Creation or Evolution- which side of the arguement are you on?

There is not really much of a debate. Evolution is pretty much a proven fact and creationism only a bedtime story for small children and small minds.

Both. I don't see how creationism and evolution have to be at odds. I believe that Gods (or higher beings or whatever) had a hand in creating the world. However, I also believe in evolution. Over time species change, and the idea that supreme beings created the world in no way changes this. I don't really see why people argue over this matter. I suppose if you believed in specifics of a creation story which did not include evolution, then it would be a problem for you. But even then, just because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen. For example: If I was talking about someone's life, and I mentioned the day they were born, and then skipped to their adult life, does that mean they had no childhood? Or does it merely mean I didn't tell you that part of the story?

I have the tendency to believe that evolution is much more logical argument at this point. I do believe that bible states creation is the parallel theory of evolution where during that time is man's interpretation of evolution. I guess it's somewhat the same as language do evolve in some ways we do converse today as compared to the past. So is the way we see things today compared to the past. I guess there is no question that evolution and creation is just a way to express themselves during that times. We do have to adjust the way those early bible scholars describe creation which in our contemporary lives is the way our scientist describes evolution.

Well, both of them are theories, but Creationism has far too many religious undertones for my taste. Until I see convincing evidence against it, I will continue to favor the theory of evolution.

I'm for creation. There's evidence for design all around us. The so-called evidence for evolution is too weak and in dispute amongst evolutionist themselves.

The "we" that he's referring to are the scientists that follow his ideology, not the ones who don't.

Theory a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory" From the online dictionary Those that purpose evolution will find them selves in the circular theory. Being that They base their time line on the Geological Timelines which are based on the fossils found at each level. They are based on each other. Now science is proving the bible. For example Job 28:25 talks about the atmospheric pressure Job 25:5 deals with the moon not being self-luminescent and the list goes on. So I believe in creation.

I am with Evolution. We evolve..! Our needs evolve.. Our expectations, thoughts, abilities, efficiency, every thing around us evolves!

Evolution, not a shadow of a doubt. Creationism is based only on a religious belief, and contradicts the evidence we see in the world (especially Young Earth Creationism).

First, a clarification must be made. Evolution is not in conflict with all theism, only a subset of Christianity in which literal translations of the Bible are in conflict with the theory. Evolution also makes no predictions regarding the genesis of all life or the existence/absence of a higher being who did so. Creationism is a broad assumption formulated in the absence of absolute truth or absolute knowledge, but makes the attempt to provide some semblance of absolute knowledge and truth. It does so through an untestable and unfalsifiable framework based solely on faith. Unless you can prove someone's faith is correct or incorrect, you can not prove or disprove creationism. Scientific theories can be refuted, tested, validated, and upgraded through new or modified theories as new evidence and tools become available. Creationism meets none of these criteria, which the Theory of Evolution meets all of them. Full Article: http://www.helium.com/tm/223187 Draven the Respectful Atheist http://dravenwriter.blogspot.com

Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like bacteria flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic),then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism seems effectively impossible. To do so, one must show that no conceivable Darwinian pathway could have led to a given biological structure. What's more Darwinists are apt to retreat in the murk of historical contingency to shore up their theory. For instance, Allen Orr in his critique of Behe's work shortly after "Darwin's Black Box" appeared remarked, "What have no guarantee that we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway." What he conceded with one hand however, he was quick to retract with the other. He added, but even if we can't, its irreducible complexity cannot count against gradual evolution." The fact is that for complex systems like the bacterial flagellum no biologist has nor is anywhere close to reconstructing its history in Darwinian terms. Is Darwinian theory therefore falsified? Hardly, I have yet to witness one committed Darwinist concede that any feature of nature might even in principle provide countervailing evidence to Darwinism. In place of such a concession, one is always treated to an admission of ignorance. Thus it is not that Darwinism has been falsified or disconfirmed, but that we simply don't know enough about the biological system and its historical context to determine how the Darwinian mechanism might have produced it. William Dembski Ph.D Mathematics, Ph.D Philosoy "Is Intelligent Design Testable ? January 2004, 2001 An here comes Fargale with his Cut and Paste argument paying close attention to stay away from the content.

For me this debate is not a matter of being Christian or scientist. This is a truth that we need to realized that creation or evolution are two diffirent ideas and diffirent point of view in looking at things. I won't give on what side I am in but rather I would like to explain my personal point of view with regards to this matter. Creation is an existence that comes from nothing to something and is made out of only by a supreme being that we call God. However, on the other hand Evolution is a theory that comes out of something that already exist and a conclusion out of scientific studies and datas of its existence. Therefore, if one says that he is for creation or evolution you are either right or wrong because the question that is posted here is only asking on which side are you according to your point of view. You will only know either you're right or wrong if the questions goes on who came first "creation or evolution" according to the existence of the universe or man or anything that we see. I hope that I did my explaination clear and wouldlead to more clear point of view between creation and evolution.

there are those who believe that our evolution was somehow accelerated. I cant give exactnumbers but it took man a few hundred thousand years to go from using rocks as tools to using sharpend rocks on sticks but ony a few 10's of thousands years to go from that to a man on the moon. Ancient documents and drawings repeatedly show things that people of back then could have absolutely no concept of. such as a sumerian gold reliefe that shows not only the sun as the center of the solar system but 10 planets including neptunes odd position in it.

I go for creation, evolution got many flaws that's not worth believing for. I think you have to read this post: http://www.mylot.com/w/discussion/1029584.aspx

Not in both