Disclaimer: I am NOT a creationist myself, I do not know if i'd go so far as to label myself 100% atheistic as i'd happen to think fairly similarly the Hume route of probability and philosophy.

I personally feel that Darwin's theory of origins is scientifically accurante. The only thing I despise about the creationism vs evolution debates is the knee jerk reactions from both sides, both the "THE BIBLE SAYS SO, SO IT IS TRUE" crowd as well as the "EXTERNAL CREATION IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY" crowd.

This whole rant is due primarily to having read Terry Pratchett's book Strata concerning incredibly advanced humans building worlds for the sake of redundancy. The humans of the Strata setting are building a wide variety of worlds, of different proportions and influences, to ensure not only redundant places for humans to live but varying evolutionary forces to ensure humanity as a whole is more likely to adapt to a catastrophic galactic event.

Now given a significantly advanced enough race, one can envision things such as matter to energy / energy to matter transmutation. Also given a significantly advanced enough race, one can envision a geneticist who may possibly be able to create some form of precursor life form that would decompress or process to a specific set of organisms, especially if one understood the changes in pressures applied by the environment as it changes over time.

If one can envision these things, who is to say it is a ZERO PROBABILITY situation that someone couldnt create a world, complete with fossil record, radiocarbon signature, etc that denotes an "old" world composed of aged substances that could be made in a short period of time. If one understood the path genetics would take for the organism, one could already have a preset idea as to what would form on this planet.

Not saying that any of this is LIKELY, in fact its probability has to be infinitely small. The only point is that this may be a NON ZERO PROBABILITY.

This isnt my theory of what is, simply what could POSSIBLY be. The only thing is its not IMPOSSIBLE to imagine, even from a scientific standpoint.

Why are people insistent that anything debatable can only have two possible "Sides".

Proposition:
There is always going to be a large portion of situations, opinions, or interpretations that do not have a binary set of possible results. More often there is an finite yet very large multidimensional set of possible conclusions or positions involved in any debate.

Given that, why must so many people feel the need to constantly defend their own interpretation without possibility of revision or allow for the introduction of new data?

As the good old monty python crew once mentioned "You are all different! You are all individuals! Don't let anyone tell you what to do!"

Sadly, the unison that follows is no longer as funny as it used to be.

Think for yourselves.