I understood about 50% of this post. I don't speak whatever language you are using in half of it.<quoted text>
I've seen a lot of good, accurate info on SOME of dem dare uh "creationist" sites. Current even! Where you specifically referring to general creationists, young earth creationist, traditional creationists, Methodology creationists (uhoh LOL) or elsewise.
And who duh man in your literal instance? Plato, Derwood, St Augustine, Origen? I'll guess Derwood for you, mostly because man folk like he always get a little razzed when anyone doesn't agree with what might briefly beheld in ten second lapses of actual thought.
I can however acknowledge the statement of faith and critical thinking, NOT existing harmoniously in the same arena at times, being as one does require a more meditative state, rather than an active thought state, and based upon that, the statement does make logical sense.
Much more sense than blaming some God for everything wrong in the worlduh, OR thinking religion (especially minduhless spews of selected that are about as relevently applicable to anything as a household iron would be to a slab of marble) text makes anyone smert.
To some duh women, that kind of illogical nonsense is just stupid,
Creationism is stupid in general, all brands of it. The reason it is stupid is because it begins with a conclusion: god did it. And it then rationalizes everything to fit that conclusion. It does so by rejecting conflicting evidence and exaggerating confirming evidence. Why is it that a Creationist will scrutinize every single millimeter of the strata of the Grand Canyon looking for evidence of a Flood but they will ignore the nested hierarchy of DNA evidence that smacks the rest of us in the face?
Because they already have their answer and they're just trying to keep the argument going.