First, you jumped to the universe, when your thread claimed it was about creationism. Have you conflated two separate theories?
I don't care what the official definition of Creationism is. To me that word implies an intelligence present during the Big Bang. Can this be disproved? That's what the scientific method is there for, to disprove claims, right?
Anyway, if you are not going to respect definitions, and are going to create your own language and switch it around as you see fit, then there is no point in contributing here anymore. If you can't even agree on the basics of language, then this is not a serious discussion.
I am not creating any definitions, I am stripping a definition down to make it simple to understand and debate. Creationism always starts with a beginning and that beginning has to be the actual beginning, which was the Big Bang, right? Using any other beginning would be starting from a faulty premise. So, creationism asserts that an intelligent presence was there at the Big Bang. If the theory requires Earth to prove itself then it's a faulty theory. You should work with an idea in the beginning and chart it's possible course through the expansion of the known universe.
Sab you don't sound like somebody who is remotely interested in hearing an answer to anything.
I do want to hear everything you have to say, but I don't want to be directed to an educational structure. I want to be TOLD the truth and shown evidence, not told to instruct myself in a truth that requires scientific education to prove to myself. I want to be able to prove to an illiterate that there was never any intelligence at the beginning. If I can do that, then I too will not beleive in an intelligence at the beginning. That's the crux, so lets hover at the beginning and not venture into complexities billions of years later.
Its possible that an intelligence lit the fuse that set the unverse in motion. This is a "god-of-the-gaps" solution though. It stops research before it has even begun. This is not creationism so why did you use that word in your OP and title?
Why do you ignore the OP definition? It's there for a reason. Why do you just look at the title and call foul?