Creationism = LOL to me
Most creationism arguments usually have massive flaws in there that require "divine intervention" to gloss over. That doesn't mean I follow evolution blindly, but the scientific process behind evolution gives it far far more substance than creationism.
Things like the creationist argument behind Noahs ark or the time differences between the biblical age of the Earth and the scientific age, are often put forward by people who are specialists in one particular field. They don't realise that while what they "claim" might work scientifically in their field it doesn't work so well in other fields.
For example, I've seen it posted that fossils were created during the great flood, hence the fact you find sea creature fossils on top of mountains. For fast fossilation, you would require the ocean to undergo immense pressure and heat. Such immense pressure that Noahs poor ark would not be able to float on the ocean. Hence the need for God to intervene to keep the Ark from spontaneously combusting.
Most creationism arguments usually have massive flaws in there that require "divine intervention" to gloss over. That doesn't mean I follow evolution blindly, but the scientific process behind evolution gives it far far more substance than creationism.
Things like the creationist argument behind Noahs ark or the time differences between the biblical age of the Earth and the scientific age, are often put forward by people who are specialists in one particular field. They don't realise that while what they "claim" might work scientifically in their field it doesn't work so well in other fields.
For example, I've seen it posted that fossils were created during the great flood, hence the fact you find sea creature fossils on top of mountains. For fast fossilation, you would require the ocean to undergo immense pressure and heat. Such immense pressure that Noahs poor ark would not be able to float on the ocean. Hence the need for God to intervene to keep the Ark from spontaneously combusting.