What makes a creationist a creationist?

I don't mean to argue WingsOfEagles07, but at its most basic evolution is allele frequency changes in populations, to deny that is to ignore everything we know about genetics. An easy example is that you are different from your parents and they are different form their parents, it is a form of evolution called micro-evolution, which most creationists agree with.

Like you don't like the gap theory for the days in genesis, but in most circles they are still considered creationists.

The universe is at least millions of years old based on direct observations of supernova. We can measure how far away they are using trigonometry e.g. supernova 1987A is 160,000 light years away.

The scientific meaning, which is essentially speciation(which we have observed), and the creationist meaning which is changes between kinds, which we have not observed yet according to creationists.

There aren't that many assumptions in science, the only two that I'm aware of is that the universe is real, and that the same laws that we observe here on Earth are the same everywhere in the universe. Other than that everything must be scruitinized to the highest degree..

You don't have to have faith in scientists to accept what they say as valid.

How many other errors have we accepted as proven fact?

I do believe in variation in kinds, but not any evolution.

There are many different ways for light to reach earth. Faster than normally expected to.

There are a lot of assumptions in "evolution". The Big Bang = assumption

The Primeval Soup = assumption

We came from previous life forms = assumption

Earth being million(s)/billion(s) of years = assumption.

And many more. Why is this? Because no one was there in the past to show that was true. For scientists to come up with this stuff they have to assume this is what happened based on their "belief/interpretation" of the evidence given. Therefore it takes "faith" to believe in.

Their form of science is inconsistent within itself. Because in order to do science we have to have the preconditions of intelligibility in which this only makes sense in the Biblical Creation worldview.

Yes you have to have faith in scientists to believe what they say is true because if you do not how do you that they are right or wrong? You must believe what they are saying.

Also, you Empiricle evidence. empiricle - all knowledge is gained through observation. There is evidence for GOD, In his CREATION and more than enough. Read Romans 1:18-20 - it talks about how people will suppress truth in unrighteousness. And by creation there is more than enough evidence for GOD. go read it. =]

I totally forgot to post those links and i am sorry, I will post them tomorrow, okay. =]

Neither can soft tissue, so cool there is now two significant recent discoveries that are causing the evolutionists some headaches.

I beleive that is what they call convergent evolution. My understanding is that implies say a dog in africa evolved from a worm in africa, and a dog in america evolved from a worm in america.

Anybody that tells you they know all there is to know about the Bible or has the "perfect" interpretation.......run from them as fast as you can.

Man can do nothing perfectly including having the correct interpretation of every verse of God's Word.

I know with the T-Rex hype it turned out to be a contaminant and not from the original dinosaur 65+ million years ago.

Sort of, We evolved the eye and it was selected for our environment, similarly other organisms evolved eyes that were selected for their own environment. And it is not just the eye itself, but where it is located with in the skull.

You don't need faith, the scientific community has rigorous standards of credibility and integrity.

Sort of, We evolved the eye and it was selected for our environment, similarly other organisms evolved eyes that were selected for their own environment. And it is not just the eye itself, but where it is located with in the skull.

This has been argued by evolutionists in recent years, but it is nonsense. If all we are talking about is allele frequency changes in populations, we are not talking about any genetic change at all...
A widely discussed case of this is a moth population in Great Briton. It was widely published that a hundred years ago, they were white, and now they are grey. But the truth is that a hundred years ago, 90% of them were white and 10% of them were grey. Now 90% of them are grey and 10% of them are white. There was no genetic change at all! there was only a change in the frequency of alleles within the population. This is NOT evolution. It is only natural selection.

It is indeed true that natural selection is part of the theory of evolution. But it is only a part of the theory. For evolution to proceed, two things are absolutely required. One is natural selection, and the other is beneficial mutations.

Evolutionists typically admit that "less than 1%" of all mutations are beneficial. This is akin to saying it would take "more than a day" to row a boat around the world. In my university days I did a study on beneficial mutations in the fruit fly (drosophilas melanogaster) for a senior level genetics course. I found that 90% of all mutations are lethal, and 90% of all non-lethal mutations are obviously crippling. About 1% of them were of doubtful nature, such as a change in eye color. But of the five thousand mutations that had been cataloged at that time, not even one was listed with results that were obviously beneficial. I did find one allegation that there had been one such mutation observed, but that allegation cited no details, so it was dismissed as hearsay.

Recently there has been an allegation in this forum that a mutation has been observed that gave its recipients an ability to survive at a temperature 10 degrees cooler that their previous habitat. But such claims leave me suspicious. Ten degrees cooler than their previous habitat does not mean ten degrees cooler that they could previously survive. And without extensive documentation, I would doubt that it had been demonstrated that no individuals within the previous population had the ability to survive within such a cooler temperature.

The same poster claimed that beneficial mutations had been observed various other species, even including humans. This is tommyrot! It has its sole basis in an unproven assumption that current populations are descended from the populations whose remains form the fossils that have been found in various places.

Evolutionists claim that the fossil record shows gradual change. This is simply not true. The fossil record shows a long series of stable ecosystems. Each of these ecosystems appeared suddenly, (in geological terms) flourished virtually unchanged for long periods of time, and then suddenly disappeared, only to be suddenly replaced by a different ecosystem.

Every professional geologist I have presented this fact to has at first denied it, and then, after some discussion, finally admitted that he personally knew this to be correct. I am not accusing them of lying, but rather of not realizing the truth inherent in the facts they already knew.

The gap theory is not the theory that the days in creation were actually long periods of time. A gap theorist like myself is properly called an old earth creationist. I believe that, when correctly understood, the Bible not only allows, but actually requires, a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

A light year is approximately 1,630,000,000 miles. 160 million light years is 261,000,000,000,000 miles. The sun is 93,000,000 miles from the earth. So taking the full width of an orbit around the sun, we have a base 186,000,000 miles wide. To measure 160 million light years by triangulation would require a measurement of one twenty-four thousandth of a degree. To measure this within 1% would require measurement within one 2.4 millionth of a degree! Are we to believe that we have instruments capable of measuring angles within a half of a millionth of a degree?

This is only true of things like different breeds of dogs or cats, and is a product of nothing more than selective breeding. The only way that speciation sufficient to prove evolution has been observed is by assuming that the present populations are descended from the fossil ones.

To demonstrate a speciation sufficient to prove evolution, it would necessary to demonstrate a species that is descended from a different species and is sufficiently different from the parent species that if cannot be interbred. There has never been even one such case of speciation observed in any living population.

The most basic assumption of evolutionary "science" is uniformity of process. It is based on the unproven and unprovable assumption there was no intervention in the normal flow of these process by a God of any kind or description.

This is the biggest error in all you have said. To accept even their allegations of observed data, much less their conclusions, you have to have faith in them.

And this faith is not well placed. My personal faith in science was severely disrupted during my university days. When I entered the university, it was well known that man had 48 chromosomes. In my next to last year, it was announced that a student in Japan had found a human cell that only had 46 chromosomes. A few months after that, it was announced that it had been discovered that all humans have only 46 chromosomes, not 48 as had been previously believed.

Here was a very simple fact that any beginning biology student could check for himself. How many chromosomes are there in that cell? The textbook said 48, so everyone counted and recounted until he got 48. The entire scientific community had it wrong! How many other errors have we accepted as proven fact?