I was just wondering which you believe, and why. Hopefully you guys can post some evidence from both sides and not just take shots at the one you dont stand for.
What can we say that hasn’t been said a hundred times already? This is a big wad of “already been chewed” gum.
Trinopus
Search for “evolution” and/or “creation” in GD. There are threads aplenty.
I’m not sure if this subject has been coverd already. Perhaps people could debate
the topic here, in this thread.
I’m not too familiar with these terms “evolution” and “creation.” Perhaps you could enlighten us with some of the basic tenets of each.
Of course, I prefer to limit myself to threads about abortion and circumcision and try to stay from the really controversial stuff.
OK. A true scientist cannot “believe” in creationism. It isn’t science because the hyppthesis is not testable and it has no predictive value. As soon as you invoke creationism, you leave the realm of science.
Here are some threads from the past year on this or closely related subjects:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=205505
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=200961
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=193907
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=186755
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=183262
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=164419
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=161272
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=160011
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=157064
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=153301
Just thought I’d post these before the big pile-on begins.
Welcome to the SDMB, stuffusbus. Basically, what you will find here is that nearly everyone believes what is known in the peer-reviewed scientific community (where there is no serious debate): Evolution is a very well-founded scientific theory that has been tested again and again.
“Creation science” is not science at all but religion masquerading as science. While it has a few scientists as adherents, they generally write popular books on the subject rather than publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals because their views would never survive the peer-review process.
Furthermore creationism almost exclusively fails to present any positive evidence in its own favour, rather, relying on criticisms of evolutionary theory or evidence, in the hope that proving evolution false will somehow establish creationism as the truth by default.
Furthermore, the criticisms that are aimed at evolution are most often based on deliberately skewed representations (straw man arguments) of the theories that they attack, or they are based on hand-picked statistical anomalies that, when considered out of context, appear to cast doubt on some methodology or class of evidence, or they are nothing more than rhetorical devices, designed to convince rather than enlighten.
two 'furythermore’s
Ick
People who believe in evolution are poopy-heads.
There. Now that’s an original argument. 
And of course, the “mandatory” link to www.talkorigins.com
Sorry…That would be www.talkorigins.org
Anyone ever tried to defend creationism in SDMB ? Now that would be funny to see. I don’t think everyone has to like evolutionism… but its way more reasonable than creationism.
No one defends creationism…because no one has ever proposed a “theory of creation” that has any details at all other than “God did it mysteriously.”
Take away the “mysteriously” and you might have a theory…
Trinopus
Well, since this thread is such a dud, maybe we could discuss 1920s style death rays instead. You know, kinda give the pros and cons of death rays and the like.
People have tried to argue in favour of creationism here; it usually goes like this:
Creationist arrives, posts half a dozen regurgitated rhetorical potshots at various evolutionary topics
Evolutionists engage and refute the arguments - this can sometimes be rather overwhelming and does not always lack derision.
Creationist ignores rebuttals and posts a few more regurgitated pieces.
Evolutionists refute these, but try to keep topic centred on the original claims
At this point, one of several different endgames may be played out, including:
[ol][li]The creationist quietly disappears.[/li][li]The creationist burns out spectacularly and either leaves, or is banned[/li][li]The creationist stops arguing about creation/evolution and begins making threats about damnation.[/li][li]The creationist stops arguing about creation/evolution and begins telling people how much Jesus loves them.[/li][li]The creationist announces that he/she will believe whatever he/she wants anyway, no matter what anyone says.[/li][li]The creationist attempts to shift the burden of proof to the evolution camp; if they can’t prove creation didn’t happen, they lose.[/li][/ol]
**Mangetout, ** you forgot to tell them about the five dollar prize for the first person to say, "Evolution’s just a theory."
Evolution’s just a theory!
Er…sorry. I just need the five bucks…
And here is a nice list of many of those arguments which creationists continually make which are subsequently refuted.
Or “if humans came from pond slime, how come we still have pond slime?”