What is Creationism?

Any faith based belief that requires supernatural magic would fall into the category of creationism.

From the Sensuous Curmudgeon:Creationist Scientific Method:1. Select a conclusion which you hope is true.
2. Find one piece of evidence that possibly might fit.
3. Ignore all other evidence.
4. That’s it.ICR: A Dinosaur Fossil Proves the Flood | The Sensuous Curmudgeon

Sorry, missing context.
Old Earth, Evolution but 2. God created the genes that tell a flower to bloom and spread pollen.

That would certainly fit under the title of creationism because it has supernatural magic producing genes.

New Cats Eye,Perhaps then you are a theistic evolutionist like Ken Miller.
You believe in God. Do you call yourself a Christian? If you do then you can't be a Deist.Edited by CRR, : Salutation addedEdited by CRR, : No reason given.

I don't know who Ken Miller is, nor do I really care about a label, but yeah - I'm a theistic evolutionist. Yes, I'm Catholic.What denomination are you? How long have you been a Christian?How long have you had a problem with evolution?You don't really believe that the Earth is young, do you?

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

Creationism states that humans came from humans, evolutionists can not answer this question so slither from bats to tree shrews to semantic classifications, but cant and wont state who are ancestors werre.They mock when Creationists say we came from humans, whereas they dont know where we came from or who parented us, except way back when just after their BIG BANG, it must have been a one celled amoeba, or similiar.Then they get upset when we creationists show them their stupidity or lack of logic and science.

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

There is a "Kenneth R. Miller - Finding Darwin's God" topic, started back in 2002.I think the MrHambre's messages there are particularly good.The quick comment is that Ken Miller is a theist, and is an evolutionist, but is NOT a theistic evolutionist in that he doesn't believe that God guided evolution.Moose

"Theistic evolutionist" seems to have two meanings. Some take it to mean God guiding evolution (which might barely be acceptable in ID) others take it to mean God setting things up at the start but not intervening in the course of evolution. Miller is one of the latter sort.

There is another "Ken Miller", I believe mentioned somewhere in the subtitle topic. That Ken Miller is somehow also tied into the creation/evolution debate, but is not the book author.Moose

You are telling stupid lies again, David.Whom do you hope to deceive?

Ken Miller, biologist and author of "Finding Darwin's God". Of whom Larry Moran said "In this sense, the Francis Collins version of Theistic Evolution is similar to that of Ken Miller in Finding Darwin's God." Sandwalk: Theistic Evolution: How Does God Do It? [edit: I note Minnemooseus has a different view and calls KM a theist.]I'm an Anglican and lapsed atheist. The closest of the Protestant faiths to Catholicism.I used to believe in evolution. I stated reading Young Earth Creationist literature out of curiosity and after a while I began to realise they had valid arguments. While old earth evolutionists do have some good arguments I also think there are a lot of weaknesses in their position and overall the YEC position holds up well.If the evolutionists here hope to convince me they will need to lift their game. Edited by CRR, : editEdited by CRR, : No reason given.Edited by CRR, : No reason given.

How do you get around the dating problem?RAZD has several threads illustrating the correlation among different dating methods, and they all point to an old earth.