Creationsts vs Evolutionists!?

I'm also an evolutionist, but I personally don't think the two have to be exclusive.

In the Bible, it says that God created plants and animals, but one definition of "create" is "to allow to come into being". It doesn't say HOW this occurred, and that process may have been evolution.

Some will argue the "6 days, then the day of rest", but doesn't it also say that "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day"? Why not 100,000, or 100 million years? You have to keep in mind the understanding of the people at the time these passages were written. And maybe the excessive ages of people like Methuselah weren't their actual age, but the age of the "line" of ancestry.

The answer to your actual question is what drives each group - belief/faith vs. being able to withstand scientific testing. Evolutionists recognize there is no way to prove/disprove the existence of a deity, but the creationists are constantly challenging the evolutionists to prove that evolution occurs.

I think this is jealousy. Until now only religion tried to explain why we are here. Now science has a different explanation.

This is like when someone younger sibling is born, the parents attention are divided.

Now people attention is divided between religion and science. Religion needs to get use to it.

Like a new born, for the evolutionist religion and creationist are not new, so that's why evolutionist usually does not attack creationist.

I kinda think Creationists are....well not dumb....just in denial.

It's because the people that go for evolution are typically a bit more open-minded. We don't feel threatened when we disagree with someone. Creationists seem to think they're under attack, and so they're always in defensive mode. If you disagree with them, they feel like you're trying to brainwash everyone they love, so they attack you.

I believe that because creationist believe in their faith, they do not want to even try and believe we could have come from the water, then land, to where we are today.

I believe it was probably a little of both.

Because they have no legitimate scientific ground to stand on so they resort to personal attacks and straw man arguments.