Quote:
Creationism does not contradict very many things. Evolution is one of the few things it contradicts. We cannot prove that evolution is real.


Man I hope you were high when you wrote that.
I hope you're not talking to me because I didn't type that.
Evolution, via natural selection, IS real - the evidence is overwhelming and denying it makes you look brainwashed. Plain and simple.
This is just an opinionated comment with no scientific examples to back it up.

If evolution were false, then pesticide companies like Orkin and pharmaceutical firms like Phizer wouldn't have the business they do today. Care to guess why?
Because there was already a small percentage of bugs that were resistant to the pesticide in the first place. When the other bugs got killed off, the resitant ones survived and this became the dominant gene. The information pre-existed in the organism. This is one of the many lines of false evidence for evolitionists, that creationists have to answer over and over again because people like you are so ignorant you don't even realize that your own leading evolutionists know this but you don't.

You are COMPLETELY misrepresenting the opposition here, odd behavior if you're indeed confident in your sides position.
People don't want creationism taught in science class - there is a huge difference. If you want the christian literary tradition covered in public schools, then it belongs in a Comparative Religion class, many high schools already have syllabuses to that effect. Creationism should not be taught, and is not taught in a science curriculum for the exact same reasons we don't dispense astrology in astronomy class.
Parents who have a problem with that should either enroll their kids in a private school more in line with their religious sensitivities, or look to Bible School at their prefered church for the additional tutelage. Pretty straight forward really...
Creationism doesn't teach religious doctrine. What creationism deals with is how the universe and everything came to be. It doesn't neccessarily tell you what laws to obey or how to go to heaven. If that's what fits with the evidence then so be it though. If creationism should be banned from science class because it requires belief, then so should evolution which has it's own accompaning philosophy. You don't understand that facts by themselves are useless but people fit them into a larger philosophy. You can seperate the facts from the philosophy, even though it's better to teach both together. But ultimately everyone will fit the facts into their own philosophy as with evolution fits into a greater philosophy such as humanism or naturalism or pantheism. Either have them both evolution and creation compared and examined or none at all.

Where do you get this idea that simply because a concept involves God or inteligent design it instantly becomes religion? That's not true.

Jamstigator said:

The problem with Creationism, aside from there being no evidence of any kind to support it,
I will simply say you are totally wrong and ignorant, and suggest you go study some creation websites to understand what they really teach. LIke I said we both have the same evidence, but interperet it differently. There is evidence for creation in fossils, geology, archaeology, astronomy, dna, plants, natural laws, irreducible complexity, microorganisms, hydrology, human biology, mathmatics,musicology, zoology, etc. etc.

Go ahead check it out : Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics (there are lots of other sites besides that one as well)

Creationism necessitates him being a conniving and purposeful liar. Hiding dinosaur bones all over the planet, along with the humanoid bones of what appear to be our ancestors, in minute detail, just to trick us into thinking he doesn't exist? That's pretty hard to swallow.
Actually the bones and sediment layers fit WONDERFULLY with the creationist model of a worldwide flood. No deciet there at all. The deceit is with evolutionists who show you what's called the geoligical column which exists nowhere in the world asi t's shown exept for a few places in layers that are much too thin. Furthermore they use circular logic, dating the layers by the fossils, then dating the fossils by the layers.

Heres more:

Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis

FOSSILS AND ROCKS: CIRCULAR REASONING

Noah's Flood Q&A

What did Sherlock Holmes say? "The most obvious answer is most often the correct one." Something like that.
While I don't believe with the imaginary character sherlock, the most obvious answer is creation. If you say things don't look designed, you are a liar. Lying to yourself.

Science doesn't try to make the facts fit anything;
Science is a tool, it has no mind of it's own. It can be used one way or another. Scientists are biased human beings just like you and me. They think of theories of what they think best happened and search for evidence that's fits with the theory they like best.

Feedback: Are scientists really biased by their presuppositions? - Answers in Genesis

I think that there's just too much ignorance in this world. As it says in the Word, If you are wise, you are wise for yourself and if you are a fool you alone will bear it.