CreateDebate


Debate Info

115
74
Evolution Creationism
Debate Score:189
Arguments:196
Total Votes:205
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Evolution (78)
 
 Creationism (57)

Debate Creator

LizziexLaura(4277) pic



Which make more logical sense? Evolution or Creationism?

Which is a more logical thing to believe in? The theory of evolution or divine creation of species by the acts of God(christian god).

Evolution

Side Score: 115
VS.

Creationism

Side Score: 74
5 points

I can't imagine a sentence with would contain both words Logic and Creationism and wouldn't be complete bullshit.

Side: Evolution

Evolution makes the most logical sense to me - but not Darwin's theory, I think that sounds like bullshit, to be frank.

Side: Evolution

So why do you think that is? Why do you think Evolution is more logical?

Side: Evolution
shoutoutloud(4182) Clarified
2 points

Creationism works like that God decorated the universe, as we decorate a christmas tree. I think that.. boring, if you get me.

I like the Big Bang theory, since it makes everything start with an enormous bang.

I think it is more of what theory I like better, rather than what makes the most logical sense.

Everything makes no sense, nothing is truly logical.

Side: Evolution
3 points

I'm afraid it matters little what your beliefs or views are.

Evolution is quite backed up by nature, science, logic and life itself, that evolution is true, the big bang is true.

Those things are not exactly up for "belief or disbelief".

They are true as established by science. It is not up for debate unless some groundbreaking evidence for another position is found.

Side: Evolution

Also evolution still doesnt answer everything and may never answer everything.

Side: Evolution
1 point

True that!

Side: Evolution

So what if a god created the big bang?

Side: Evolution
Emperor(1348) Disputed
2 points

There's no proof?

What if a teapot created god/big bang?

You're not really saying anything that can be backed up.

Side: Creationism
Nox0(1393) Disputed
1 point

How is Evolution related to the Big bang ?

Side: Evolution
1 point

This is my thought on it as well, Lizzie.

No matter how we (or things) came to be... they can always be attributed to "God" or at least a belief in God.

And that's why my participation in these dicussions very seldom go beyond that point.

Side: Evolution
1 point

Why would he of? If you were omnipotent then you wouldn't need a bang to create the universe, it would be much easier if you just created it out of nothing.

Side: Creationism
3 points

Theory of Evolution is a result of more than century of intensive research, that has been done by tens of thousands of highly skilled experts that has dedicated their lifes to the science. They have managed to gather an incredible amount of evidence that gives us an overall picture of how he evolved. All of it, all the huge amount of data they have collected are freely accessible trough the internet.

Creationism originates in mythology. It was created by completely illiterate desert goat dwellers living in Bronze age. No single piece of evidence ever offered. Myths are inconsistent, sounding more like kids tales.

Side: Evolution
3 points

Evolution for sure. Creationism is just being okay with remaining ignorant about biology, chemistry and the laws of nature. It's just lazy, has ZERO evidence, and literally makes no sense whatsoever when you actually use an educated brain.

Side: Evolution
2 points

If I have to pick one, I'd pick Evolution. But only because Creation makes less sense. But I've heard many theories including that of creation and the only thing that has made me actually believe there MIGHT be a supernatural entity, is science and maybe the conspiracy topic.

If there happens to be a conspiracy group named Illuminati, it actually makes me believe that there might be a god behind all this. But then again, the conspiracy theory goes a long way back, perhaps even BC. It makes me think that IF the Illuminati does exist and they go back years BC, then they could easily have came up with Jesus and planned a whole mass destruction plan just to take over the world as rulers themselves and not for another entity as they claim it's to bring Lucifer as world ruler. So even if the Illuminati exist, and the Illuminati theory claims there is a god and a devil, then I'd think it's actually just a theory to distract people and that neither God nor Lucifer exists. Just a plan to take over the world.

Then there's the Evolution theory that we came from monkeys or whatever. But where did that monkey came from? It says it was a fish that evolved into a frog and then it touched ground and kept walking offshore. OK, that makes sense (to me). But what about the fish, the water, and earth itself? Planet earth was created by...an explosion? Like the Big Bang Theory or something? That doesn't really make sense to me at all. We'd still be left wondering about how exactly was it that stars were formed and when and how did that cosmic dust and those meteors and crap were created. Then scientists come up with things like the 'multiverse' and it's like...OK...where's the theory and where does all of it keep coming from? Because I can easily invent a theory that says we were in fact an evolution from penguins, but where exactly did that theory come from?

