Creationism (yes) vs. Evolution (no). Round... Some large number.

Asked by: Lordgrae
  • Well, why couldn't it be?

    I know that's a really cruddy insistence on the part of a theist. But, that's really just as logical an idea as any. Plus, the idea of creationism does not discredit the idea of evolution in the first place. This poll is kinda one-sided. Not even a whole of theists discredit the idea of evolution. I mostly voted here to explain the other half.

  • Darwin had justified doubts

    The process of evolution has never been recorded. Species do become extinct & new species are discovered, BUT evolution hasn't played a role in nature. Pro-evolutionists can never provide conclusive proof or provide a source more reliable than the bible. Dependable scholars have contended bible acknowledgements & even ignored small details that revolutionized. The shape of the planet was aforementioned & its position was described. The collapses of inpenetrable empires were foretold. Even the unholy mairriage of the church & clergy with politicians & the turning on religion that is occuring today was predicted. No self accredited man has as much reliability as a source of information.

  • If evolution was real, it would still be happening.

    I believe in creationism, why? Because there is NO PHYSICAL proof of evolution. We did not come from monkeys, that is just so stupid. Just because we have simliar properties doesn't mean anything. And beside, if it was true, why isn't it happening anymore? Why has nobody actually SEEN it happen?

  • So many reasons why...

    I have many reasons to prove why and how creation IS in fact possible and makes more sense than evolution... First off, carbon dating is only accurate up to about 6000 to 8000 years ago, after that its useless. I also dont understand how someone thinks it is more logical to think we came from nothing, rather than having something create us... We cant even replicate the simplest of proteins, and how precise each one is, it would be impossible for even ONE to form itself. Much less make a living creature.

  • I am playing devil's advocate; all criticism is accepted amiably.

    Darwin was the mastermind of the development and integration of the Theory of Evolution, Natural Selection and Darwinism. Erasmus was his foil, his scapegoat and his father. In anecdotes, and suggested historically, Darwin sailed on the HMS Beagle to the Galapagos Islands, an archipelago of volcanic islands in the Pacific Ocean. He sought to make keen and pivotal observations of the species that inhabited each of the islands on the archipelago, and soon was vexed to discover that the species on the different islands were more or less the same, but manifested a very perplexing set of physical disparities; some tortoises had larger carapaces, others with slight mutations and deformities of their guises and their facades. Darwin noted these disparities in his handy notebook, where he compiled vital evidence suggesting that species developed apt characteristics and features conducive to the environment they are raised in.

    Now, to make a direct correlation in an effort to disprove Creationism. Creationism in itself is illogical, and is a fabricated theological effort to explain the emergence of our mathematically improbable Universe. The Universe was created in a mesh of violent and cataclysmic explosions 14.6 billion years ago; this fact has been validated countless times by scientists and astrophysicists across the globe, from the inverse-dating of the star Methuselah to the permeation of Penzias's and Wilson's Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, the evidence stands as a factoid, not an axiom.

    And yet, flippant Creationists challenge this theory as if it were mere speculation.

  • For Science and Truth!

    Darwin did a great job explaining this, but as it stands evolution is one of the most scientifically viable statements around, to argue it against creationism is a 100 year old debate that simply holds no contention for modern grounds. After all why on earth would anyone believe that the earth is 6000 years old, they would have to be smokin a phat pile of meth. Empirical evidence > belief anyday!

  • Evolution for the win

    We have shown though carbon dating, research, science, etc. That 1.) the world is much older than any biblical account, 2.) there have been dinosaurs and other marvellous creatures never discussed in scripture 3.) that things evolve. Since Darwins ground-breaking work we have observed Evolution of species in action and seen how the effects of environment hastens this process.

  • No such thing as traditional creationism

    There is a lot of evidence that evolution, as a mechanism, opperates in every living species. This in istelf does not contradict the existence of a God (he might have created the first living organism(s), or perhaps 'guided' the process of evolution by changing the environment, etc.), but it DOES mean that God did not create species as they are today, which is basically what traditional creationism is about. Using fossils and genome-sequencing techniques, we can trace our lineages back to our common non-human ancestors.

