Do 6 Out of 10 Americans Really Not Believe In Evolution?

Originally posted by Beneia
Genesis 1:1 that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," he summarized in a single sentence one of the most important miracles of all—the miracle of creation. In a period of six days, God brought into existence a Universe full of galaxies, solar systems, planets, stars, asteroids, meteorites, etc. The writer of Hebrews said: "We understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible" (11:3). When God created, He did not use matter and energy that already were in existence. Rather, He spoke them into existence "by the word of His power" (Hebrews 1:3).

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Beneia]

The Epistle of Paul The Apostle To The Hebrews..

Chapter 01. Verse 03.

Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and unfolding all things by the Word of his power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the magesty on high.

Rather, He spoke them into existence

???????????????

I don't know how you arrive at the interpretation, you have offered !

From "The Gospel of Thomas"

Verse 39.

Jesus said,

“The Pharisees and the Scribes
have taken The Keys of Knowledge
and Hidden Them.

They themselves
have NOT entered,
nor have they allowed to enter
those who wish to."

Hmmmm more study is required I think....

Keep reading...

The Word of God is Not the Roman bible or any other bible.... The Roman church or any other denomination was never spoken of by the Carpenter.
The Romans translated from the Greek script mentioning The Assemblies of Lights but changed these words to the word church....

Jesus the carpenter said "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees and hypocrites."

Read The Gospel According to St. John

Chapter 01.

Two components of God...

1/. The Word

2/. Life

The one that came down from Heaven was The Word Made Flesh.

The Life of God is The Light originally from the Greek Text the Romans stole is spelt in Greek Phos (English version as I can't write here in Greek Fonts)

Phos means the Light of the Sun, Star, or any other Source of Light.

Phos does Not mean Understanding...

Hence "The Sun of Righteousness" and Not the son of righteousness

Malachi Chapter 04 Verse 02.

Questions:


1. If we are related to monkeys. Are monkeys then also entitled to a pension?

2. If we are related to the monkeys can we be charged for burning down their homes. Or charged for murder if we hunt them down.

3. If we are related to monkeys is it right to keep them in prison/ captured in a zoo with out a trial?

4. If we are related to monkeys dont they have the same rights as we do to a free and safe environment?

5. Why do you when you see a monkey feel that they are not like us at all. Is that because they are not like us and never have been like us.

6. Why cant our ancestor way back in time have the same rights as we do?

Is it because we are smarter and better then they are. But isn't that discrimination?

reply to post by spy66


I usually expect to see intelligent conversation, but lately I've been extremely disappointed.

We are not merely related to monkeys, but rather to apes. We ourselves are grouped along with the Great Apes: Orangutans, Gorillas, and Chimpanzees.

The questions you ask would only apply if these other apes were members of our society, which will never happen.

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by spy66

 

I usually expect to see intelligent conversation, but lately I've been extremely disappointed.

We are not merely related to monkeys, but rather to apes. We ourselves are grouped along with the Great Apes: Orangutans, Gorillas, and Chimpanzees.

The questions you ask would only apply if these other apes were members of our society, which will never happen.

Apes, monkeys we are all monkeys in one way or another. We have just given out names to separate us from each other. And there is no proof that Apes are our blood line. The only thing DNA or mERV's can prove is that we are all created here on earth with a different combination or equation. Man we are even related to flowers if you look at the biology of it all.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by DASFEX


That article doesn't prove that the Archeaopteryx was a hoax. What you probably didn't bother to find out was that the case mentioned was not about archaeopteryx, but rather the man was claiming it was an even earlier bird. His claims at first were extraordinary, but when other paleontologists got a chance too look at the bones, they were in such poor shape and obviously not of the same specimen.

There are other specimens of Archaeopteryx that have existed for quite a while, more specifically the London and Berlin specimens.

reply to post by DASFEX


...Nearly - it's as though you claim to understand the word 'histrionics' & quote the dictionary meaning to show your understanding, but then swerve off that line of understanding to miss the meaning of the way you used the word within the context of your statement: "The histrionics of the man Jesus Christ"

Roughly translated, that phrase would be as follows: "The over dramatic, over emotional behaviour of the man Jesus Christ" - in my mind that conjures up an image of JC lying on the floor kicking, screaming & crying like a 5 year old having a tantrum in the supermarket because his mum won't buy him a transformer robot doll.

