I couldn't find this discussed specifically as a topic. So tell me what you think Creationism is and what are the core beliefs? You will also need to say what sort of Creationism you are talking about. Young Earth, Old Earth, Progressive Creation? Are Deism, Theistic Evolution, and Intelligent Design forms of Creationism and how do they differ from the others?
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.
[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.
One significant difference between YEC and theistic evolution, and many other points of view, is that YEC believe in descent with modification while others believe in ascent with modification as the general rule.
Take cats for example. YEC believe there was an original Cat Kind which has diversified into the many different cats we see today, from tabby to tiger, generally by loss of genetic information as each adapted to different environments. Others believe that the cat family came from a non-cat ancestor, ultimately the same microbial ancestor as all other creatures, with production of much new genetic information, features, and body plans.
This of course is a generalisation and I know that evolutionists agree that genetic information can be lost, as shown in Lenski's LTEE, I am talking about the overall scope rather than particular instances.
So since we believe that all species of cats today came from a common ancestor we do in a restricted sense believe in evolution and speciation. This is why examples of adaptation and speciation are of no particular concern to us.
New species? So what? Cit+ trait in E. Coli? Meh. Finch beaks changing size? Ho hum. Trinidad guppies? Yawn. London Underground Mosquito? So?
The problem is that it is just a religious belief and has no scientific relevance.
Did you mean "no scientific evidence."?
Hybridization evidence supports the hypothesis that all cats are closely related and belong to the same kind. "[T]here are many reports of hybridizations either occurring spontaneously or deliberately undertaken. Seven of the eight major cat lineages reported by Johnson et al. are linked by hybridizations. Only the Bay Cat Lineage has not been linked by hybridization to another lineage. Phenotypically, however, it is closely related to the Caracal lineage." http://creation.com/the-cat-family
It also shows there are upwards of 40,000 Christian denominations in the world today.
These “denominations” are defined in terms of being separate organisations, not necessarily separate beliefs. This is a critical difference, not commonly noted by critics.
The largest component (something like two thirds to three quarters) of these totals are “independent” churches, mostly in Africa. These are not necessarily different in doctrine, but are simply independent organisations.
These estimates include national branches of the same denomination (e.g. the Lutheran Church of Germany and the Lutheran Church of Australia) as separate organisations in the count.
There are many churches among the independent churches which would have effectively the same teachings, just different locations, different leaders, etc.
Most of the Christian churches believe in the same core elements but have disagree on minor matters or on forms of worship. In my church, Anglican, any communicant member of another Christian church is welcome to take communion with us.
The fact that you call them hybrids indicates that they are different species.
Correct. They are different species, in conventional Linnaean classification, within the cat kind. Some of the hybrids are even different genera.
Of course that then raises an issue with the Biological Species concept which says a species consists of populations of organisms that can reproduce with one another and that are reproductively isolated from other populations. That would mean that if you can get a fertile hybrid then they would be part of the same species. This is part of what is known as the Species Problem.
Hybridisation chains then provide one objective criteria for mapping which species belong to which kind. However it is also possible for species within the one kind to be fully reproductively isolated. I would expect that some crosses of the cat family would incapable of producing offspring, fertile or sterile, even by artificial insemination, just as a female Chihuahau won't carry to term pups sired by a Great Dane.
So if you can show by hybridisation a chain linking a group of species and genera couldn't you call that a Kind? You couldn't call it a Family since some Families in the current Linnaean system could contain more than one Kind.
Well, gee, isn't it funny that none of the hybrids jump that panthera line
P. concolor × L. pardalis (puma × ocelot) bridges the gap between larger and smaller cats. Is that what you were looking for?
 Oops, my mistake. That should have been P. concolor(Puma) × P. pardus(Panthera/Leopard) = (Pumapard)
Hybridization data connects the largest cats, P. tigris and the massive Liger (400+kg), to the smallest cat, F. nigripes, via seven documented hybrid steps: P. tigris (110–320 kg) × P. leo (120–250 kg) × P. pardus (30–85 kg) × P. concolor (35–100 kg) × L. pardalis (11–16 kg) × L. wiedii (3–9 kg) × F. catus (3–7 kg) × F. nigripes (1.5–2.5 kg). http://creation.com/the-cat-family