesis is not science. It's fantasy" (J.L. Wile, Ph.D.).

12) The fact that evolution was once used as support for the belief that Blacks (or others) are less than highly-evolved humans. "Darwin was also convinced that the Europeans were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races" (Steven Rose, author). He also "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (B. Kevics, author).

13. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point clearly to a Creator, since things undergo entropy rather than get more orderly over time.

14. "Radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age-estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often very different. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists." William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University.

15. "Even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age." Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus.)

16 a). At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a "billions of years" age for the Earth.
b) The amount of Sodium Chloride in the sea, also, is a small fraction of what the "old Earth" theory would postulate.
c) The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast to extrapolate a long age for the Earth.
d) The rate of accumulation of Moon-dust has been measured; and the amount of dust on the Moon was found to be vastly less than what scientists had predicted before the Moon-landings.
e) Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this helium into the atmosphere can be measured. According to the Evolutionary age of the Earth there should be much more helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there.Also see:

God's wisdom seen in His creations

More about God's wisdom

Dissent against Darwin

The facts

Discovering Creation

Understanding Creation