What is Creationism?

Does a Creator by definition require evidence or can it be a philosophical belief?I would argue that life itself requires more than cosmological evolution. The argument hinges on the requirement of a supreme mind or nah.

Of course - but it almost always is. Yup, normally called god. Nope - that just asks the question 'what created the soup?' If you're suggesting that I'm making all this up in my head and nothing but my head exists, I have to ask 'what made my head?'

I would agree that you have to listen to the "muse" but I don't see it as something outside myself. It's more like listening to my body telling me whether it wants vegetables or ice cream.

By definition? A creator practically flies in the face of evidence. You'd be arguing against the evidence. That would put you toward the denial end of the creationist spectrum.

Creationism is an attempt to make a theistic faith based belief look like science in order to gain wider acceptance.Creationism is the belief that God created the universe through some untestable, undetectable, and unfalsifiable process that apparently looks exactly like natural processes, but isn't.

Creationism seems no common core beliefs beyond that some deity created something. For example Christian Creationism has two source tales found in the Bible, tales that are contradictory in the order of creation, method of creation, descriptions of the creator and then whole host of extra Biblical fantasies.Then there are the equally valid creation myths of the dozens or hundreds of other non-Christian religions.Since there is zero evidential support for any of the many flavors of Creationism they are at best belief or mythological systems.

1 The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe. Hence the Earth is a bit over 6000 years old.2 The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation. (Common ancestry within the kinds)3 The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.4 The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.Yeah, I think that about covers it. YEC defined by a YEC.Edited by CRR, : No reason given.

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

You just told us what you as a young earth Christian creationist believe. That's going to be almost unique to you and a few others. There are multiple flavours of creationist with multiple beliefs, and none.In other words for anyone interested in life the universe and everything, so what?

Uh, yeah. That is kinda the purpose of this thread isn't it?

So would you classify these as Creationist? They express points of view that I as a Creationist don't agree with.1. There is a deity that created a self-sufficient world, which functions virtually independently from God's influences.2. God created the genes that tell a flower to bloom and spread pollen.3. God created the common ancestry among organisms first noted by Darwin4. God created the evolutionary process that ultimately resulted in our own human consciousness.

Well I did wonder.....But telling us what you personally believe, while sort of interesting in that it helps us understand where you are coming from, can not be applied more generally.Definitions tend to be specific and the only definition I can think of that's of any use is the dictionary one.After the statement that some undefined being created life the universe and everything, the rest is a set of diverse subjective opinions - probably as many as there are creationists.

Of course I would classify them as Creationists.And all the other Hindu or Buddhist or animist creation myths as well.The reason Creationism is so worthless as an explanation is that it is whatever fantasies a peoples create. Even in the Bible there are two mutually exclusive creation myths that differ in the order of creation, the method of creation, even in the description and characteristics of the god doing the creation.When you add in the fact that there is no evidence of any special creation and almost all the various creation myths are refuted by the evidence found in reality the only possible answer to the question "What is creationism?" is "It's whatever some person or people what it to be!"

May I ask why you don't agree with number 2?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And yet no such research is ever presented by creationists. Creationists still don't have any genetic or morphological tests or predictions outlining which species belong to which kind, or an explanation as to why separated kinds fall into a nested hierarchy. And yet they still can't provide evidence for a world wide flood layer.