...Which is a funny image - hence my reaction of laughter.
Also I doubt it's the image or meaning you wanted to convey, hence the lack of your understanding sounding retarded. Clearly in the context of your post you were using the word believing it to mean '...history as an academic subject or study...' or something similar, which has nothing to do with the meaning of 'histrionics'.

Now in your reply you're saying that the usage of the word 'histrionics' is no problem for those people using it who understand how history was written in older times (story); so you mean that quite often stories from older times will be over-dramatised or exaggerated for effect - which within itself as a description of history is a true statement & a correct usage of the word 'histrionics'.

However that has got nothing to do with the statement you made; your statement talks about 'the histrionics of the man Jesus Christ' which literally means that JC himself was behaving in an over-dramatic or exaggerated way for effect (i.e. your statement does not mean that other people have over-dramatised or exaggerated the stories of JC). I'm sorry but that's the meaning of the sentance you wrote.

JC having a tantrum is a funny image.
The unintentional play on words & meaning through the incorrect usage of the word deserves it to be quoted - it's funny!!
Funny things & odd quotes are often seen printed on Tshirts - there's no histrionics in printing a funny quote on a Tshirt!! It's perfectly normal behaviour...
...if however I shouted, stamped, cried then threw my PC at the wall & stormed out because of your reply rather than writing this explanation - that would have been histrionics plain & simple...but I didn't...so no histrionics.

Great - glad we cleared that up...

*BACK TO THE ACTUAL TOPIC* (apologies for going down that unrelated side route - but it was necessary if only for my sanity).

Personally I reckon;
Creationism is the least likely explanation for what has happened, bottom of the list in my mind, there's zero evidence to back it up (that I have seen) & it sounds (to me) impossibly far fetched to say the least. It really is the same as an adult believing in Santa Claus or unicorns - absolutely no difference.

Equally, whilst most of the Evolution package (Natural Selection, Micro-Evolution...etc) has been scientifically proven & accepted - there is however still a lack of hard evidence (that I have seen) to support the complete theory of Macro-Evolution. Until I see such evidence I will have to keep an open mind. Evolution theory still requires a lot more research & I reckon what we see before us is not yet the finished article & it will require further development to the theory before it stands up to scrutiny; however, given the track record for Science & the valid evidence that backs it up & given the track record for religion/bible & the (complete lack of) evidence that backs that up... I know which side I would bet on.

There is honestly more evidence to support UFO's & Extra-Terrestrials existing & so by inference that they possibly could have created man than there is for Creationism/God/religion/bible.

reply to post by Totakeke

Originally posted by Totakeke
Number of times the theory of evolution has changed: numerous.
Number of times the Bible has changed: 0.

'Nuff said.

You refer to 'never changed' as though it's a good thing, for me that shows a bad thing...close mindedness.

For me your statement kind of supports how modern science adapts with new knowledge & better understanding & new discoveries, which in my view is a positive thing & helps to advance humankind.

Better than a religion that blindly clings to ideas & concepts from 2000 years ago, despite the actual evidence since discovered about the true age of the planet & life on earth.

Don't get me wrong - there are some timeless elements to the Bible that are still good advice for the modern world; some of the altruistic teachings about morality & how to treat fellow man are still valid & relevant today. However there is also a bunch of other stuff that really should be discounted in the face of the modern world & the evidence we can see around us & blindly clinging to all of it does not help the advancement of mankind - in my opinion.

So you think it's better to stick with the level of thinking as was 2000 years ago? So we should stop searching for truth & modifying our understanding of the world around us using the actual evidence in front of us; because 2000 years ago some men wrote down what they thought was reality & as such, we should ignore any new evidence that contradicts that view & never change our belief system.

...Everyone is entitled to their own opinion...

[edit on 3/7/2009 by moobaawoof]

...ooops - double posted... that'll be my fat little fingers mashing the keyboard again...

[edit on 3/7/2009 by moobaawoof]

...ooops - triple posted!!!!....



apologies



**NEW IDEA** DASFEX: you should get a Tshirt printed "hey moobaawoof - look who's retarded now..." haha!!

..No honestly my PC hiccuped & froze & next thing I know I've got 3 posts instead of 1... no really... honest...I've actually got normal fingers not fat ones...oh nevermind...

[edit on 3/7/2009 by moobaawoof]

reply to post by DASFEX


...I guess what you should have said was: "The histrionics about the man called Jesus Christ".

That then shows it's the histrionics 'belonging to' or 'of' someone else, rather than the histrionics 'belonging to' or 'of' JC.

