Creationism is unjustifiable pt2

This is a continuation of a previous debate,so if you have not seen the first one, then read it. Thanks again for the debate. First, I believe we should stop trying to assume what the other thinks because we both seem to be getting it wrong. Secondly, the rest of the debate should follow as: con must demonstrate the value of creationism on its own merits, pro must show why those merits either are not true, unrelated, or are still unjustifiable. I am not debating on how to interpret genesis. Because interpretation is extremely important in every aspect of inquiry, you may debate how we interpret facts, how we connect facts in order to build a narrative, or construct a hypothesis. How we interpret Genesis is another debate. For instance, you may use a series of facts to construct a narrative within a creationist framework. I am not conceding that any facts you use and that the narrative you build are true or correctly produced. Humans' relationship with apes should also be cleared up. It is true that science suggests that we are cousins with chimps, but it also suggests that we are both apes. The source is Dawkins, who is perfectly qualified to answer the question at hand, so do not bring up his beliefs about atheism because that would be irrelevant. I chose this source because it was the only reliable electronic source I could find. Theory should also be made more clear. Here is a definition from a standard college text: A widely accepted explanatory idea that is broad in scope and supported by a large body of evidence [1]. As you can see experience has nothing to do with it, so it is you who does not understand the concept of theory. Your example is of a hypothesis, not a theory. It was narrow in scope and had little explanatory power. Experiencing something has nothing to do with a theory. There is no hierarchy that knowledge has to pass through. My previous example did not produce a workable definition of theory; it only explained the relationship between facts and theory, and therefore, your criticism was unwarranted. You were correct that science is always piling up evidence and constantly changing; however, I was not suggesting otherwise. You need to construct a workable definition of creationism and a workable criteria for that definition, so we may distinguish between what is creationism and what is not creationism. Moreover, you must tell us what is unique about creationism and how can it act as a knowledge producer: what can it give us that other fields of inquiry cannot? The definition and the criteria must beat my scrutiny. We are not debating about our knowledge of evolution, so there is no reason for you to bring it up. Keep creationism separate from it. For instance, physicists do not talk about biological evolution when they are trying to produce knowledge about physics. You are trying to produce knowledge about creation. Our understandings about God seem to be different although I could not say either are wrong; therefore, you must construct a framework that can incorporate varying conceptions of God. How does God use science to create things? that is a question you must answer, but also you must answer why it necessitates this God and why it could not be unaided nature. We have never observed "nothing." The big bang was not a beginning but an expansion of sorts. For example, LaRocco and Rothstein say, "About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang" [2]. Notice they use expansion, not creation. Remember though, that you need to show how god uses science to create things. You cannot simply ask us the very question you must answer. These requests are minimal in creating a field of inquiry. There is nothing here that is unwarranted or unreasonable. If you cannot meet these requests, then creationism cannot be considered a justifiable belief. Any field of science or other inquiries such as social sciences must meet these requirements, so creationism should too. [1] Essential Biology, Campell, Reece, and Simon ISBN: 0-8053-6842-6. This is a standard college text. [2] http://www.umich.edu... http://www.youtube.com...