Young earthers vs Old earthers the conspiracy keeps growing., page 1

Originally posted by Rren
Almost exclusively a Protestant American Fundamentalist movement? Really, care to back that rubbish up with some facts?

Creationism isn't only an american issue, but in the US its more in the front. So american is accurate. As far as protestant, the RCC doesn't have any problem with science, including evolution, so protestant is pretty accuraet too. As far as a movement, yes, its clearly a movement, not all the groups are alligned with one another, but in general they work under the 'Big Tent' of creationism and have a good deal of organization to them and are working torwards a goal, so movement is accurate.

As far as fundamentalist, I'd say that thats more open. Certainly Creationism enjoys wide acceptance amoung 'fundamentalists' or 'conservative christians', but there is a large population of relatively mainstream people that tend to beleive in creationism, of course the general public has rather muddled thoughts (as 'the general public') on this sort of thing. So it being a 'fundamentalist' thing is pretty accurate, but certainyl there's room for debate.

And Creationism has nothing to do with "imposing the general public, by “Political” means, a religion that revolves around the creation stories of the bible."

Yes it does. The creationist movement seeks, at a minimum, to have creationism taught in school, thats imposing their religion on the public thru political means.

Anyone who believes God is the creator is a Creationist technically.

The people who are part of the creationist movement would disagree with that.

The world is full of ***holes, but i guess i don't need to tell you that.

Do not insult other members like that.Why would you be upset with marg making a rather accurate description of the creationist movement, which you are not a part of apparently?

Where do you get this view? so every Creationist is not doing any real science and is only trying to "de-bunk" evolution?

Correct. Obviously she's not talking about the creationist 'laity' that doesn' t get involved in the debate one way or antoher, but rather the peopel claiming to perform 'creation science', there simply is no such thing.

You really have gone over the deep end here IMO.

I think that part of the issue here is that you have your own particular understanding of the situation, and you are thinking of creationism in much wider terms than marg or most of us would consider it. For the most part, when someone is talking about a 'creationist', they're not simply talking about someone who beleives in an all powerful god that created the universe. They're talking about a much more specfic group, represented by AIG or the ICR and people like Kent Hovind, and even 'Intelligent Design'.

Chapter and verse please, where can i find that i'm doomed to "hellfire" because i believe that the Earth is old?

Nowhere. Its not in the bible. And yet, the more extreme fundamentalists will sometimes claim just that.

I'm not worried about the judgement of some random anonymous YECists

Good for you, neither am I.

and if you want i can show you some evolutionists who don't believe we evolved from apes. Can i lump you guys in with them?

Almost certainly, they're probably infact creationists of a various sort. There's near universal acceptance amoung the scientific community, especially those actually invovled in this particular research, that man evolved from apes. I wouldn't say its immpossible that there are scientists out there who have scientific (albeit perhaps incorrect) reasons to conclude that man evolved from something else, but its extremely unlikely that there is. Rather, there are probably some people who are creationists who make these statements.