It may even have been a basic typo on your part....(judging by my triple post we are all of us capable of making mistakes)... that being said it still stands that the statement sounded funny & retarded to me.

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


FBBlueApocalypse I cannot tell if you are truly not understanding our conversation or if in your zeal to get the last word in you are being willfully ignorant. Perhaps if I summarize it will help:

In response to a post that called Christians "retarded" I posted that is not a big leap in logical to take the following facts we have about Resurrection and have faith that Jesus was divine, and that it would actually take more faith to believe they did not. The are listed below:

Here is what the overwhelming majority of even SKEPTICAL liberal scholars saying about Jesus.

1. That the historical Jesus existed
2. That he did die on the cross
3. That eyewitnesses gave early testimony to his Resurrection
4. These eyewitness where willing to give their life for their belief in the Resurrection
5. The tomb was empty and the body could not be produced by the enemies of Jesus (i.e Jews)

You then called me out saying "please, please, please" show me the links from skeptical scholars, your criteria was that I not use Christian Apologists. I have no problem being called out on this. If I make a statement I should back it up. So I posted a link from a skeptical scholars. You thought a good comeback was to attack the skeptics bio wiki page because because it had bad grammar, while ignoring his quote (cop out number 1) I then posted better citations from Oxford University Library and you just plain ignored them (cop out number 2). You then posted that one of my "skeptics" was a former priest and therefore he did not count, while ignoring the fact that he was a skeptic and that one of my skeptics even wrote a New York Times best seller debunking the Bible (copy out number 3)

You also posted that I did not understand one of my own links. I will quote you "All he is saying is that it's a matter of record that the BELIEF in Jesus' Resurrection spread rapidly across the Empire" I am not sure if I would say you where coping out on this one. I just don't think you understand. You are proving my point, that even skeptical scholars say that Jesus followers and a significant portion of followers were willing to DIE after having EYEWITNESS testimony to what they believe to be the resurrected Jesus.

I did the following based on your request. I found three skeptical liberal scholars who believed that Jesus followers and a significant portion of the Roman empire believed the Resurrection to be true and that these followers where either EYEWITNESSES or had received EARLY testimony from eyewitnesses. They believed this to the point that they where willing to die for him. Pretty ludicrous that I could find skeptics who believe this huh?

Now I am saying in the spirit of being logically consistent that you:

Find three skeptical Christians Apologist who do not believe the above statement.

I am simply asking of you what you asked of me, can you apply your own skepticism to your own belief system or are we looking at cop out number 4r 4 here??????????????


[edit on 3-7-2009 by stuff1]

[edit on 3-7-2009 by stuff1]

Originally posted by rnaa
Not quite. Darwin says that individuals who reproduce will pass on their genes. Variations in a population, however slight, that increase an individual's chances of reproduction will be passed on in greater numbers than those that reduce the chances of reproduction. Eventually enough differences may accumulate that you can recognize a different species.

Evolutionary change happens in just a few generations, not millions.

Here again we see the same tactic of using variation and adaptation within a species, suggesting they cross the barrier of that species when natural selection can not make tthis leap and even Dawkins himself has let go of this idea. Look we know that deer who can run faster may have an increased probability it will survive the chase between it and a pack of wolves. It may even be sexy to a female deer which in turn mates the Buck and has offsrping which inherit the faster running DNA, but their are components in nature suggesting this is not the case for survival of the fittest that when a group of impala for example are being hunted by a lioness, the gazelle or impala take refuge in numbers and run in a large group so that survival doesn't have to be defined by the fastest runner, in fact, they need not even be the second fastest or third or even fifth and sixth, all they have to be is faster than the slowest one. This does NOT demonstrate survival of the fittest but eliminates the slowest and or weakest. Like the deer I first used as an example, it may pass on a great many traits but in the end, what we still have and by the way what we SHOULD have seen if what you are saying is true, the fact is, they are still DEER.

You are correct, "selective breeding" is NOT "natural selection", it is "unnatural selection". Neither natural selection nor selective breeding change DNA. Selection, whether natural or unnatural can be likened to weeding a garden. Weeding a carrot patch does not change weeds into carrots, it merely decides which plants will survive. Natural selection might favor either, unnatural selection will definitely favor the carrots.

That believe it or not was an answer to a statement made that didn't require a lesson in artificial selection which you suggest is "un-natural" and Natural selection but your answer although appearing to be authoritative doesn't address the statement the post was initially making about natural selection in that it is not capable of making a leap from one species to the next and do you know what you get when weeding a Garden of Carrots year after year? You get some mighty fine Carrots

You are quite wrong. The Theory of Evolution has more scientific support than any other theory in all of science.

