Reasons for Creationist Persistence

There are some practioners who manage to compatamentalize Crash.There is a recent case in the news of someone getting his doctorate in , IIRC, palenotology but is a young earther. It generated some discussion and controversy.I worked with a physics doctoral student who managed to compartamentalize his mind. At least once upon a time I haven't heard of him for years and years.So they can exist. They do not exist in such numbers as would be required for MJ to be right. He is not telling the whole story.

If it was untrue we'd see the science presented here. This gets said a lot and then if anything (rarely) is presented it turns out to be already refuted junk. Sometimes decades old.If this is "patently untrue" then there are lots of threads that might be appropriate to present the scientific reasons. Are you going to?

Buz, you use ID creo together a lot. This is another reminder that as the words are commonly used they are NOT the same thing.As a default the creos are young earth, no evolution biblical literalists who, among other things do not think we are evolved animals.As an official positions the ID movement does not argue with the age of the earth, agrees with most of evolution and that we are evolved animals.These are hardly compatible positions. You might want to stop trying to be wishy washy and trying to avoid appearing to disagree with any of them. You can't have it both ways.

I see that I misunderstood your use of ID Creo -- You mean a creationist IDer. Not ID / Creo including the two together.You are right that you can define creationist very broadly (as Jar does) but that only muddies the waters. The term has a commonly understood usage. At least some of the IDers (and it appears their official) position do not disagree with the age of the earth (or at least keep very quiet about it). That means they are NOT in agreement with YECs. They also do NOT claim that all of evolution is untrue -- just selected "IC" bits. I have not seen them say that the evolution of humans is incorrect either. They do not agree with YECs.You can not be both an IDer and a YEC. You can also not be an IDer and the more common types of OEC. At least as far as the public front of ID is concerned. It has been contrived that way as a trick to get past the constitution of course. Many of the ID community agree with you and YEC and most OECers but that is not the "official" position that they can put forward. So ID (as a 'movement') has to be in conflict with YEC and much of OEC too or it fails in what it is trying to do. {Please see message 147. The above would be better there (?). - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.