I've heard rants and raves about this subject on other forums, so I figured I'd bring the disease here. Please, though:

If you want to argue a point, don't turn this into a flame war. Seriously, just look at philosophy, facts, etc. NOT who has the better insults.

Just to make things clear: I'm for the Creation side of this, and yes I know, there's also an Intelligent Design part arising among scientists. However, I see this as a half-assed attempt to say 'We were created... but not by God.'

I put it in the polls, though, just in case.

So vote, then speak your piece!



Edited and added poll choices. March 25, 2011. ~Tombow

I believe in evolution. Facts and figures will always outweigh stories that cannot be proven.

Evolution is continually occuring with out 'God' coming by.

Creation, always have, and always will believe in it. I've read so much on the subject that as the days pass on and even more research is done, Creationism keeps getting strong and stronger in it's case. It is becoming much less of a story nowdays as more evidence is uncovered.

But... That's only my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. If you're interested in where I get my views, then visit Answers in Genesis.

Have at it people. *steps aside* My words have been spoken already.

"Evidence of Creationism", eh?

This, I'd love to see.

Evolution isn't an airtight theory, but it makes a whole hell of a lot more sense than anything scripture has to offer.

I think they meant Jesus or God rather. Because Jesus is the son of God and couldn't have created the world.....

I dont know what i belive they all sound gibberish to me...

Okay, it's about time I started talking again...

Evidence of Creation I have seen, in fact I saw a very thorough seminar series by one Kent Hovind, which they claim debunks evolution and shows a scientific near-proof of Creation.

However, even though I believe it, there's little chance 'scientists' will, because there are few sources cited in the series.


What I do have, however, is a whopping 2,000 page book titled The Evolution Cruncher, which very completely destroys evolution and almost every theory behind it. It covers areas such as Fossils, Stars and the Big Bang, Natural Selection, Mutation, and DNA. There are almost 40 chapters in the whole shebang, and each chapter has references to about four books, maybe twelve quotes by various scientists, (An asterisk is included if the person is a known evolutionist) and maybe ten questions so it could be used in an educational environment.

I was extremely impressed with the whole thing, because it not only provide evidence, but explains why it is evidence. (For Joe Layman, like me.) I think I learned about a semester each of Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, and Ecosystem Biology by reading it.

Here are some links to the annotated version on the Net:

http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c02a.htm
-Why the Big Bang cannot happen and stars cannot evolve.
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c07.htm
-Why a microbe cannot just create itself by chance.
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c09.htm
-Why natural selection only makes changes between species.
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c10a.htm
-Why mutation cannot make positive changes to organisms.


However, I warn you that the book gets a little sarcastic at points, so it's not for the easily offended.

<---Dude, that's a lot of text.
<---Yes it is. READ!
<---But... I can't read...
<---READ!

Spam posts deleted.

I wish I had the energy to debunk the supposed 'evidence of creationism' and rub your face in the bullshit you just spewed... but alas, I don't. I'll leave it up to the only other person who's responded to this poll with a capacity for rational thought.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people? Are you trying to tell me that more of you are willing to believe that the earth and everything in it was created in a seven-day period some 5,000-10,000 years ago by some all-powerful being that nobody has ever seen, heard, felt, smelt or tasted, than in a process that can be readily witnessed in the mutation of viruses and bacteria that grow resistant to vaccines and anti-biotics?


Like I said, evolution is far from an air-tight theory, but it sure as hell makes more sense and has more basis in fact than the alternative[s].

Oh, and 'Intelligent Design' isn't a legitimate scientific theory, because it has literally no backing amongst scientists.

I seriously suggest that any of you who are open to that garbage read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

How contreversial. Interesting.

I'm a creationist. I believe that there's a God who made everything and has control over everything except men.

My two cents are here. So don't go taking them for yourself.

Yes, I am willing to tell you that I believe that the God of all created the earth and enitre universe in six days (He rested on the seventh).

Once you really start looking at the evolution theory and look at facts that scientists have discovered, you start to see so many flaws in the theory...As for what those flaws are, I point ot the website link my lil sister posted. I encourage anyone to go there with an open mind...

*covers eyes*

Homeboy, you realize the crapstorm you've landed yourself in...?

You're gonna make me bombard you with theological and scientific proof that we WERE created by an intelligent design... what we Christians call "GOD"...

