Summations Only

I had of course met people who believed that the universe was created in a single week. I had no idea that people actually believed that the earth was less than 100,000 years old until I was in my 40s. It wasn't until I joined this group that I understood that people were adding up generations in the Bible to come up with 6000.My father was a professor at a theological seminary. Yet the subject of creationism never came up once during my childhood. That's one reason that I find it puzzling that people could actually believe that Christianity is meaningless without creationist beliefs.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I agree with you regarding the history of "creation science", but at least some of the conflict dates from centuries before this period.When I look at creationism, I divide the collision with science into several areas. A literal interpretation of Genesis conflicts with at least cosmology, geology and biology. The conflict with cosmology and religion extends back to at least the execution of Giordano Bruno in the early 17th century.These days, it is the conflict with evolution that is often the most prominent, but I am alarmed when people making policy decisions about climate change and conservation insist on basing their opinions in a belief in a 6000 year old earth. This kind of anti-science thinking is dangerous in ways that are of immediate import.Perhaps because my own children are past the age where I need to worry about school boards running amok, and perhaps in part because I studied physics rather than a life science, I find the issues surrounding evolution less immediate. Creationists to date haven't had much influence over science as taught above the high school level in "real" universities, although certainly the ID crowd has hopes to change that.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

"Creationism" as used in this thread means an account of cosmology and earth natural history derived from a literal interpretation the description in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. One might argue Creationism (at least some versions of it) is not incompatible with the BBT, and at least one poster (designtheorist?) has done so. But a literal interpretation of Genesis is utterly incompatible with the theory of evolution.I cannot imagine a way to label most of the posters here, including Son Goku, as a Creationist without making that term essentially meaningless. I find it even more difficult to imagine a definition of the term that would include Son Goku, but exclude cavediver.Added by edit: Thousands of posts have been made arguing over this exact point. Regardless of your own feelings about how the universe was created, it should be clear by now that many people take issue with your statement and that it does not accurately describe their beliefs. Edited by NoNukes, : ABE

There are of course other definitions of create on that page you linked to, but we need not even consider them in order to identify the problem with your logic.

quote:

---

1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

---

Note that in the above definition there are two alternatives.1) ... that would not naturally evolve
OR (not AND)
2) ...that is not made by ordinary processes.Since a car would not naturally evolve, we cannot rule out that a car was created merely because it was made by ordinary processes.Even if we ignore the error delineated above, your basic argument is still without merit. We don't use the term "Creationist" to refer to just any history of the universe.Exactly what do you hope to accomplish by re-defining the term Creationist anyway? Isn't it pretty obvious that every person participating in this thread knows exactly what the thread is about, even if you don't like their use of the word Creationist?But just in case your confusion is sincere, this thread is about how people first encountered beliefs similar to the ones you and foreveryoung hold about the origin of the universe, the earth, and mankind. You can provide your own label, but your goofy musings and misuse of the dictionary really aren't on point.