Unless god himself or aliens make an appearance into society to explain to us our existence, we'll always have doubts about it. And right now I have doubts about every theory because it's a matter of faith and when you have faith in something you don't question it and when you don't question something you don't see beyond the possibilities that it might actually be wrong, and that's actually what the Evolution theory does just like the Creation theory; both of them keep looking forward to theories that prove that they are right, but ignore theories that may prove they are wrong.

So since I've no faith, I'd be stuck in the middle of both theories and not believe in either 'cause even if aliens or god happen to exist, I'd still ask where did they come from.

Side: Evolution

That is how I feel.

Side: Evolution
2 points

To answer this first you need to answer the question what is logical to a creationist, creationism is perfectly logical they've got it all worked out via their beliefs and the bible and vice versa an evolutionist sees evolution as the only logical way everything on the planet came to be. To me evolution is practical and the only logical way as I do not think the bible story of god making the world in seven days etc holds water but if we keep asking the question why about evolution we end up at the big bang and before that nothing, to me that's were the logic of evolution runs out as we have nothing to prove how the big bang happened. Maybe a god triggered the big bang to see what would happen and the universe is one big experiment, which would make both creationism and evolution sort of right!!

Side: Evolution
2 points

Both positions make logical sense. There's nothing illogical about creationism or evolution. The difference between the two (and why no one can be serious about disagreeing with evolution) is just that the assumptions creationism makes are basically incapable of being taken seriously after scrutiny. The exact opposite is true of evolution.

Side: Evolution
2 points

With what we've seen definitely evolution. I won't post a link because every time I grace this topic I post the same one, but it basically showed a group of birds adapting, and evolving, to live near a highway that was made around their nesting ground.

Side: Evolution
2 points

Evolution is pretty much proven, and biblical creation only has a history of belief to back it. Evolution is a scientific theory, and with new evidence we can add more to what we know. No-one edits the bible which is ancient, unreasonable and as mistranslated as Cinderella. Evolution as a theory only explains the diversity of species, and can work with the concept of intelligent design if you so wish it.

Side: Evolution
2 points

Evolution, to me, makes more logical sense. Of course, that depends on what 'logical' means to you. Evolution, I suppose, is something that is very hard, and maybe even impossible to prove. But I can tell you that I believe this concept (almost all the time): The more you practice, the better you get at something. Same goes for evolution, except that the change is so much that it's visible. Still, I'm a kid, so I can easily say that I know very little compared to some others about both evolution and creationism.

Side: Evolution

Logically I believe a lot of things were created by evolution. Creationism in my opinion is not logic based at all. It is belief based.

Side: Evolution
1 point

People on the other side didn't pay attention in 1st grade.

Side: Evolution
1peter315(13) Disputed
1 point

The only thing i remember in first grade was to never stop questioning. Any teacher that discourges this, shouldnt be a teacher.

Side: Creationism
1 point

there is enough evidence to support it, but the thing is that the bible isn't meant to be taken literally, the earth was created by god, god created us humans through natural selection

Side: Evolution
1 point

I think evolving makes more sense than some magic dude clicking fingers and making us...Evolution makes more logical sense in my opinion.

Side: Evolution

For me I am primarily in between but I am leaning towards a more intelligent design of the universe thing. That is my topic of study as of now.

Side: Creationism

I can see your view on this. It is very tricky indeed and may be a mystery that we will never know.

Side: Creationism
Nox0(1393) Disputed
2 points

What about doing self study before turning to magic ?

Side: Evolution
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Creationism does not mean intelligent design. In fact any idea of intelligent design that includes creationism ends up making the intelligent part disappear.

Side: Evolution

There are different forms of creationism. One involves creation of the universe by an intelligent designer. It varies between individuals. In fact Creationism demends an intelligent designer which just means a higher being.

Side: Evolution
2 points

For something to exist it would have had to have been created; if we weren't created by something, in this case God, there'd be no existence in the first place. Therefore, we were created. At least that's my logic.

Evolution to me is a way of saying what was created has a process and so I do believe that humans came from a sort of process; that is, there was A at one point, and right now we're at B, and we're heading towards C.

Simple logic, yet beautifully complex in nature.

Side: Creationism

The theory of evolution is spectacular indeed. Although there are a few things it may never answer.

Side: Creationism
Nox0(1393) Disputed
1 point

Could you name some ?