What really is the point of arguing over this thing? Clearly we all know what we think and what the other side thinks and no one's about to change their mind. Those who believe in God will always believe in God and those who don't will never do no matter how convincing the other side's facts are.

Cause we're all open-minded like that.

If you're too open-minded, your brains will fall out.

Sorry, couldn't resist.


Couldn't have said it better myself. This discussion involving creation and/or evolution never really goes anywhere.

On a sidenote, nice corresponding avatar changes, Angel and defining.

"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary... For thos ewho do NOT, no explanation can be given..."

Let's leave it at that, shall we?

I suppose suggesting that we evolved rather than created threatens peoples religious beliefs. Because I have none I believe in science.

Gee isn't this very Ed and Rose?

This is about it for scientists and the typical person who's been raised on scientific methods. Evolution simply is the most reasonable empirical explanation. Does it mean it's right - no, but it does mean that it's rational to believe.

Creationism is a faith based belief system. Is it irrational - no. It's not irrational because of the fact that scientific theories are not necessarily always true. It's always possible that the universe puffed into existence as it stands today. Basically all scientific attempts at a cosmology assume that the laws that we know about today have existed since the beginning of the universe. It's entirely possible for it not to.

What's the result? Whatever your belief system, respect evolution as a reasonable explanation of why things are the way they are. But, if you're an evolutionist, don't be so high and mighty to put down the creationist. Macro-evolution in itself is quite contrary to normal scientific laws (entropy is not followed and usually involves some type of external intervention).


The point of these debates is to show that it isn't irrational to believe one over the other. Of course we won't convince the other person, but those who watch on the sidelines may be convinced. At the very least, we must show that each side deserves respect. If one view is completely irrational, then it will not withstand the criticisms and people will see that.

It's also fundamental to ask these questions and challenge our own beliefs. To do that, we must see the contrary belief and determine whether our beliefs can withstand the scrutiny of argument.

For what I believe - I am not convinced by macro evolutionary theory. Something outside the current laws recognized by science are required to actually make evolution happen. Based on current laws, it's more reasonable to imagine that the word was more complex and will degrade into single cell organisms (looking at teenagers these days, I'm starting to believe this more and more ). I am not, however, prepared to say that I can prove that the world was created by God, but I will say that I believe by faith that it was. Before you criticise whether faith is rational, please note that it is quite legitimate for one to argue that only by faith do you even know that your own body exists (that there is a physical world) and as such it is by faith that we believe anything science says . It's too bad that I'm feeling lazy now, or I'd go further into thought on this.

i chose a "creation" which could harmonize with the theories of apes.. that humans became "real thinking humans" since God blew this "special sprit" into them^^

Prinz, just wondering, but have you read through the book of Genesis. I know in chapter 2 it states how man was created;

Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

Looking at this, I see no way that this coudl harmonize the theories of apes. From what I read, just reading without really chewing too much fat so to speak..It states that God created man from the dust of the earth and then breathed into him the breath of life. That could be translated as either God's spirit or oxygen. And within that verse I see no animals becoming "real thinking humans"...

I'm immensely rusty with my Pentateauch exegesis skills, but I do know that it is possible there is more to the verse than what it simply says. I'd have to look back at some literature regarding ancient near eastern text writing styles to see in what way this type of statement is taken. It may be the case that many ancient near eastern writers summarize long processes (history) into simpler statements like this one. It could be like the form of covenant where the lord of the contract (in a lord/vassal contract) is praised about all the things he has done prior to stating the conditions of the contract.

- not that I'm going to go nuts looking through this, however, ...

You know what? With regards to the origin of man, I believe that we're descendants of an extraterrestrial race that visited earth about half a million years ago.

Now tell me, how is this any less plausible than that hoodoo-voodoo creationism bullshit?

People are too quick to look at things in black-or-white terms. I'm failing my Logic class right now, but even I understand something so simple as 'If A does not support B, where A is true and C is an alternative to B, that does not necessarily mean C is true.' Just because Evolution, as a theory, does not consistently stand up to scientific scrutiny does not give any credence to Creationism, which has no scientific backing of ANY kind. You can have all the faith you want, but when asked to provide specific evidence that supports the claim of Creationism, you're not gonna be able to come up with any.

Who created the extra-terrestrials??

