Quote:
Originally Posted by woot
Yes, that's generally what it refers to. "Young-earth creationism" is sometimes used, but "creationism" almost always refers to belief in a young earth. It isn't an atheism vs religion issue; it's an evolution vs literal Genesis issue, so "young earth creationism" is redundant in this context. There are obviously many religious people who accept evolution, but they tend to side against the creationists on this issue, and in my experience never identify themselves as creationists.
|
No, Woot. Young earth creationism is a subset of creationism. It isn't redundant with creationism. An alternative to young earth creationism is, unsurprisingly, called old earth creationism (also a subset of creationism).
I really don't know why this issue gets you so emotional and irrational.
Assume a politician believes in the 6,000 year old earth policy. Why does that make the politician per se "stupid?" Couldn't the politician believe that God has made it appear that the Earth is older than 6,000 to try faith (or any other number of possible explanations)? Certainly he could. And why would that make him more "stupid" than a politician who believed that Jesus walked on water (when all available scientific evidence suggests people cannot walk on water)? Just so you know, almost every single US president has been a Christian and, presumably, a believer in miracles of some fashion. Were all of them unqualified to hold the office?
Why is a person who believes in the big bang inherently smarter and more qualified to be president of the United States? Don't they have to believe in matter that has existed for eternity (which doesn't really seem scientifically possible) that is the source of all life? We can't prove it has been here for eternity, can we? We can only hypothesize that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
You are so emotionally invested in this issue that you appear to surrender rational thought while, ironically, attempting to cite rational thought in your defense.