Side: Evolution
Nebeling(1118) Disputed
1 point

For something to exist it would have had to have been created; if we weren't created by something, in this case God, there'd be no existence in the first place. Therefore, we were created. At least that's my logic.

That's not a problem of biology and evolution. That's a problem of physics and is therefore irrelevant.

Side: Evolution
Lynaldea(1231) Clarified
1 point

How is this a problem with physics? It is physics. It is logic. It is the way it is.

There was an A. We are B. And we're heading to C. This is the logical aspect.

The physics are that B cannot exist without A being there first. Plain and simple.

Side: Evolution
Elvira(3447) Clarified
1 point

...

What about god, the all obvious Where'd It come from? question.

Side: Evolution
1 point

I have no idea. I'm guessing it (God) was always there, and nothing before it. I don't really know.

In fact, I do not really care where God came from. I'm more concerned and curious with where we came from. Where God came from is of no concern to me, however, when I ask "did God create us?", I want to stress that I do not ask "Well, where did God from from?" I know humans and attempt to "know" (believe) in God, there's a big difference.

Let me ask you this..

What is significant about "Where God came from"?

Side: Creationism
2 points

Creationism. There's a reason evolutionism is still only a theory: it can't be proven, despite countless scientist's attempts. It was a handy pseudo-scientific theory that served the powers that were (and are) very nicely; how to create moral-free consumers? It was biblical law they needed to separate mankind from to move forward into the future they envisioned, and Darwin provided that. Not really a strong theory, but good enough for the purposes it was used for against the unlearned commoner. Modern scientists are trying to find what actually created the world, because some time ago it became painfully clear to the cutting edge scientists that the world cannot be an accident; that flies in the face of mathematics and all other disciplines. All attempts to prove evolution true once and for all had only succeeded in proving it was not true. Only low-grade scientists are still in the dark about that one. It's actually a dead theory, disproven by all the attempts to prove it. So this is actually a dead debate. However, they will leave evolution being taught as fact just like they did when it was clearly an unfleshed theory, because they haven't figured out what they want to replace it with, and 'God' is an abhorrent thought to them. They'll let us know when they've thought up the creator they attribute the world to.

Once you study biology (or genetics or physics or whatever) you see how precisely everything is built together. Countless perfect sums working together in preset programs and processes can't be a happy whoopsie; that defies logic itself. Evolution as per Darwin's theory works from the whopper of a presupposition that mistakes kept being evolved away from until a species was created, and happy mistakes kept happening in cohesion. The real world is far too complex to result from such a haphazard method. We live in the midst of the most complex, precisely orchestrated symphony imaginable; it could not possibly be a result of trial and error or unguided happenstance because the failures in the process of evolution into a living organism would have doomed that species to never become a species in the first place.

What guided evolution to work? If you believe in evolution, for it to work, something had to be making the right accidents happen perfectly and stay happening; otherwise we'd still be trying to emerge from the primordial ooze, constantly being retarded back into single cells. Everything around us, from each cell to each ecosystem, is built of so many interacting molecules and cells etc, that it is literally impossible for evolution to occur due to the sheer number of mistakes that would be fatal to the entire race. Maybe we could swallow the idea of one cell 'evolving'; but uncountable cells 'evolving' in cooperative harmony with one another and their environment and the planetary organism itself? That's sheer untrammeled fantasy.

Leading scientists are now leaning towards creationism because the best science tells them there is no way this all happened by accident; that's the greatest fairytale of all, and requires learnt ignorance which is fostered and taught under the facade of educated scientific knowledge. It's ancient ignorant pseudo-science and has been and is progressively being debunked. Whether or not you want to believe in God, the facts/sciences/maths actually support creationism, in the most nonreligious sense of the word, and now world leading science, while trying to avoid inciting a stampede of panicked evolutionist lemmings, is seeking the means and method of intelligent or guided creation. It's a fact that we are created and live in creation; now, it's time to seek the creator. It's still pretty hush-hush because the cult of evolution reigns strong, as do all of the most ignorant belief systems, but bit by bit common media is starting to come around to the idea that evolution is a failed doctrine, and the truth is yet to be accepted.

Side: Creationism
Cuaroc(8826) Disputed
1 point

There's a reason evolutionism is still only a theory: it can't be proven, despite countless scientist's attempts.

That statement right their makes you lose any credibility.

Side: Evolution
1 point

I think he is just saying that it doesnt answer everything Creationism does.

