If you don't mind.

[quote=xAsunaWolfx]Nope, actually i like horses. Totally my reasoning behind that & i couldn't find other types of "font animals". xD[/quote]

... Okay then. That's cute enough a reason, I think. :hehe 

[quote=xAsunaWolfx]After thinking about it for awhile, most people have came to find that a mix of both creationism and evolution is another choice.[/quote]

Typically people who haven't made a decision as to which theory is correct, or mistakenly believe that both can be correct when they are in diametric opposition to one another: Creationism cannot exist in a universe that has species evolving out of other species, as it basis its premise on the idea that a dog is always a dog, a cat is always a cat, etc.

[quote=xAsunaWolfx]There is no doubt that a mammal's brain is engineered in such a fashion to adapt to the outside environment to survive over years- we know this because over time, there were major climate changes, natural disasters that caused for a change. I suppose that a species unable to adapt had became extinct at that point, but some do blame the extintion of the species of dinosaurs on an event in the bible, i believe it was an earth-wide flood.[/quote]

Noah's Ark has no scientific evidence as to ever having occurred. Chinese history especially tends to be very damning in this respect: They record no worldwide flood at any point, and their history is uninterrupted. Their entire civilization did not end and then come back, we know this as a fact. Same goes for the Egyptians, Native Americans, and so on.

Again, another one of creationism's failings. Mainly in that Creationism does the scientific method [i]backwards[/i]: It has a claim it's trying to prove with evidence. The scientific method is gathering evidence, then making a theory based on what is currently available, updating and discarding theories as new information comes in that invalidates old methods of thinking.

[quote=xAsunaWolfx]Some has claimed 'biblical historical evidence' on some of this.[/quote]

The Bible is not an accurate source of historical evidence, and there are too many examples to list in detail, so: Egypt did not note any kind of red sea parting, plagues, or first born mass child deaths, there is no sign Sodom and Gomorrah ever existed, many of Jesus' claims are dubious at the best of times, humanity's lineage has been traced to Africa (not the Mesopotamia as many claim), etc. 

[quote=xAsunaWolfx]This article had interested me in the coexisting of both , these words in there stuck out the most to me""Even as science progresses in its reductionist fashion, moving towards deeper, simpler, and more elegant understandings of particles and forces, there will still remain a 'why' at the end as to why the ultimate rules are the way they are," said Ted Sargent, a nanotechnology expert at the University of Toronto.[/quote]

Well, there you go. Science answers the how, not the why. Why is in the realm of philosophy, spirituality. Personally, I think we exist to find a point to exist. Speaking from a purely biological level, we exist to procreate and continue the chain that started four billion years ago. Some of us succeed. Some of us don't. And that's life.

[quote=xAsunaWolfx]"as to why this thread doesn't need to last long, i was assigned a creationism vs evolution essay due in about 3 hours (procrastination at it's finest) , and in this thread, it has already given me things to address.This is the type of topic that not everyone will agree on, as say abortion (prochoice vs prolife) or Gay rights. There's always a crowd that doens't agree with one another.The universe is incredibly wondrous, incredibly beautiful, and it fills me with a sense that there is some underlying explanation that we have yet to fully understand, and if someone wants to label that with god evolution, or both, that's okay with me.[/quote]

With abortion I can at least grant that there can be some argument made that an unborn child could be considered a partially developed person, and what rights that entails can be up for debate. That's a complicated, grey area place, actually.

Gay rights shouldn't be a debate in this day and age, but it is, and that's sad, but again, is primarily a debate on the differences of philosophy and human rights--intangible in its own right.

Evolution? Evolution is a scientific theory, with a supreme amount of evidence backing it. Creationism is a system of belief. The two are not equal, in any sense, on any level, in any manner, whatsoever, save for both being protected by free speech.

That aside? Scientifically speaking? Evolution wins.

Now if someone wants to try and adjust their religious beliefs to include evolution--ex: The Bible is a giant list of metaphors and the six days is really a whole series of things that God did to start physics and biology and the like on their way, well, be my guest, I have no problems with that. That's a faith-based argument and arguing on the basis of faith is assaulting the impenetrable fortress of the heart. It's fruitless.

Argue on the basis of logic, reason, evidence... And well... That's an entirely different story. :sun

Good luck with your essay though. I can't imagine this is exactly an easy topic to represent both sides fairly on.