[orionblamblam]

> It is a good thing to seek clarity when other people are trying to communicate with you

Yes, but clarity can be damned difficult to come by. I expected this thread to turn into the usual shouting match eventually, but not within the first couple of posts!

So, out of the posts so far, I've got this:

* Those in favor of the "broad" definition of "Creationism" (God did it, maybe evolution, maybe not)
Posts: 9 (USAFJeeper), 12 (AndrewC), 16 (Triggerhippie), 18 (spinestein), and of course my friend

* Those in favor of the "narrow" definition of "Creationism" (God did it via "poof")
Posts: 15 (MitchellC), 19 (thomaswest), 20 (Bonaparte), 22 (taxesareforever), 43 (Alamo-Girl), and of course me.

OK, in more than 40 posts, a total of 11 actual "votes," and I may have mis-interpretted some of those. And so far it appears to be pretty even, though a database of 11 is pretty lean, statistically.

Sigh...

[Fester Chugabrew]

I would define "creationism" has having four main tenets, namely 1.) as applying to the universe, that it came into being "out of nothing," 2.) as applying to the biosphere, that species observed today were created separately and have by and large remained as such from the time they were created, 3.) as applying to the process, that it involved six literal days after which no new heaven or earth was created, and 4.) as applying to the cause, that the agent of this creation is a personal being of infinite power and intellect who continues to sustain the creation.

FWIW, I would not count those who believe evolution was "created" in order to facilitate the balance of creation as "creationists." You could lump me in the second group.

[js1138]

* Those in favor of the "narrow" definition of "Creationism" (God did it via "poof") Posts: 15 (MitchellC), 19 (thomaswest), 20 (Bonaparte), 22 (taxesareforever), 43 (Alamo-Girl), and of course me.

I'm pinging Alamo-girl to this because I think she said she is not a poofist.

There are those who believe that science is completely valid from the human perspective of time.

[plain talk]

I expected this thread to turn into the usual shouting match eventually, but not within the first couple of posts! So, out of the posts so far, I've got this: * Those in favor of the "broad" definition of "Creationism ...

I think this thread has been fairly calm as this topic goes! What I've read was person after person informing you that the 2 choices you listed were insufficient. There are numerous camps on this deep issue. So I'm afraid your attempt to secure "votes" on your two choices is not going to be fruitful.

Thanks for starting this thread. After months of pointless threads of people talking past each other trying to cram people into 2 over-simplified polarized positions, it's refreshing to see a thoughtful thread listing the various possible positions on such a deep subject. I know this has been done before but it was needed again.