Side: Creationism
Cuaroc(8826) Disputed
1 point

Any evidence to support your claims preferably the site you copied and pasted this argument?

Side: Evolution
Thejackster(517) Disputed
1 point

A theory is the highest label in the fields of science, it is an idea based on observations that have been tested and proven over and over. Creationism barely qualifies as a hypothesis, the idea that we were all molded into existence by an invisible magic man in the sky has no basis in fact or observation, only within the 1000 year old writings of primitive man. Even many religious people accept evolution. You have no ground to stand on

Side: Evolution
2 points

Who believes evolution. Creationism is the only way possible. It is more logical!!!!

Side: Creationism
1 point

For me I dont think evolution is even in the slightest sense is a 100% true fact. It still leaves many things unanswered.

Side: Creationism
Nox0(1393) Disputed
2 points

Name some .

Side: Evolution
Centifolia(1318) Disputed
4 points

1. How life originate?

2. How did the DNA originate?

3. How did sex originate?

4. How did genes originate

5. How did living fossils remain the same after their era ended?

6. How did the sense of intelligence, technology and morality came to be?

Side: Creationism
Kingly342(29) Disputed
1 point

And creationism does?

Creationism doesn't answer all the questions.

Side: Evolution
1 point

Re: the theory of gravity being used to defend the theory of evolution: obviously a big difference there, because despite the spin doctoring of pro-evolutionists, there is still no evidence of the existence of evolution, whereas there is evidence of gravity. A rose by any other name...

People shouldn't take it as a personal attack or some kind of command to submit to religion when I point out that many scientists themselves have abandoned the THEORY of evolution, while others still work to prove it. All the so-called 'proof' accumulated since the theory's advent doesn't stand up to any scientific validation testing. The facts of the matter is that evolution itself as a theory does not stand up to scrutiny and has collapsed under testing, every time, even when the testers were seeking to remove its 'theory' prefix tag by proving it. For the purposes of this debate I will use 'evolution' as a term including the 'big bang' theory, and all related/correlated theories of those two, to cover the 'accidents happen' explanation for the world's existence.

Science and scientists are fallible, it's a human fact. Much idiocy has sailed into the safe harbour of being publicly accepted under the flag of 'fact' despite gaping holes in the logic and criteria of their studies that supposedly render the proof. From there it's unquestionable, unchallengeable until pop science loses its hold with age and new information comes to light. Often it's the non-scientist who decries the new facts the loudest.

If you're so sure it's the truth then why do we have world-leading scientists seeking another explanation for the world - namely, creation - that is in complete opposition to the old theory of evolution? Maybe you should teach them the 'proven facts', and why it's a flawless theory. After all the hype died down, the best minds of our day have woken up to the realization of it simply not being a working theory. It's sacrilegious to question against evolution but gradually we are emerging into a modern world capable of questioning without lynchings.

Instead of merely reacting with the learnt-by-rote propaganda you were indoctrinated with in high school, perhaps take a moment to stop and think. Like the modern scientist is. If evolution were a proven theory no scientist would be seeking the means of intelligent or guided creation. But they are.

Not all those called scientists are making progress; many learn about science too worshipfully to ever question the old findings that have gone before, and instead of advancing science or contributing, they teach the flawed 'facts' of last century. That sort tends to rabidly and fervently (religiously) swallow piecemeal, and propagate/preach evolutionism. The rather self-righteous, hysterical, completely illogical behaviour evolutionists tend to erupt into when their faith's ideology is questioned is identical to the behaviour of the religiously fanatical. But, like all good fanatics, the most faithful of the closed-minded evolutionists are blind to their own behaviour.

I think evolutionism should be classified as a type of cultist religion; in fact in future it will almost certainly go down into history as a quasi-cult doctrine perpetrated upon the ignorant common man who had not the education to save himself, for the purposes of liberation from the control of the big churches into the hands of commercialism and industrialism. Certainly some people are fanatical and willfully blind enough in their support of it. I understand it's comforting and liberating to many, but the truth is not encompassed by evolutionary theory. I too was all abuzz when evolutionism was first taught. But even to me the faults became obvious, and this late in the day the rats (a.k.a. leading scientists) are finally deserting the sinking ship. Very reluctantly though. They're not saying it's not a plausible explanation for the world because they believe in God; (most of them don't); rather, they're saying that evolution/big bang theory etc is not a plausible explanation for the world because they have inquiring and evaluating minds, have done the studies and maths, and know it doesn't work. Not by a long stretch. It's a laughable fantasy, in all truth. I bet there'll still be devoted believers of evolutionism when it's been discredited for centuries, in future. When people believe so blindly they lose the ability to see or seek truth, they are lost. I'm glad it's freed the commoner from the complete and hypocritical dictatorship of the big churches, but it's still not a working theory. Many of the scientists back then were mis-educated and intimidated sycophants. Be a little more open minded if you dare.