No he isn't and you have already displayed the very tactics of equivocation which is one of the great aggregation of the many methods, evolutionists use to defend the theory. The theory of evolution may have its supporters but lets understand something here, it is their is an agenda at stake here and it is one that is not only undeniable, it has been identified and brought to the unites states congress and they found Science to be guilty of it. Now if you look in the past few pages of this thread you will see hundreds and hundreds of examples of fraud, cases where entire thirty years careers and all the fossil evidence that career brought to the center stage spawning off incorrect assumptions leading to more in accurate findings because they were based on fraudulent data to begin with which by the way never seems to get cleaned up regardless of its fallacy or hoax. My god Haekels gilled human embryo's are still being used in todays text books and it took nearly fifty years to expose piltdown and all science says is that it is self correcting?

NO IT'S NOT! Ill add that it has no intention of doing more than policing it's own, and protecting its monopoly on the public schools classroom where they have enjoyed this monopoly in a brotherhood clique where no other theory is allowed and anyone attempting to is ostracized, ridiculed or black listed from peer reviews. This isn't just someone on ATS saying this, this is a FACT and they have been found guilty of it bu the United States Congress and as eveidenced by the plethora of examples I have given in the past pages of this thread. So rampant is the lying cheating and fakery of this science that a complete overhaul of the national academy of science has been explored as a neccessity for clearing it up.

If the evolutionst want to suggest creationists want to bring science back to the stone age, I will suggest they look at the stoneage images, foibles and fables of their own piltdown pile or garbage they insist on calling science today. Do you know I see people arguing in defense of this theory that are still using Darwins peppered moths?? Still suggesting Haekels fraudulent embryos for me to look at as examples for proof of evolution!

Relativity played hell with Newtonian mechanics, and Quantum mechanics with Relativity. They are, never-the-less, reconciled.

No, your answer only adds insult to injury to suggest as you do the havoc relativity played with quatum mechanics and newtonian physics saying those areas of science reconciled the theory nevertheless is what they did because they are not like evolutionary scientists. We see evolutionists riding the coat tails of respectable science and scientsist who make REAL contributions to science all the time but evolution is not a science, it is a philosophy and the excuse to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist as Dick Dawkins reveals in a quote from one of his books.

Originally posted by moobaawoof


...I guess what you should have said was: "The histrionics about the man called Jesus Christ".

That then shows it's the histrionics 'belonging to' or 'of' someone else, rather than the histrionics 'belonging to' or 'of' JC.

It may even have been a basic typo on your part....(judging by my triple post we are all of us capable of making mistakes)... that being said it still stands that the statement sounded funny & retarded to me.

Well I see your point and I agree without using the context of proving Christ's existence and how that book explores these very issues is a dialogue going on between several of us here and one I happened to jump in the middle of so it would take reading the entire thread to see where i am coming from. I really am serious about the tee shirts thing because in looking at it without the benefit of the contextual differences in this discussion, it did get me to laugh at myself enough to have the pepsi i was drinking almost burn up my nasal passages from the cognition that hit me like a punchline. I fully understand why you got the impression you did and do not take it as your intention to besmirch me personally.

Originally posted by bl4ke360
There still has to be something that causes consciousness, because what's the reason you're born into your current body, than some other body? Souls can be an obvious explanation for that, and evolution doesn't explain what makes us conscious and how we were born into our body.

what is a "soul"?........because man has the ability to think without speaking does NOT define a "soul". simply thinking and having emotions has happened on an evolutionary scale. those humans that did NOT have compassion did NOT form families or relationships with others to both of their mutual benefit. and over thousands of years those humans were slowly bred out. the humans that survived and florished had the capability to interact with others in a positive way, and simple societies formed using the power of reason and compassion. most humans have a limited ability to "read" other people, and this ability has a survival history to it.

reply to post by moobaawoof


No moo, you assume too much, I DID mean histrionics. You see many believe Jesus was this guy who talked about love love love all the time and usually his personality is about turning other cheeks and warm fuzzyness but when we look at the man Jesus Christ, lets face facts, he pissed a lot of people off! He still does today in fact.

