Discussing the evidence that support creationism

As I pointed out, you can substitute those definitions of evolutionism (nor, indeed, the word "evolutionism" for the word "evolution") with any reasonable expectation of getting a sensible sentence out of it. They would certainly have a problem if you used the word "journalism" to mean "journal".---Consider these pairs of sentences, and see which ones are English.* Evolution has been occurring for billions of years.
* Evolutionism has been occurring for billions of years.* Darwin came up with an explanation for evolution.
* Darwin came up with an explanation for evolutionism.* Evolution happens in accordance with Darwin's theory.
* Evolutionism happens in accordance with Darwin's theory.They are not synonyms.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You mean 2 x 10^89. 2 x 1089 would be 2178. One of my favorite creationist arguments.It just debunks itself.Obviously there are limiting factors preventing the population of the Earth from taking up more space than the entire universe. We'd run out of food, water, places to stand ...It's patently idiotic. What it actually proves is that the creationist assumption of a constant rate of exponential growth must be false; as, of course, we know to be the case.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Ooh, are we playing petitio principii again?My turn.Evolution is supported by:1. Observation of adaptation seen abundantly in reality. Logically, the same corresponds to evolution. The evolution of creatures with hard parts over a period of 35 million years is the best evidence for Genesis you can dream of?Suit yourself.I can dream of better evidence for Genesis, such as anything at all that was actually evidence for Genesis in any way.

That it is sufficient, with our modern methods, to support about six billion people, some of them on the brink of starvation.

Why do you think this "likely"?At that point they'd only just invented agriculture. There is no way that their way of life could have supported our modern billions.This is perhaps the duffest argument in the creationist arsenal. Or a close second to "Why are there still monkeys?" Give it a rest.