    I find it a pity that people keep saying that evolution is just a 'theory', whereas they have no idea what is meant by a theory in the scientific world, obviously.

  • This isn't even a contest.

    Creationism lost well over a century ago, just like the belief in a flat earth or a geocentric solar system. Evolution denial at this point borders on the absurd.
    You creationists want to live in the Dark Ages scientifically? Fine. But for crying out loud, quit trying to interrupt the education of our children with your nonsense. We'd like to actually pull the US out of the bottom of the barrel compared to other developed nations so that we can actually continue to compete in a global economy, and you twits are pushing the lid back down.

  • Evolution makes more logical sense

    Creationism is a concept that does not support present day. Evolution on the other hand is scientifically correct and just makes logical sense. We can support through science that things can develop so why is there a reason to doubt that? I really am not sure of my true opinion on this but evolution just seems correct

  • Why is this even a debate?

    Nearly every scientific work published in the past century has unambiguously pointed to evolution over creationism. At least it's not a debate within the scientific community as in over 99 percent of them accept evolution as truth. But some people will still claim that they're smarter than all of them.

  • I say evolution

    I think evolution is true because there is staggering amounts of proof for it. When you think of a god, how did he come into existence? Is there any proof of him even? I don't really think so, but that is just my opinion. The idea that there is a being that overloads the universe is both ridiculous and laughable in my opinion.

  • Too many lies and logical fallacies in creationism

    Between the misquotes/mine quoting of actual scientists (Answers in Genesis has actually published two printed books on misquotes for creationists to use in their daily arguments), the completely false assertions made almost on a daily basis, the ostrich stance in regards to transitional fossils, the disclaimer of pretty much all the other methods of dating the earth (they must all be wrong?), not to mention the fundamental basis of creationism - the inerrancy of the bible (even though clearly, rabbits don't chew cud, plus about 100,000 [NOT EXAGGERATED] other transcription errors, factual errors, historical errors, and biblical contradictions [with ITSELF], not to mention that we now know that only 4 out of 30 gospels made it into the New Testament - what went wrong with the other 26?); There simply is too much to overlook with all the things that are wrong with creationism. It has clearly become a movement of self-delusion to the point of a complete revision of reality, just to fit into some kind of alternate universe where entire worlds are created in days and ice-asteroids cause 29,000 foot floods with 500' wooden boats built by 900 year old families. Crazy stuff, and the deeper one delves into creationism the crazier one must be in order to follow even the more basic tenets.

  • Should be Evolution (yes) vs Archaic logic (no)

    As always, religion retains it's position by intentional ignorance and the grooming of children to refute evidence no matter how obvious it is. Evolution is a FACT, beyond any kind of doubt and those who still cry for the 'missing link' are the ones who live in fear of the realization that they have wasted a lifetime, believing in nonsense.
    The problem people have with evolution is that they cannot grasp just how long evolutionary time is and so cannot understand the mechanics at work. Alongside that, the arrogance of a large section of humanity is such that they shall always reject our shared lineage with every living creature on the planet.
    This is no longer a debate for the educated as anyone can buy a book on evolution and so now it becomes a battle against the religiously blind, who follow like the proverbial 'flock' (that's right, god thinks you are all sheep) rather than dare an original thought. I would also contest that bishops, priests, clerics etc who accept evolution remain faithful simply to retain their lifestyle and not because their holy scripture still makes sense.
    Creationism vs Evolution? Why is this still a contest?

  • Most definitely yes.

    We did not evolve. About six thousand years ago, the gloriousness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster created us from nothing. Nothing can't create something and the Spaghetti Monster was always there. I just realized that a deity needs an explanation for existence if you say the universe requires and explanation. God doesn't believe in a higher power, ergo, god is an atheist.

    God cannot be all knowing, because there could be something he might not know that he didn't know.

    God is not all forgiving if anyone goes to hell for eternity because then there is a limit to what he is willing to forgive.

    God cannot have a plan and let us have free will, because if he interferes with our free will to further his plan, then we do not have complete free will, and if he allows us to do whatever we want, then he cannot have a plan because we would too quickly ruin it.

    Can god create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it? If he can then he isn't omnipotent, if he can't then he can't do anything.

    Can god create another god?


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.