They evolved from protoplasm. And that protoplasm was the phlegm of an mad Space-gnome who was the first being that ever existed. Duh!

If you're a christian then you will know who really created us.

Right, because Christians are all SO in touch with the mysteries of the universe.

Wow, somehow I knew I was asking for an answer like this...

Anyways, this 'hoodoo-voodoo creationism bulls---' as you so like to call it, seems to stand up quite well. As for evidence of man being created by God; again, take a look at the site that my younger sister posted a link to. They have quite a few scientific facts there that support creation by the true living God.

@Arche: As for researching to see exactly what the orgins of this verse are, I can point you to a simple solution: John 1:1-5 "In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the begining with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Though the researching you're talking about does sound quite fun.

Anywho, now that I've said that, I leave this discussion. I say good day! *bowes and takes my leave*

.....it's as arche said.... that longer periods of time are shortened by blurry sentences....

as like the statement "out of dust".....-> there was much time between the "creation out of dust" and when he "breathed the spirit into him".....

-> this time could be the time of apes...

I'm skimming that site now, and it seems to hinge entirely on the presupposition that Religious 'Creationism' and evolution are the only possible explanations for the source of life, and that anything which does not support one explanation, automatically supports the other. This is faulty reasoning of the worst kind. It immediately discards any kind of advancement of biological processes without divine influence, and most egregiously, it makes the point that any god that might exist is necessarily perfect, and anything he makes comes out exactly as it is designed.
As a rational person, I can't possibly accept any of these premises for an argument. I can suspend my disbelief if there is a legitimate reason to do so, but once you start building your argument on a dogmatic foundation, you lose me.

Ack - I missed the edit

One thing that you're point brings up perfectly is that it is not necessarily a bifurcation between creationism and evolution. There are possibilities of other options. So if one shows how flawed evolution is, it does not support creationism, but rather just shows that evolution is not necessarily true as written now. There are tons of other possibilities. I take a more skeptical view to this and say that we can't know for certain. My point is always that it's not irrational to believe in creationism, but even the creationist should respect the evolutionist.


The λογος or "word" as it's translated, is an interesting word in the time John was written. The neo-platonists seemed to use it as the universal constant that connects human beings to the perfect God. In their mind, God is so perfect that he could not even think about anything but himself. So, the λογος concept comes in. So when John writes this, I find it interesting and wonder if he means the Hellenistic λογος or not. Given the overall method text of John, I would say that he was appealing a bit to the hellenistic mind.

Anyway, the genesis verse is definitely part of the covenant literature IMO, which shows the value and supremecy of the sovereign over the vassal (chapter 1 and early chapter 2 show parts of this). Unfortunately, the only resources I have at home do not touch on the aspect of whether this is condenced or not. It is a long standing theological method, however, to think of these types of things as condensed in some way. Unless I research it formally, I defer any actual belief on it and just say that it's possible the verse refers to either - instant creation or creation over time.

Lastly, aliens and phlem Well, we now have a infinite causal chain of regression. As an infinite causal chain of regression, we cannot even have a beginning, so therefore, it's impossible for the world to even exist unless there is some necessity to begin it all in some way - but that's for another time

I belive in Creation.

My grandfather was a preacher, they belive in both creation and evolution kinda.
They belive that God created all but he used evelution to do it, because something had to make things join together, a molecule is to complex to be randomly generated, the chances are imposible, and it would have to do it more than once, a cell can not creat a different type of cell only a replicant of itself.

I have seen no evidence of evelution true, and all that has been found has been a joke (Like the Nebraska man. (A pigs tooth they said came from a missing link, but was later proven to be a hoax.)) or people speaking with an ignorent tounge. (like the guy who found the Coelacanth fossil (A fish that still lives in the Indian ocean it has cartiledge apandages with fins on the end.))

Creation is hard to belive, but they have found alot of sites that were told about in the Bible, like that place that was destroyed by rains of burning sulfer. People found an ancient city that had been destroyed buy fire and traces of sulfer in wholes that went into the buildings and ground.
The temple where Samson was said to be at when he destroyed it by pushing the two main beams out and collapsing the building on everyone including himself.
Noahs ark, they have pictures and stuff of that, I need to ask my teacher about that one, I can get pictures and stuff for all of these probabley.

