What frosts me is how creationism is always, always, defined in the Christian terms of a 6,000 year old universe.
People, there are other religions and therefore other thoughts and theories on creationism with much different time frames. For example the Vedas teach that time is cyclical, with the outer cycle existing 311,040,000,000,000 years, which is also the age of the universe.
http://www.salagram.net/cycleOages.html
Don't forget the Scientologists who believe that we are the product of 75 million years of evolution after aliens mated with monkeys.
Hare Krishna websites ?????
OH, For Heaven's sake! Let's just claim modern creationists also believe the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. I know many Christians who believe in a Creator, but none who are stuck in this silly NYTimeswarp.
Not always. I'm a creationist. I believe the earth is billions of years old. But I'm not pig-headed about it. It is certainly possible it's only 6000 years old. I just see more scientific evidence for old earth.
The point is not how old the earth is. The point is that God created man and the universe. God could have chosen any number of ways to do it including doing it in six literal days 6000 years ago. I don't have a clue how he did it other than what's been left to us via the inspired words Moses wrote down in Genesis.
I have actually seen people not accept Christianity just because of this young earth interpretation of Genesis. What's more important IMO is to understand the true gospel of Jesus Christ and what Christianity is focused on rather than getting lost in this one issue.
I believe that the Hasidic Jews also subscribe to a similar time frame.
"For example the Vedas teach that time is cyclical, with the outer cycle existing 311,040,000,000,000 years, which is also the age of the universe."
Wow - glad they have this figured out. Sorry, but this is gibberish. At least the biblical account was written by folks who were pretty close to the origin of earth and mankind. What are you going to believe? An historical account or someone's guess as to what happened who was not even close chronologically to the event? My odds are with the former. Just because someone teaches it does not mean it is correct, does it? :)