Side: Creationism

Pretty much all information scientists reject evolution because the information in DNA could not come about by that process, its impossible. Evolution is a religion supported by falicy, not fact!

Side: Creationism
Cuaroc(8826) Disputed
1 point

sure sure keep being delusional if you want.

Side: Evolution
1 point

Bah, the bodgy website doubleposted....

Re: someone thinking I've copied and pasted my opinions: I do understand that's actually something people do these days but much prefer to simply state my own opinions. If I ever do copy and paste information from another site I give credit. I'm not bent on anyone believing in God or evolution, I'm just stating my reasons why evolutionism is not an acceptable theory to me.

Side: Creationism

Genetic Mutations are an atomic bomb in the middle of the theory of evolution, the only thing holding us back from detonating it are brainwashed skeptics whose worldview would crumble if evolution were proved false.

Side: Creationism
Cuaroc(8826) Disputed
2 points

and common sense is a super nova in the middle of creationism.

Side: Evolution
1 point

you mean the common sense that nothing exploded and created everything and that, contrary to the known laws of physics, energy came together to form stars and then contrary to scientific observation, life came from nonlife and then thanks to mutations which are harmful 99% of the time, simple DNA codes became more complex by themselves and then we evolved a brain to understand this all even though it we dont need it to survive we kinda just evolved that random ability anyway and we know this is true because of radiocarbon dating even though a rock just made in a volcanoe 40 years ago dates the same age. That common sense?

Side: Creationism
1 point

Evolution suggests that humans and all other organisms that are around today evolved from other animals and organisms. They believe that apes evolved into humans. What doesn't make sense to me is the fact that apes are still around today with no significant signs of evolutionary changes. The Bible states in John 1:3, "Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made." The Bible doesn't say anything about apes becoming humans or any other species evolving. I believe the Bible because God promises us that everything in there is true. Humans fail. They lie, they cheat, and they will do anything and everything they can to get what they want. And I just don't think it makes sense to believe one person's beliefs who is lying to all of their fans for attention. Evolutionists are taking advantage of the people who actually believe their theories and that just isn't right.

Side: Creationism
MuckaMcCaw(1968) Disputed
1 point

What doesn't make sense to me is the fact that apes are still around today with no significant signs of evolutionary changes.

This probably doesn't make sense because it isn't true. Like humans, evolutionary lineages can be drawn for pretty much any other ape.

The Bible doesn't say anything about apes becoming humans or any other species evolving.

It also doesn't mention marsupials or planets or energy spectra or atoms. You saying these don't exist?

Humans fail. They lie, they cheat, and they will do anything and everything they can to get what they want.

Like, say, write and publish a Bible and claim to have been divinely inspired?

Evolutionists are taking advantage of the people who actually believe their theories and that just isn't right.

And just how are they doing that?

Side: Evolution
1 point

There is an awful lot of faith in far reaching abilities thought capable in biology. Evolution purposes to assembe mutations for purpose of progress, and to further adaptation.

Evolution without a Creator is only selective of biological attractions based on these three basic needs to sustain durability, for survival and to further evolve toward progress through adaptations. But biology has no selection ability for preference!!

This kind of faith in evolution's ability absent a Creator is fairy dust!

It's a heavy acid trip to think evolution without a Creator can manage its designs selective also of preference, attracting mutations that will lead ultimately to design and artistic beauty too. It would actually look like crowded desolate waste with creatures durable and more likely ugly.

Thinking biology can evolve to select mostly beauty is unrealistic!

There are not enough care Bears and fairy dust to sustain that dream!

I'm sure organized artistic beauty can evolved through preferred biological selections for beauty in your make believe word of evolution But really... That's pretty neive faith in evolution's biological focus and creative abilities!

Side: Creationism
1 point

There is an awful lot of faith in far reaching abilities thought capable in biology. Evolution purposes to assembe mutations for purpose of progress, and to further adaptation.