Again, I point you to the many documented and easily observable cases of bacteria and viruses evolving to develop resistances to vaccines and anti-biotics. Of course, larger organisms take exponentially longer to adapt through mutation, but even the visible differences between races and ethnicities can be explained as natural selection at work.

That's micro-evolution - evolution within species. It's about the same as breeding evolutionary changes. The real kicker is actually getting a species change somehow. Even mutating fruit flies doesn't produce much more than strange fruit flies

If evolution is true, it probably takes some random unknown radiation or something outside of normally observed phenomena to make it work (this does not require an intelligent God necessarily of course, but I'll leave the arguments of design to others if they're so inclined ).

The problem with trying to trigger evolution in lower species artificially is that no matter how many variables you attempt to put into the controlled setting, you can't adequately mimic the natural parameters for mutation, and it takes just about any complex organism thousands, if not millions of years to produce enough mutations to consider it as having truly evolved.

There is that chance that if one from one side looks extremely deep into the other side's story, they'll be converted and begin spieling the same thing.

If our minds are so open, why can't we read each other like a book?

It would literally take an act of god to get me to believe in Creationism.

i believe that its a mixture of evulution and creation

Actually, guys, it's all very simple... you're juss making it complex and declaring that there's no intelligent design and Creator in the name of perverted "scientific enlightenment".

Think about it this way:

You come across a mansion in the middle of nowheres. You enter and inside you see it full furnished, but then no-one's home.

Juss cuz no-one's home, are you gonna say that that house juss materialized out of nothingness? Are you gonna say that there was no architect? JUSS BECAUSE NO-ONE'S HOME?!?!!

*regains control*

Okay, let's take the "Big Bang" hoo-hah.

According to the Big Bang, everything required to form the universe and its components were contained in space and juss over time, turned into what we now see.

Okay, lets take this example:

To make a slam-dunk you need: a player, a b-ball, and a court. If you keep a b-ball on the court and expect it to bounce on it own--AKA, without any interference--your outta your head if you think that "time will work the process" without any intelligence. It's parallel to the Big Bang - you've got the ingredients and the location... but what above the player? Answer that, Sherlock...

Same diff, guys... *shrugs*

It's not sentimental religiousness...

Hell, no -- it's down right COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC.

It's bullshit to believe a mansion sprung out of the ground on its own... it's stupidity to think that a senseless basketball can do the slam dunnk ON ITS OWN!

Ah, but mankind didn't come across a full furnished earth with no one home, did they?

Evolution. I think there's enough evidence to believe all life evolved. We're still evolving too. Reseach has said that for example in X years all blonde people will be gone. Our DNA changes through ages. That is what I call logic.

For the God-guys: If He created us, why did he leave us? Where is he now? Is he watching us from above? The perv.

Evolution...

In my opinion the bible or any other religious texts are just various monks who consider themselves all high and mighty and decide to make a religion...

That's not logic, that's empirical evidence, which may or may not be properly ordered to reflect the world

Even though I said evolution, I think it's sortof a combination of all three.

The idea that mankind was 'designed' to be this way is bunk. If it were true, why do we break down so easily? Why are our organs suspended on thin membranes? Why are we so easily killed by something like deep vein thrombosis, which one can get simply from sitting in one position for too long? Why are certain races so susceptible to cancer, heart disease and birth defects? Why are our bodies not self-sustaining, in general?

If this is someone's design, then that someone is either sadistic or just plain incompetent.

...hmm... i'm with you, bling....

but non-believers would doubt that "everything got a(n) creator(architect)"(which is the essence of your statement)...

non-believers would also say that before the beginning(the slam-dunk), there wasn't even a b-ball nor a court... there was nothing, but development was still possible... they doubt that "everything got circumstances(as we know them) at their beginning to be able to develop"... it was another thing...the definition "nothing" is just too blurry^^

Okay, sorry - I neglected this thread for too long. I an no good at arguing spiritual stuff, I believe what I believe because I want to be sure I'm good when I die. (Like insurance)

What I CAN do is illustrate that evolution isn't just shaky, it can't happen. There is no physical way. I'll illustrate:

Numbah One:
The Big Bang was supposed to create mostly hydrogen and helium, which is a lot different than what we have in the universe today. How did we get all the heavier elements? Evolutionists theorized that stars became supernovas, and through the fusion processes involved created the rest of the periodic table.
PROBLEM. The fusion involved can turn Hydrogen into Helium, then Helium into Deuterium, (An isotope of Hydrogen) but after that there is a gap. It's called the 'mass gap' because there is no stable atom with a mass of 4. No amount of fusion can bridge this. Instead what happens is this: The Deuterium becomes an unstable isotope, then breaking down into Hydrogen again. No Fe, no Si, just H and He. People have theorized that small amounts of heavy elements might have been created, but it is far too small (Around 20 moles per supernova, roughly 1/100 of a gram) for there to be enough junk there is now.