He was originally brought up on charges of being somewhat of a terrorist. Jesus Christ was NOT always nice and while it never occurs to most people that when he was about to be taken to jail by a Roman sodier, it was Judas who told the Pharasee's "what! are you nuts! This guy is not some wimp you can just send a guard over and escort back to the jail for court in the morning, you are going to have to send an army!" When Jesus heals the severed ear of the roman guard whom lost it when Peter cut it off with a sword, it never occurs to people, just what was Peter, a student and disciple of this man of peace and love and all that sugary sweet stuff, DOING with a sword at his ready when they had no idea their were soldiers coming.

The fact that their were many times when Jesus was so theatrical in his oration at synagogues that he got so many enraged they wanted to stone him right then and there but he was always able to elude them and he knew he could.

If Jesus were to go to the United States Congress which is used to this day for Church services, can YOU imagine what he would have done during the signing of the Bank Bail outs if they were done on a sunday?

The guy would have gone ballistic and start throwing scumbags like Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi out on there asses just like he did when he started tossing the money changers tables over and tearing down the kiosks. When apostles told of Jesus for many years after his death, the only way most kept the story straight and kept it interesting was to act out the life of Jesus and like most plays no matter how old they are, we know shakespear and we see that it is still being told the way Hamlot was told when it was first penned by William.

The story of Christ is not a person we can suggest never existed without examining why then has the question of his existence never come up before where like Zeus, Thor and the others, they are myths even to the greeks today But Jesus Christ, hehe he is thee most enigmatic most famous most influential person ever to have lived and to this day he is spoken of that way.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by DASFEX]

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by DASFEX

 

That article doesn't prove that the Archeaopteryx was a hoax. What you probably didn't bother to find out was that the case mentioned was not about archaeopteryx, but rather the man was claiming it was an even earlier bird. His claims at first were extraordinary, but when other paleontologists got a chance too look at the bones, they were in such poor shape and obviously not of the same specimen.

There are other specimens of Archaeopteryx that have existed for quite a while, more specifically the London and Berlin specimens.

Sorry, wrong again and yes charges of fraud were considered but like Haekels deliberate act of fraud and one he admitted to, what does Science do ? They don't give this guy the infamous notoriety he desreves as a con artist, NOOOOO they give him a posthumous award for science!

The berlin london archy's proved to be nothing more to sing about either, Ill get back with the link later I have to run an errand and ill be back on later, Oh and by the way there ws a huge list there I gave as examples of johhny come lately missing links. You care to explain what the hell they keep getting it wrong.

I personally think Charles Darwins THEORY of Evolution is outdated and has been superceded since the discovery of the human genome and DNA.

We share a huge chunk of DNA with lots of species, does that mean we evolved from them too? Do you really think if Darwin was alive today and had access to technology and todays Science that he would even have still pushed this theory? I doubt it.

I have no rhesus proteins in my blood and blood moreso than DNA is the least changable and the one constant down the line.

So , no I don't feel I evolved from Apes and I've felt that long before I knew what my blood group was. If you feel like you evolved from an Ape, you probably did. I'm sure your blood group would back that up. And I'm sure you wouldn't take that personally since you believe in this Theory.

I find it funny how Darwiners will scoff at the Bible and yet hold up an old theory like Evolution as some kind of holy grail to our beginnings.

Originally posted by moobaawoof

Creationism is the least likely explanation for what has happened, bottom of the list in my mind, there's zero evidence to back it up (that I have seen) & it sounds (to me) impossibly far fetched to say the least. It really is the same as an adult believing in Santa Claus or unicorns - absolutely no difference.

Well the fact you use santa clause and other man made myths who have no real historical context other than the yuletide icons of a Christian Holiday, (you know us Christians have no problem with this kind of thing lol ) There is a HUGE difference and one if we are to REALLY explore the reasons for them it is clear to me that most atheist's spend as much tme if not more, talking about Christians, writing about them and criticizing them about something they lack while we conversely are quite convinced of Christs existence and of God. I never got any presents during a holiday from a guy named Jesus and have no other logical reason or incentive I can touch and feel that would give me a reason not to dismiss him before i would the Jolly fellow who brought me my first Bike.

These comparisons are seen as coming from complete and utter ignorance when atheists use it to raise the temerature of an already passionate debate and I have no idea why don't really care either.

What I DO know is I was just as much an atheist as most, but like famous former activist atheist Anthony Flew, I began to see the same proof of God all around me and knowing science can not quantify such things as an infinite universe and of all religions for me to believe in, why on earth would i pick one that is so hard to live by. It is in mans nature to be selfish self centered and hedonistic as hell and atheism would be an easy way to indulge my every lustful desire guilt free.

