How many people here openly admit to being a creationist?

Maybe they were hipster vegan lions?

The Lost One



As opposed to being indoctrinated and conditioned in a college/university into becoming a mindless liberal snowflake and to just blindly accept the pseudoscience that humans evolved from fish?

Well dunno about that, I went to two fairly conservative Catholic schools for 14 years and they taught us about natural selection.

"That’s basically another way of asking which members (regular posters here) are theists?"

Not really, unless you label theistic evolution as "creationism" (the term typically implies an outright rejection of evolution). This labeling can even more trickier with "deisitic evolution" (God created the universe, perhaps even kickstarted abiogenesis, but evolution pretty much happened on its own)

Sorry natural selection does not prove that humans evolved from fish. 

LOL

Logistics is, generally speaking, the detailed organization and implementation of a complex operation.



Yes, the supposed size of Noah’s Ark can be read beginning in Genesis 6:14 as 450 feet long (equal to 135 m or 300 cubits). The Ark was 75 feet wide (22.5 m or 50 cubits). The vessel was 45 feet tall. That is apparently the same as 13.5 meters or 30 cubits and the storage capacity same as about 450 standard semi-trailers. However literalists would do well to remember that such alleged proportions would also have to contain food stuffs for all the animals, a degree of space in each enclosure for air and movement, and partitions to keep incompatible species apart or safe. Fortunately not being a literalist, I don't have to worry about believability. But this topic always arouses more special pleading than any other when it comes round.



I am sure you know already, but a 'common miracle' is an oxymoron. But have it as you will; it is your faith, not mine.




Spoken like a true literalist. How much food would you expect is required to feed a pair of each creature (or even the more accommodating notion of a representative 'kind') on earth, for 40 days and nights, while remaining edible? Or would this be another miracle common to the times?

   There is no conflict between religion and science at the higher levels of academia.  The so called creationism vs. evolution "debate" only occurs at a very elementary level of reading and understanding and is fueled by politics, not religion, and not science.

   People who insist on a "literal" interpretation of the Bible typically have not read very much of it.  It is rife with symbolism and says so.  It does not at any time require "literal" interpretation.  In fact interpretation requires spiritual guidance.  The story of Jacob tending Laban's flocks has a more or less "scientific" observation of a change in the genetic makeup of those flocks.  People had in fact been breeding plants and animals for centuries before Darwin.  So Darwin didn't present anything new or challenging to them.

   Some people who host religious radio talk shows recoil at the suggestion that the Bible should not be taken literally.  Elementary school students are typically not ready for such intellectual gymnastics as the higher symbolic language requires.  Remember that mass media is made at a level suitable for children and adults tending children.

   In Civil War times with the primitive technology available then some moderately intelligent people could believe in extending evolution from just the origin of species to the origin of life itself.  However as the science and technology advanced it became increasingly difficult to do that.  The more intelligent people left the crowd of believers that evolution would ever explain the origin of life.  All of you should have learned in school and remember that evolution does not explain the origin of life.  Today the only people who think it is very reasonable to believe that life could have assembled itself with only those agencies found in nature are dropouts.

   It is the government and its grunts who keep insisting science has disproved anything in the Bible.  You perhaps noticed a tendency on this board for some to believe that the world's problems are the fault of religion and doing away with religion will solve most problems.  That is not true and not something taken seriously.  Science is incapable of solving issues in society because they do not arise because anyone needs to know how to do anything.  Issues in society arise because people cannot agree what to do or why.  Science is useless with such issues.

  

  

You find proofs in logic, not science.  Theories are never proven...they may be disproven or they may be further supported/corroborated, but scientific theories are never proven.  So you are right...but in an unimportant  way.