Evolution without a Creator is only selective of biological attractions based on these three basic needs to sustain durability, for survival and to further evolve toward progress through adaptations. But biology has no selection ability for preference!!

This kind of faith in evolution's ability absent a Creator is fairy dust!

It's a heavy acid trip to think evolution without a Creator can manage its designs selective also of preference, attracting mutations that will lead ultimately to design and artistic beauty too. It would actually look like crowded desolate waste with creatures durable and more likely ugly.

Thinking biology can evolve to select mostly beauty is unrealistic!

There are not enough care Bears and fairy dust to sustain that dream!

I'm sure organized artistic beauty can evolved through preferred biological selections for beauty in your make believe word of evolution But really... That's pretty neive faith in evolution's biological focus and creative abilities!

Side: Creationism

Someone has yet to explain how something can evolve out of nothing

Side: Creationism
Nox0(1393) Disputed
3 points

Have you heart about Google? It's a powerful tool :D

Side: Evolution
Nebeling(1118) Disputed
1 point

How would you deal with the hypothesis that the energy content of the universe is exactly zero? It's not a stupid idea, because it makes a whole lot of sense to numerate gravity as negative energy. If you than add all positive energy to all the negative gravity you arrive at exactly zero. The conclusion is that it takes no energy to create a universe.

If you agree with the premises, then it's quite easy to explain why something can evolve out of nothing.

Side: Evolution
2 points

Could you explain that in a different way please

Side: Creationism
1 point

So how did life start?

Side: Creationism
Elvira(3447) Clarified
1 point

Evolution says nothing about evolving out of nothing.

Side: Evolution
MuckaMcCaw(1968) Disputed
1 point

Evolution attempts to explain the diversity within life. In order to have diversity in life, you have to have life. In order to have life, you have to have a fostering environment. In order to have such an environment you have to have...well, something. Therefore, there is absolutely no way any evolution supporter would claim that something could evolve out of nothing. I don't think you understand evolution....

Side: Evolution
1 point

What I meant was how did our universe evolve from nothingness?

Side: Creationism
Thejackster(517) Disputed
1 point

The classic "Something can't come from nothing argument made by Theists"

3 major flaws in this argument:

1. If you are stating that the world had to be created because something cannot come from nothing then you must explain where God came from, if you are like most theists your reply will probably be "God doesn't need a creator, he's eternal." Then why can't the universe be eternal? Why did it need to be created?

2. Even if something did create the cosmos, it wouldn't necessarily need to be a God, it is more likely that a rock created the universe, not very likely but more so than God because we know that rocks exist, we can see them, touch them, etc. But God we have no evidence for.

3. Even if it was a God, Goddess, Gods, etc. that created the universe, how likely is it that your God of your faith is the correct one? Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Thor, Shiva, etc. have about the same probability, it may even be none of these Gods, but a God we don't even know of

Side: Evolution
1 point

God doesn't need a creator, he's eternal.

It exists outside of time and space, the universe, obviously, is within the constraints of time and space.

it is more likely that a rock created the universe Then that rock is considered god.

The only reason we attribute the word "god" to a creator is because there is literally no other way to explain it, and the word is different in every language so this point is kind of invalid...

God is a broad term....

Side: Creationism
0 points

Actually, you need to do a simple search on evolution, and a simple search of the meaning of a theory, and you will find the theory of evolution is still a theory. It has not lost its theory prefix for many, many good reasons. Scientists have tried long and hard to prove it, and all failed. And this is accepted and common knowledge. You need to educate yourself.

Saying 'blah' makes someone lose all credibility is not the same as debating, if anything it's like a little child saying I'm 'it' somehow.

Side: Creationism
Cuaroc(8826) Disputed
4 points

Actually you need to educate yourself about the definition of theory.

Side: Evolution
Elvira(3447) Clarified
1 point

Enzyme action: the lock and key THEORY, taught in junior secondary school (in Britain anyway).

Theory of gravity is another famous one.

Side: Evolution
0 points

Honestly I have no clue as to what to believe on this subject, I just put my argument under creationism because they were behind. I think both ideas have HUGE flaws. Evolutionism: One organism magically changes into about 73329048 other completely different organisms over time. Also, a bunch of random atoms somehow came together to make a living thing. Creationism: A supernatural power/bearded man made the universe and everything inside it out of absolutely nothing. That is obviously not true. So basically I will think long and hard about this and formulate my own idea and theory.

Side: Creationism