We are the product of numerous incestuous acts my friend : )

I know, the truth can hurt sometimes

I believe creationism comes from a very deep fear to accept death, as it generally implies eternal life.

this

what exactly is the harm in believing in a higher being anyway?

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.

Scientific data is not manipulated to the extent religion is, trust me. There is no peer review system for religious activities or any other system which accommodates direct sceptical enquiry. And religions have a massive self preservation agenda which just propagates the creating and spreading of lies, with no basis, for personal protection.

The majority of manipulation that happens scientific data comes after it has been published, largely by the media. You get the occasional bad egg who manipulates data, but if information that is false is not likely to hold up to sceptical enquiry and peer review, especially when the methodology and results are attacked.

...

Also, I'm sceptical about the extent of anthropogenic climate change as many people know, but I would suggest you look at some rebuttals to the arguments posed by many climate change sceptics. Anti anthropogenic climate change supporters have also frequently manipulated data, and been exposed too.

But quite frankly I can't bothered to take this particular argument up and it would be off topic. You can read/watch rebuttals for yourself if you like.

Look up the definition of scientific theory. It is not the same as the common definition of a theory you talk about.

A scientific theory is pretty much the highest accolade a scientific idea can reach. To say something is a theory in science it has to have a sufficient amount of evidence to back it up, facts have to be drawn from the evidence, and from the facts the best explanation is devised. Basically a Scientific theory is the explanation of a series of related facts.

And as more evidence is found the theory is greater refined, so it is ever improving too.

If it were merely poorly founded speculation, then it would be a hypothesis. But it's not, a theory is substantiated by evidence and fact.

Evolution is substantiated by a series of facts drawn from, quite frankly, an overwhelming amount of evidence. It has been proven.

If you were to devise a new theory which deviated from evolution, you would have to account for the masses of evidence and the facts supporting evolution. And I can assure you that whatever this hypothetical new theory is, it would have to bare great commonality with the current model of evolution (things wont stop evolving tomorrow).

...

Allow me to use a brief analogy. People once thought the Earth was flat, this was an unfounded hypothesis. After some clever observations by the ancient Greeks, they hypothesised that the Earth was round. Because the round Earth theory had evidence and facts to back it up, the flat Earth hypothesis was dropped.

But it didn't stop there. We knew the Earth was round, but later observations in the 18th century allowed us to conclude that it was actually an oblate spheroid. We had refined the theory to give a more defined answer based on facts. We can now measure the shape of the Earth to a high and ever improving degree.

Tomorrow the Earth will not go from being a sphere to being flat. And if we hypothesise about a new shape of the Earth, we will have to account for the evidence showing it is round.

...

Also, evidence for Creationism? Go onto Google scholar and look at some research papers written on evidence for Evolution and some research papers written on evidence for Creationism. You will notice the difference straight away. Creationism has barely any (if any?) observable evidence, evolution has tonnes.

Earth isn't a sphere. In fact, it is flat at the top.

I would just like to add to that we also have the universal theory of gravition, and the theory of general relativity.  They are still both theories because there may be certain circumstances where the predications they make fail to hold but it's not like someone is all of a sudden going disprove the theory of gravitation and we are all going to drift off into space.

Did you not read where I said it was an oblate spheroid i.e. flattened slightly?

I know what shape the Earth is...

Thats a bit of a stretch though, I'm glad you're saying its possibly going too far though. The only thing that Atheism subscribed to is a disbelief in the divine or any other magical like phenomina. Thats all it is, its simply a disbelief and I don't think you can qualify a lack of belief when the burden of proof is so clearly on the religious as a religion. Atheism has no standardised morals, no ways of thinking that everyone subscribes too, no rituals etc. Many Athiests may be rationalists with a strong amount of support for the Scientific method but then again so are many religious people. Not all Athiests are neccesarily as pro science or even care about science at all as they seem.

Which is my point, its hard to call something a religion when its different for every single person.