Then I am really baffled as to why you accept creationism. Some creationists say that the Earth is 6,000 years old while others say that it is 4.55 billion years old. Some creationists claim that there are created kinds, while others accept common ancestry. Some creationists claim that there was a recent global flood, while others say that it was a local flood. So please explain why you accept creationism with all of this instability.
Loudmouth...you need to remember that even your best evolutionary researchers do not have the answers to the how, when, where or why of evolution. All that they agree on is no matter what data is begotton or what is observed it must be fitted into an evolutionary paradigm as that is the central assertion all evolutionary research is based on.
The inability for the various creationists to have a scientifically validiated answer to every question does not detract from the fact that ALL the observed data demonstrates that life must have been created. Timing and minor details about floods is irrelevant. Creationism is stable in this context. All observed data only continues to support the general creationist paradigm that God created life forms. Alternatively, the observed data only provides more conundrums for evolutionists to invent more non plausible scenarios as explanations to keep it alive.
Creationists have irreduceably complex systems as evidence of creation that are handwaved away with 'poofing' scenarios not observed by evolutionists. Creationists have a book that has been shown to reflect a higher intelligence in its' scientific accuracy. Creationists have the fact that abiogenesis has not been demonstrated and is even less likely to occur outside a laboratory set up. Creationists have earth placed at the centre of the universe based on shockwave theory and no need for the mystery of dark matter. Creationists have an earth at the best address for life with not so much as a bacteria evolving elsewhere despite all the rhetoric of a universe strewen with the seeds of life. This is all observed. It takes a host of non plausible scenarios and nonsensical algorithms to turn the evidence for creationism into an evolutionary mystery.
As for the age of the universe and creationism, new earth or old earth, is inconsequensial to the fact of creationism. This is a matter of trusting your dating methods or not, as opposed to various creationists dating methods.
The flood being total or mega is also irrelevant as there are numerous points of scientific accuracy that are not theoretical but are factual eg the washing of hands, the circle of the earth, the earth systems etc. The bible is a credible document regardless of who wrote when or whether the flood was mega or total. All the garble connected to this is also based on current dating and a bunch of people getting around giving there most invaluable opinion with your dates changinf like the wind in response to new crazy algorithmic data.
This thread requests information about what would change ones viewpoint. I have given some idea of how this relates to me.
The fact that there are various creationists does not detract from the fact that the observed evidence supports creationism of some kind. To suggest that creationism is not valid as there are various forms of creationist thinking is akin to saying that as evolutionists are unclear of how or why evolution proceeds also is the invalidation of evolutionist thinking. The observable facts support creation, regardless of timing and minor details. The observable facts do not support evolutionist thinking and require more and more non plausible, theoretical, unobserved, scenarios and convoluted biased non credible algorithms to support it.
Your algorithms are erraneous and non credible. We have already been there on another thread. ALL the observed data supports the creation not only in relation to evolution but also the universe.
I have no further need to debate. I am quite clear that the instability and uncertainly of evolutionary theory discredits same. Likewise what is observed (inability to set an allele for accelerated development in a population of drosophila, disasterous and often fatal interference with changes in germ line mutations, mammalian placenta being a part of an intricate and irreduceably complex system like many others simply hand waved away etc etc) supports the notion that indeed it is impossible that these evolved but must have been created by a means we have yet to understand. Just because I cannot coalesce a creature into being does not mean that a powerfull deity is unable to accomplish this.
So by giving weight to the observable evidence I am clear that creationism is factual and has evidence to support this, regardless of YEC or old earth variations.
I am simply offering a reply to the thread topic. I have no further need to debate the basis of my belief system.
