I'd say the ones put fourth by meat eaters are more idiotic. Besides, at least creationists can keep their beliefs to themselves while meat eaters force their eating habits on others.
- Meat EatersVote A
- CreationistsVote B
Most Helpful Girl
Passing through Oh look a cookie1
Most Helpful Guy
If I might note, the term creationism would seem to suggest a relatively specific argument (at least based upon my own personal connotation, opinions may vary). However your reference to arguments used by meat eaters feels rather vague. There are certain arguments meat eaters could make that might perhaps be rather disagreeable, but which are not necessarily idiotic. Lumping all arguments and potential arguments they might make together, would seem to make the question somewhat difficult to answer. Or at least highly open to interpretation.
Given that however, there would indeed seem to be quite a few arguments offered in defense of eating meat which would seem, as compared with creationism, to be equally or more lacking in a strong scientific foundation. What about plants being a good example, which would seem absurd in several respects. Overall which group's arguments are more 'idiotic'? I would say probably some of those used by meat eaters, but again that's a pretty big category.
It might be said though, it doesn't seem true that creationists keep their views to themselves. The issue of creationism/evolution in schools is still a thing I believe.
What what I do perhaps find a bit odd is that either group would feel the need to argue to convince others to share their beliefs. Vegans and vegetarians at least in theory are acting on what they feel is a moral imperative. Creationists might in theory be spreading the word of god I suppose? Although it makes me wonder if God really cares if everyone knows exactly how the world was supposedly made? I mean was that an important point in the bible? But what is meat eaters motivation? I would expect an entirely cliche one.0