What is Creationism?

What's wrong with the dictionary?

quote:

---

noun
1.
a person who believes that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account.

---

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?'

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?

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.

They have no arguments; they have beliefs. In order to sustain those beliefs against the mountain of multi-disciplinary evidence showing them to be wrong they have a small collection of misleading quote mines and mostly antique and always discredited pieces 'evidence' that they think of as proof of a case against all the science that contradicts them.The YEC position is just absurd - demonstrably wrong by simple observation. There's multiple sources of cross-correlated evidence that puts YEC beyond all reasonble doubt and none of it needs to include evolution.YEC is a form of madness.

Creationists can and do call anything a kind. I've just been reading 'The impossible voyage of Noah's ark' which, if you'll excuse the pun, blows the entire story out of the water. Here's a small extract about kinds.

quote:

---

Taxonomic problems.
The taxonomy of kinds is another bewildering subject. The only clear thrust of creationist writing seems to be ridiculing the concept of species, a term usually rendered with quotation marks. We respond with White that, "if we were to give up the notion of species altogether, most discussions in such fields as ecology, ethology, population genetics, and cytogenetics (to name only a few) would simply become impossible" (p. 5).
Aside from this, the creationist baramin can vary anywhere from the level of genus to order (Siegler, 1978)-or even to phylum (Ward, p. 49)although there seems to be a vague consensus approximating it with the biological family. The most often-cited instance of a kind, for example, is the family Canidae, which has fourteen genera and thirty-five species (Siegler, 1974). But Sciuridae (squirrels) has 281 species, and the genus Rattus (old world rats) has several hundred. Would creationists recognize the eighteen families of bats, with their eight-hundred-plus species, as eighteen distinct kinds, or would they make the order Chiroptera into a single bat kind? Would they distinguish the nearly thirty families (two thousand species) of catfish? At the other extreme are many families with but a single species, and even higher categories, such as the orders Tubulidentata (aardvarks) and Struthioniformes (ostriches) or even the phylum Placozoa, with but one representative. Why did the creator endow rats, bats, catfish, and mosquitos (twenty-five hundred species in family Culicidae) with such adaptive potential but withhold this potential from aardvarks, ostriches, and placozoans, especially when we learn that "each baramin was intended to move toward maximum variation" (Ancil, p. 124)? What becomes of the science of taxonomy under this basis or when the "major categories" (phyla?) are sea monsters, other marine animals, birds, beasts of the earth, cattle, and crawling animals (Henry Morris, 1974, p. 216)?

​

The theory of kinds is incoherent and confusing. Since it runs counter to all the known facts of genetics and taxonomy, the burden of proof is upon the creationists to verify it. Where are the fossil baramins? What findings show that such ideal creatures ever existed? If complete sets of kind alleles could survive twenty-four hundred or more years of radiation before the flood, it should be possible to find specimens today with inexplicably large chromosomal complements, perhaps in undiversified families. Unfortunately for "baramin geneticists," studies have been done on such families (cf. Loughman, Frye, and Herald), and nothing extraordinary has been discovered. Still no experiments are forthcoming from the ICR to test its hypothesis. It is, in fact, "armchair science" without a shred of evidence, and we are justified in rejecting it entirely and assuming that "two of every sort" means two of every species.

---

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark | National Center for Science EducationBut really, if you can read the whole thing and come out believing that the biblical story of the flood is literally true, you've achieved a level of delusion I find it impossible to understand is real.