Creationism is pretty much de rigueur for all Abrahamic religions.
There are others, but that one gives the lie to all of them.
The platonic ideal fundamentalist only exists in atheist cultural myths. ;) It would be awfully convenient for atheism if believers in religions weren't also trying to square away contradictions, but they are, and they have brains too - about the same brains because we're all the same species - and they're not entirely unsuccessful unless you count the activity of squaring away contradictions itself as evidence that the divine author lacked foresight into what people would think when they read Genesis millennia after it was put to text.
The essential question about apologetics is, how reasonable is to to put a lot of effort into coming up with interpretations, when the text was supposed to be written to teach you? If the only way to correctly interpret the text is to get the information elsewhere, that doesn't speak highly of the text as a vehicle for knowledge.
The rejoinder is that the Bible, or the Torah, or whatever, was not written to be a science textbook, and its value to us as a textbook did not matter at all to the author. Given that religion is focused more on saving souls that it is on natural history, it doesn't seem like such an unreasonable picture of the motives involved to say that the divine coordinator would gladly confuse generations of internet forum posters in exchange for a little more symbolic significance in the text.
The rejoinder to that is: why would God be dealing with tradeoffs? Well, at this point we've completely submerged ourselves into arguing about the personality of the creator.
His noodly goodness[0][1] will reward you for your faith!
Arrrh!
I then contrasted that with the simulation hypothesis, that doesn't make such claims.
That doesn't make the core hypothesis of either one falsifiable. Rather, it (at least to me) makes me less likely to entertain the (non-falsifiable) hypotheses that surround themselves with demonstrably false claims than those that don't.
If you're saying that creationism is wrong because many creationists are wrong, that sounds like some kind of fallacy.
That's doesn't even bear a resemblance to what I said.
Apparently, my communication skills are quite poor, so I will cease to attempt to use them in this context[0].
[0] Or you're being deliberately obtuse. But I don't claim that as I try to assume good faith.
What would be an example of one of those claims? We tried Creationism but it turns out one can't really demonstrate that it's false.