Geology, meteorology, botany, biology and physics everywhere you look. And once you begin to understand how it evolved to be and how it all works, what you see it gets more and more amazing. You can see the glory of the complexity of it all and be in wonder at how it all evolved to be what it is.

The closer you look, the more relationships between seemingly disparate things you'll find, too. Why, a guy could spend an entire lifetime studying nature, I think, and just keep right on learning more and more about how it works, how everything relates to other things, and much much more. As wonder gets added to by knowledge, more doors open to better understanding.

It's a wonderful way to spend a life, I think. It's a shame not to learn at least something about all that is going on out there, for sure.

It should be noted that it is merely your personal religious opinion that the universe was "created" by an intelligent entity, and is not supported by any actual evidence at this time.

So you recognized that my expressed opinion was just that. Let me add that my opinion is not intended to be confused with official Christian opinion. It is merely my personal opinion.

at your link. Really, the article said very little about all of that. It wasn't really a very good article, I thought, after reading through it.

But, you made it clear that you believe it's all a "creation." I think that's sad, since there's so much more wonder and "glory" to be found by actually learning and understanding nature. Mere "creation" isn't all that exciting. What's exciting is learning as much as possible about what we see.

Accepting it as a "creation" is easy enough, I suppose, but masks so much that is available to understand. To each his or her own, I suppose, though...

As many scientists have demonstrated by being people of faith as well as scientists. Perhaps they recognize something that some non-theists clearly do not.

It could even be inspiration.

Just a rational conclusion from direct observation.

What do you mean you interpret facts from what's presented?!?

Someone control this kid!

You are confused.

If you're going to point to theistic scientists as being representative of something, then you need to explain why scientists are so much LESS theistic than the general population. Why is that, do you suppose?

Go.

Use the graphic to find the numbers 33 and 18.

Arrive at my point.

Then explain why they are different.

You'll get to THE point.

or spiritual.

I haven't avoided that at all.

I posted the graphic showing it.

Seems a very odd way to "avoid" something, to post it, dontcha think?

I posted it to show how LESS common religious belief is among scientists.

Do you understand now?

What do you think that means?

Because however the aggregate pans out, the difference trotsky described is statistically significant and therefore worthy of exploration. Your refusal to address that seems deliberate. And it speaks volumes.

Thank you for the disclaimer.

Insight is an excellent attribute to have.

You've claimed both sides of that coin, which is it?

But apparently some here feel that this type of tactic passes as legitimate conversation.

For the record, you tell me what the term creationist means. And then explain how my posts support such a characterization.

That would speak to say that you are and haven't actually taken the stance that you aren't.

For the rest Trotsky provided a definition for you. Plain as day to answer really.