But I know God because I did what is asked in the scriptures to know him and it took. It was a life changing epiphaney I know from experience that those who won't even meet God half way will never know it much less those who mock him.

I do want to commend you on being one of the very few people who I have met here that has a kick ass sense of humor and a very objective perception regarding evolution when you say the following:

Equally, whilst most of the Evolution package (Natural Selection, Micro-Evolution...etc) has been scientifically proven & accepted - there is however still a lack of hard evidence (that I have seen) to support the complete theory of Macro-Evolution. Until I see such evidence I will have to keep an open mind.

Wow, I can't say how much that impressed me.

There is honestly more evidence to support UFO's & Extra-Terrestrials existing & so by inference that they possibly could have created man than there is for Creationism/God/religion/bible.

Well I have no idea why you would say what you have about religion then when Genesis explains much of that too and the book of enoch and Daniel may give you a lot of information that corroborates your belief giving it some answers that make more sense than we have gotten from the United States Government or any efforts for disclosure.

I have enjoyed meeting you and here I was afraid you were going to be a troll ha ha

reply to post by DASFEX


Now then... that's much more like it sunshine, the way you've eplained youself there makes much more sense to me now, I agree, I believe you do mean histrionics afterall !! The only reason my mind leapt to the image of JC having a tantrum like a 5 year old is due to my lack of knowledge of your understanding of the real JC... it all fits into place now.
cheers.



lightbulb moment + sound effect (microwave timer )

Can I ask a genuine question (to anyone):
What is it that gives the Creationists the certainty in their mind that their viewpoint is correct?

reply to post by DASFEX


No worries & thanks for the compliments - it's an intresting discussion & always likely to draw heated debate on such a highly subjective topic.

If anything I'm slightly Buddhist as I spent 3 years studying in a retreat centre, however I would not go so far as to say I am actually a Buddhist.

For me I want to see the direct evidence & research to believe something - or at least to see that the correct line of investigation has been done & a reasonable conclusion been drawn from the available evidence.

For me it's difficult to take anything from the Bible as direct proof of anything as it's essentially a story written 2000 years ago & we cannot really test the evidence now to see if what was written is exactly true.
- Did God create the Universe etc?
- Did JC really resurrect?
...unless we were there we cannot truly say & we certinly cannot take a 2000 year old story as direct proof of anything - it is just heresay, that is why it takes a leap of faith to believe.

Equally - unless we were there we cannot say exactly how life really began in a scientific way, or truly observe Macro-Evolution as it takes ages & there is no other direct evidence in the fossils discovered to date available to prove it (none that I have seen anyway).

However; Science is based on observable data & evidence, a theory is developed to fit the available evidence, tests are repeated & the theory modified until a general consensus is accepted amongst the intelligent scientific community. Whilst we do not yet have all the answers to Evolution or indeed all of science, I have a genuine understanding that this scientific approach (if continued correctly & minus the fraudulent data) - will eventually find the true answer, or at least a blummin' good explanation as near as damn it & mankind progresses.

Whereas - sticking to the 2000 year old story of Creationism & never questioning it or developing it in any way will not progress us anywhere.
Unless of course the 2000 year old story is true (in which case science is wasting it's time) - But then there's no way to prove the 2000 year old story is true, other than referring to the 2000 year old story as evidence.

Whilst I find other peoples opinions interesting, or what other people say as interesting - none of that is actual proof.
I myself listen to all the opinions & the reasoned debate & draw my own conclusions from the evidence made available, usually siding with whichever side of the debate that sounds most plausible given what we know.

For me the bottom line is this: within the whole of religion & the Bible & indeed any religion including Buddhism - there is no direct evidence other than what someone else has said. That essentially is what the Bible is - something that someone else has said.
Whereas in Science - although it starts out as 'something else someone has said', at least it can be tested, re-tested, peer reviewed & observed over & over again & modified into being an accepted consensus of agreement as to what the real physical evidence in front of us is suggesting to us.

To me the belief of Santa Claus & the story of JC & Creationism carry an equal amount of evidence as each other & an equal requirement to have faith in the story in order to believe it is true. There is no evidence.

At least Science deals with actual physical evidence & has a system in place that when carried out in the correct way leads to genuine understanding. A search for the truth.
Whilst it doesn't have all the answers yet it makes far more sense to me to take this approach rather than blindly believe.