Not at all. I believe in Biblical Genesis narration word by word. Fossiles and coal were formed in the supernatural Flood of Noah and everything.
However, Evolution it is the only alternative to God people have created so far, and, with the ever increasing hatred against the God of the Bible, I do expect Evolution to gain more and more strenght, till they decide to push Panspermia to replace it.
Creationism will never be accepted till the prophecies in Revelation get fulfilled, no big deal, it is all according to the scriptures, almost the whole world must reject God and it looks like we are heading that way.

Evolution is a fact, there is no god and when you die there is nothing.
That is what I believe, I hope others are right and im floating on some clouds for eternity lol.

This is the type of comment that doesn't add anything constructive. Keep it civil please. 

I'd say yes but to avoid moderation I won't elaborate a whole lot ...

Evolution is a known fact but what seriously grinds my gear is how academically dishonest a large part of the community is when it comes to eugenics which is solidly based off of Darwin's theory of evolution ...

It's extremely ironic how the anti-Trumpkins/theoconservatives try to use the theory of evolution to stick it hard to their respective groups but whenever any topics related to social darwanism comes up, they try as hard as possible to undermine the very underlying theory they used to attack those of religious partisanship thus creating cognitive dissonance in the end LOL ...

Liberal pro-abiogenesis atheists had best learn to not bully others of different pools knowledge and beliefs when there are arguably nastier bullies to show them how much more wrong they are too ...

Just to toss it out there, but panspermia would not replace Evolution as it is a hypothesis for the origin of life on earth, not the complexity of life.  Most theories for panspermia have the first one celled organisms coming from off planet and that is just the starter to kick off evolution as we know it.  panspermia could replace abiogenesis as the going guess as how life started on Earth, but it would have only a minimal effect on the theory of evolution.  

Also, have you considered radiometric dating and how you can explain things like Pb dating the planet to billions of years old?  I'm curious how those in your camp have tried to get around those results.  

I think you might be a little confused?

Then you are wrong.

The fact that you support Genesis means you support the Bibles Old Testament and thus it would be contradictory if you didn't also support Death to homosexuals, support for owning slaves, against divorce, women to serve men and stoning of unruly children that is outlined in the Old Testament and many more immoral acts.

I suggest you read this which thoroughly debunks the Genesis account. - http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/genesis.html
The Bibles Genesis contradicts everything we know about the Universe, Earth, Life forming on this planet and the evidence that is provided to support those Models.

A significant amount of Christian Theologians would also disagree with your hypothesis that Genesis is factual, far to much evidence on the contrary my dear watson.

Besides, it's easy to disprove Genesis. - There was no world-wide flood.
Australia is the oldest continent with the oldest soils which never experience any flood or Ice-flows that covered the entire continent. There would be evidence otherwise.

The annoying thing I find is that many Anti-Evolutionists believe that Dawin's model is the only model we have on Evolution, when it simply isn't the case.
Darwin was wrong on allot of things... And that's okay. Science doesn't care.
The theory of Evolution has expanded from that original scope and there is signficantly more evidence to support Evolution today.

Also interestingly... I am having a debate with a Theist (HollyGamer) via personal message at the moment who believes that Evolution isn't a Scientific fact, despite the overwhelming evidence saying the contrary, that kind of thinking holds humanity back.

Don't forget the Cosmic Microwave Background which allows us to see what the Universe looked like when it was extremely young.

Plus we have Ice-core dating, sediment dating, tree ring dating,

See, this is the problem. You confuse the origin of life with Evolution. They are not mutually exclusive, i'm sorry to say. Not that i expect you to care though.

Oh... i just noticed two other people above just adressed that. Apologies for the pile on.

Fair enough. I can understand the line of thought.

So, the thing about the origin of the universe is that it takes place in the sub-atomic level of existance. Our common sense does not apply there. 

Are you familiar with quantum mechanics? It is proven that on a sub atomic level the same particle can exist in 2 places at once. This isn't belief, it is reality. It's demonstrable. Does it make any sense for us, for the same cat to exist in 2 places at once? Of course not! It's impossible! But, in the sub-atomic level, it isn't. So, our common sense and view of the world simply isn't adapted to recognise how the world works at that level and is thus a bias that we must throw out when trying to understand it. 

The sub-atomic world is highly unstable and does not obey common sense. A place where the same thing can exist twice. Is it so far fetched to suppose that in an extreme moment of instability, something incredible may happen?

The problem with religious explanation is they don't explain anything, because even if some magical beeing did it... how did said beeing came into existance? See, religion just displaces the question, it never answers it. So, it becomes an unecessary step in trying to determine the origin of the universe.

Your right that Darwin's model isn't the only theory of evolution, afterall it's just the most accepted one by the scientific community but science isn't about consensus either ... 

And I don't mean to knock on evolution if that's the impression you got since I'm also an agnostic athiest but what's being really getting to me lately is that scientific community is getting stuck in a political echochamber where case studies from the those that are progressive are so readily accepted whereas for the opposite that isn't so ... 

I'm extremely disappointed in the scientific community getting away with MASSIVE academic dishonesty when it comes to the likes of social darwanism and eugenics ... 

It's extremely sad how the scientific community will prioritize political agenda rather than physical empiricism as with the case we saw with James Watson ... 

If science is only to be used as a tool to anger those of different beliefs then I'll use it to anger those of progressive beliefs too if those of religious beliefs are being persecuted ...

Ermm... science IS about consensus. Consensus is gathered by the evidence.

I am not familiar with the claims you are making. Are you considering the scientific community to be limited to one country in order to have political interests? It doesn't sound very logical.

I have no idea what you are on about.

Science has no will or beliefs. What you are saying is ludicrous. Science looks at the evidence or demonstrates it to explains reality. It is not contingent on the agenda of religions. If religions are affected it's because they made laughable claims based on ignorance. Can't exactly blame Science for the mistakes religion does.

Like... religion can tell me a rock floats when let go of it 1m from the earth's crust and i can believe it is so. But the reality is it will drop. Against reality, belief is irrelevant. I guess you are trying to defend the right to believe anything, but there is a fine line between belief and ignorance.