What is Creationism?

Yeah, if I wasn't Catholic I'd prolly go Anglican.

This is a nitpick, but I don't say that I "believe in" evolution. It's not a belief, it is the acceptance of a theory. There's a difference. I reserve belief for things that I don't have knowledge of. I know that species evolve - the ToE is just the best explanation that we have for how it happens. And I can accept that.

Is it 100% correct and complete? No, of course not. But it works well and it makes sense explaining the facts.

YEC is literally impossible unless god is a prankster.

The Earth appears old, very old. If it is young, then god is magically making it appear to be something that it isn't, and that would be a dirty trick.

Convincing the person you are replying to is only a small part of the game. You gotta keep the lurkers in mind, and this activity is a therapeutic honing of communication skills.

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.

No. For us to convince you, you will need to lift your game. You've been duped by YEC arguments; your thinking is shallow, amateurish, and --- as we have seen --- desperately ill-informed.

Your consistent refusal to address the evidence given demonstrates that you don't want to be convinced.

The Young Earth delusion is based wholly on belief, not evidence. The biggest weakness, imho, of the YEC position is the age of the earth ... it is just not compatible with reality. Mountains of reality.

If you want to debate this then go to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and start with Bristlecone Pines

Or, if you want a more updated version (includes new data since the one above) go to The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1) -- it is only partially complete yet, but it gets to an age for the earth of over 12,477 years (2017), well past the normal YEC delusional age. We can ask admin to promote it ...

Or, if you want to do this one on one, we can make it a new thread on The Great Debate forum.

The challenge for the age deniers is not just to describe how a single method can be wrong, but how they can all be wrong at the same time and in the same way to produce virtually identical results (within the margins of error) - when random results or systematic errors in different methods should produce notably different results:

The challenge for old age deniers (especially young earth proponents) is to explain why the same basic results occur from different measurement systems if they are not measuring actual age?

Those other measurement systems come into fuller play in later posts.

No creationist has been able to meet the challenge yet, so you can be the first on your block.

My prediction is that you won't take up the challenge, or you won't last long in a one on one (there have been others that have tried and failed), because your cognitive dissonance in maintaining cherished beliefs will not permit contrary information into your worldview bubble.

Enjoy

That's pretty rich coming from somebody who regularly makes accusations of lying or "You made that up".
e.g. Message 43

That is only one of the things I'm right about.

If you don't like it, then maybe you could prevail upon your fellow-YECs to spend less time lying and making shit up.

So do you not know you are spreading lies, or do you know they are lies and spread them anyway?

Creationism is the study of creation, not just in living things as with luck and chance evolution, but with all things, all distances, speeds, and all times. Creationism is logical and mathematical and rational, evolution is not, as it is only a con and a lie and semantics.

Linquists love definitions, and definition changes and word twisting and species classifications as then they can con readers into thinking their artist conceptions must be true...

Its a con.

It's really that basic. Regardless of their actual theologies, it always basically boils down to them opposing evolution in whatever form they misconceive it as being.

BTW, there is no conflict between divine creation and evolution.

Chew on that one a bit.

I think I would say anti-evolution and anti-geology, but yes definitely anti-evolution.

Creationism is not bible study (or koran study etc) it is the process of making things up that are not in the bible etc and then claiming they are true because of the bible etc.

The age of the earth is an example. Nowhere does the bible etc state how old the earth is.

Building mountains with flood water is another, explaining fossils, rock layers, etc with a magic flying flood is another.

Enjoy