Numbah Two:
Assuming that somehow enough heavy elements were created to form the Earth, etc. then comes the problem of the first life created. Just a little Chemistry here: A protein in made up of a long chain of amino acids, sometimes up to 100 long. Each amino acid must be in the right place, no errors, to create the right protein. There are about 16 different amino acids that I know of, and hundreds of different proteins needed for life.
Amino acids are then composed of about twenty atoms, some combination of carbon, oxygen, and other biological chemicals. (I'm dumb, I forgot my Chemistry class. )
Anyway, the Miller apparatus was supposed to prove that amino acids could be created in the primitive environment, using a steady DC current to symbolize lightning, the destructive force that carries thousands of volts, not just a little zap.
ANYWAY, then the apparatus had an atmosphere of carbon monoxide, ammonia, and nitrogen. The first two are poisonous to all life, and need I point out that there is no OXYGEN? Where did it come from?
Finally, I just want to point out that you need:
Up to 100 amino acids per protein, all in the right order, quantity, and ratios
Hundreds of thousands of proteins, all the right kinds and quantities.
All these must be made in the same general area.
Then these proteins must form together into the semi-complex organs of a cell.

Last thing: The law of mass action.
When these proteins, amino acids, and other junk are forming, they would be in a liquid or the Miller apparatus would not apply. Anyway, the Law of Mass Action states that chemicals under the effect of Brownian Motion (In a thin liquid like water) will quickly decompose.

So not only must all this happen, it must happen within the span of minutes. Hmm...

Interesting thought: Every once in a while - thousands of years, it is believed that the magnetic flow of the earth changes direction. The magnetic flow protects the earth from radiation. Well, if this happens, perhaps there's some unexpected radiation that occurs from the sun that enacts the evolutionary process.

Anyway, there's too much we don't know about the universe. My point is to say that it's not decided completely. I just don't want evolution to be thought of as a theory. It's an untested hypothesis that makes sense. Creation isn't even that, but rather based on theological study of sacred texts. Intelligent design can still leave room for evolution and doesn't even need the intelligent designer to care about the universe .

I voted for the last one because I believe we were created, but I also believe that we evolved to get to the way we are now.

I could offer up an explanation, but you might not listen. I'll do it anyways.

This is in part caused by that original sin Eve commited back in the Garden of Eden, that being eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (it's not an apple, that's only used for illustrational purposes. I'm sure you knew that already, though)
That happened because God gave us free will. Many sicknesses occur as the consequences of our own actions. (ex: AIDS from sex, Cold from overexposure to cold, things of that sort) Also, our bodies aren't designed to take some of the abuses we put it through. They were made in this way to show that we need to be dependant on outer forces, like God. And for the races one... That probably has to do with the possibily that the people who became them ate or did something funky that caused that suspectability and/or problem.

^(I get the feeling that it's gonna get bashed so harshly. Oh well.)

@Falling - Very nicely put!

@Arche - Wouldnt you have to factor in the magnetism changes that occur on the earth do to sun-spots? There are recordings of people achieving higher test scores, better athletic performance, and many other things during these.

wow, remy..

your statement is very impressing.. i love such scientific arguments....

uhm, interesting for me was that heavy elements couldn't so easy develop because of this mass gap...(which has to bind the protons/neutrons etc)....

and impressing also how you told us about how the dns is structured^^... i had this thing with amino-acids in my chemistry... it's very iinteresting...

this statement of yours should convert many ppl to become believers^^^^^^

^thanks^^

Ok, but have they changed into a different spicies yet? No, they havn't.

Find an animal that has ,for the better, gained information and isn't just a mutation
(A cow with legs comeing from its head is not a gain in info it is the re-use of old info.)(If its genetics don't go with its children it isn't a posotive gain in info.)



I like the way you say it.