As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution

[VirOptimus]

Try wording it this way, and see if it helps:

The fact that the universe and life has to be created before the theory of evolution can be used ...

There is no data or credible evidence suggesting creation or a creator.

 

[Frank Robert]

Even if evolution was the route God took to configure this universe, it is inferior to creationism, since evolution cannot do anything until it has something to work with: ylem.

Evolution is worthless without creation coming first.

Theistic evolutionist believe God stated evolution by giving us the natural laws to do the grunt work. Creationist believe that God continues to do the grunt work.

This post is a perfect example of the conclusion reached by academia, when creationism is taken outside of Genesis 1 & 2.

The Catholic Church does not prohibit belief in either creationist or evolution which is a reasonable solution to avoid the pretense observed in OPs like the present one.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

LOL -- first you say:Then when I show you how creation is superior to evolution, you come back with: "Not interested."

Solid aurum.

Claims are not evidence.

But, no doubt, when mistakes are pointed out in what you claim was created, you'll claim they can't be mistakes because the creator doesn't make mistakes (begging the question), therefore GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways) - appeal to mystery.

E.T.A. I stand corrected, you simply deny that contemporary humans are what God created...

 

[Hans Blaster]

Evo's become quite emotional when anyone reveals that their evolution theory has no clothes.

Rather than deal with the theory's shortcomings, their SOP is to attack the messenger, try to destroy a reputation rather than refute an argument.

Really, you're going complain about opponents of creationism using personal attacks by using a term they (we) would consider to be derogatory? Really?

Let's see how the next three pages of post go. I doubt I'll get any substantive response to my lengthy response of the OP, but I can hope.

 

[Hans Blaster]

After their "group hug" celebrating another supposed successful defense of their beloved theory, they return to bury their heads back in the safe sand of ignoring the obvious.

I hope you don't mistake me for a "hugger".

You cannot qualify [Online debate] in harsher term than I will. [Online debate] is cruelty, and you cannot refine it.

[Oops. I left my self in "Sherman-mode".]

No, really, though. I'm not a hugger.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no data or credible evidence suggesting creation or a creator.

The question is: Is creationism superior to evolution?

I say a resounding YES.

I'll make a poll.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, really, though. I'm not a hugger.

Me neither.

 

[pitabread]

The question is: Is creationism superior to evolution?

I say a resounding YES.

I'll make a poll.

Why bother? That's not going to demonstrate anything other than a bunch of opinions.

If you really want to address the question, you should be looking to define the criteria by which "superior" is being determined in this context.

That you don't seem to have any criteria (other than maybe "X happened before Y") makes the discussion rather meaningless.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why bother? That's not going to demonstrate anything other than a bunch of opinions.

If you really want to address the question, you should be looking to define the criteria by which "superior" is being determined in this context.

That you don't seem to have any criteria (other than maybe "X happened before Y") makes the discussion rather meaningless.

We'll see.

 

[pitabread]

We'll see.

Well, what is your criteria for determining whether something is superior or not?

 

[VirOptimus]

The question is: Is creationism superior to evolution?

I say a resounding YES.

I'll make a poll.

Superior to whom?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, what is your criteria for determining whether something is superior or not?

In this case: power.

In another case: Since God had two choices, Creation or Evolution, and He chose Creation, I'd say Creation for the win.

 

[AV1611VET]

Superior to whom?

Mr Ylem

 

[VirOptimus]

Mr Ylem

-sigh-

 

[AV1611VET]

-sigh-

As I pointed out earlier: No God, no ylem.

 

[pitabread]

In this case: power.

In another case: Since God had two choices, Creation or Evolution, and He chose Creation, I'd say Creation for the win.

That's just a non-demonstrable belief. There is no way to actually evaluate such a claim unless one applies a specific framework.

And in the context of a scientific framework, creationism doesn't stand up to scrutiny (e.g. life on Earth does not look like the product of independent creation).

 

[VirOptimus]

As I pointed out earlier: No God, no ylem.

There is no god(s).

 

[HitchSlap]

The question is: Is creationism superior to evolution?

I say a resounding YES.

I'll make a poll.

No, of course not. Creationism is based on ancient myths, while ToE enjoys multiple independent lines of evidence. Only people committed to rigid, myopic religious dogma accept creationism. There is no need to seriously entertain creationism at this point.

Established scientific models are supported by multiple independent lines of evidence..

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no god(s).

Then there's no ylem.

 

[pitabread]

Then there's no ylem.

That doesn't follow.