What is Creationism?

And I'm going to agree with Tangle on the definition. When I first came here I said I was a deist and not a creationist, whereupon I was corrected (by Mr. Jack), that as I believed that god/s created the universe that I was de facto a creationist.So yes, the term needs modification for what type of creationism is involved.To me it comes down to how much of the objective empirical evidence one must deny to maintain a position being inversely proportional to the likely possible reality. The more you need to deny (such as all the evidence on the age of the earth, for young earth creationists) the less likely those beliefs are to being true. To me all objective empirical evidence is evidence of reality and thus evidence of the result of creation.Enjoy

Which means the denial of massive amounts of empirical objective evidence. Just counting tree rings gets you to a minimum age of over 12,405 years, just for starters. The world is over 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is over 13.4 billion years oldSee Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for the evidence and methodology, and the challenge to provide an explanation that covers the correlations between different systems reaching the same results. Which means the denial of massive amounts of empirical objective evidence. Fossil and genetic nested clades do not form into neat groups that can only be traced back to a set of original kinds 6000 years ago, because there are always older ancestors common to two or more of those existing 6000 years ago.See current discussion on Science is Revealed Truth, Message 87 on Euarchontoglires common ancestor to Euarchonta common ancestor to both tree shrews and primates, including humans. Was the original kind the first population of Euarchonta or the first population of Euarchontoglires or the first population of Boreoeutheria ... and it doesn't stop there. Note that including humans in a clade with any other animal is a crisis conflict for ... Which means the denial of massive amounts of empirical objective evidence. Fossil and genetic nested clades do not form into neat groups that divide the diversity of life into {human} and {all other species} Which means the denial of massive amounts of empirical objective evidence. Again Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 provides plenty of objective empirical evidence that no flood could have occurred in the last 35,987 years. Then there is the geological evidence.You basically need to deny all science to believe YEC mythology, hence it is a highly untenable position.Sorry, if it don't fit reality it isn't real.Enjoy

He's a biologist at Brown University (RI), he was at the Dover Trial and he's written a number of papers dealing with creationism. He also is a Catholic.See http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.htmlEnjoy

False. Inability to understand information provided does not mean the information was not provided. Also false. Sadly, for you, that day has not yet arrived.You are one of the people making a mockery of creationism.Counting the posts you make before being banned again?Enjoy

The Young Earth delusion is based wholly on belief, not evidence. The biggest weakness, imho, of the YEC position is the age of the earth ... it is just not compatible with reality. Mountains of reality.If you want to debate this then go to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and start with Bristlecone PinesOr, if you want a more updated version (includes new data since the one above) go to The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1) -- it is only partially complete yet, but it gets to an age for the earth of over 12,477 years (2017), well past the normal YEC delusional age. We can ask admin to promote it ...Or, if you want to do this one on one, we can make it a new thread on The Great Debate forum.The challenge for the age deniers is not just to describe how a single method can be wrong, but how they can all be wrong at the same time and in the same way to produce virtually identical results (within the margins of error) - when random results or systematic errors in different methods should produce notably different results: Those other measurement systems come into fuller play in later posts.No creationist has been able to meet the challenge yet, so you can be the first on your block.My prediction is that you won't take up the challenge, or you won't last long in a one on one (there have been others that have tried and failed), because your cognitive dissonance in maintaining cherished beliefs will not permit contrary information into your worldview bubble.Enjoy

Creationism is not bible study (or koran study etc) it is the process of making things up that are not in the bible etc and then claiming they are true because of the bible etc.The age of the earth is an example. Nowhere does the bible etc state how old the earth is.Building mountains with flood water is another, explaining fossils, rock layers, etc with a magic flying flood is another.Enjoy

Logical fallacy of equivocationbiology descent as in descendants, offspringyou descent as in going down stairs (to go with ascent going up stairs)Argument shotEnjoy

Isn't it amazing how Christianity has evolved over the years.Enjoy