Paul Blay wrote:

"Michael Walsh" wrote in message ...

Paul Blay wrote:

Maybe someone who's got better access to the material actually used
can provide an idea of how common this sort of 'evidence based
creationism' is.

I never suggested and certainly would not approve of "Creationism"
being taught as a science.

I restricted myself to claiming that "Creationism" is internally consistent
and cannot be disproved.

That is only true for certain values of 'Creationism' - and you have put
forward nothing to indicate how common those values are.

I have no idea and little interest about researching how many believers
in "Creationism" go to the trouble of building up a logical basis for
matching what is observed by scientific investigators so that it conforms
to their own beliefs. The common factor in the belief of "Creationism" is
a literal interpretation of the Bible and usually the King James version.

Many of the believers in "Creationism" don't worry about this and just
accept what is written in the Bible. This means that many of them don't
except scientific dating concepts. Some of them do wonder what the
length of a "day" would be in a 7 day creation before the earth was formed.
True literalists cover it by the presumption that since God knows everything
he certainly can figure out a 24 hour day in advance.

What is it that you believe we are arguing about?

Mike Walsh