Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[AlphaCentaurus 173]

It's sort of obvious that Caeser wasn't entirely honest about the Gallic war.

[no longer active 734]

Do you trust his record abut where the battles were and such?

[Sultan 3953]

I'd like to emphasize upfront that – despite many claims – evolution (Darwin's theory of evolution) is NOT a fact. Neither evolution (or creation) is a natural law or a scientific fact, each is merely a model. What does this mean? The process of evolution (just as the act of creation) cannot be observed or repeated, so both models remain unproved by science. Therefore neither can be called a natural law (such as the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics, which describe well proved and observed behavior subject to laws of nature) nor a scientific theory (which requires the possibility and evidence of repeated observations). So evolution – just as creation – is only a model used to explain the observations in the world as we know it. It is not a fact, not a natural law, not even a scientific theory, but just a model!

[Samson (Derick) 123]

I'd like to emphasize upfront that – despite many claims – evolution (Darwin's theory of evolution) is NOT a fact. Neither evolution (or creation) is a natural law or a scientific fact, each is merely a model. What does this mean? The process of evolution (just as the act of creation) cannot be observed or repeated, so both models remain unproved by science. Therefore neither can be called a natural law (such as the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics, which describe well proved and observed behavior subject to laws of nature) nor a scientific theory (which requires the possibility and evidence of repeated observations). So evolution – just as creation – is only a model used to explain the observations in the world as we know it. It is not a fact, not a natural law, not even a scientific theory, but just a model!

Agreed. I'm fine with debating, but we shouldn't say either of our opinions are "Facts." And especially not making stuff up about how we believe in "Magic" wich we don't, and never said we did.

[Jistuma 1996]

I'd like to emphasize upfront that – despite many claims – evolution (Darwin's theory of evolution) is NOT a fact. Neither evolution (or creation) is a natural law or a scientific fact, each is merely a model. What does this mean? The process of evolution (just as the act of creation) cannot be observed or repeated, so both models remain unproved by science. Therefore neither can be called a natural law (such as the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics, which describe well proved and observed behavior subject to laws of nature) nor a scientific theory (which requires the possibility and evidence of repeated observations). So evolution – just as creation – is only a model used to explain the observations in the world as we know it. It is not a fact, not a natural law, not even a scientific theory, but just a model!

You mean theory of Gravity not law there :P. There are a lot of theories, I think it was stated in another post here that for science, a theory has proof. And Evolution is observable, micro evolution is easily observable, and macro evolution depends on what you define it as. If macro evolution takes place over ten hundred years, there is no way to actually observe it, but it can be seem through the fossils.

But I liked the use of of the word model. It actually explains more than theory, or law. Science has models, not laws or defenites. Mathematics are a way to model the universe, and the theory of evolution is a model, but you can't say it is not a theory. There is 'repeated observations' on the theory of evolution, I would think the many, many fossils could be seen as that, as also the reapeated experiences done in laboratory.

Oh, and for those that don't know.. Science does not give facts, it gives understanding based on facts.

But I will now make an important question that I would want all that have participaped to respond. Can you define Evolution and Creatianism, and if so, please leave leave the definition?

[Watyll 1104]

I believe our creator made the things necessary for us to evolve

[no longer active 734]

I wish someone would answer my question :(

[Samson (Derick) 123]

I believe our creator made the things necessary for us to evolve

I agree, I believe God placed us here, as a little bit more monkey looking. And we evolved into what we are now. Because really, the odds that we just HAPPENED to land on a planet that can support life COMFORTABLY, And us having all the correct biological things to stay alive is crazy. We wouldn't be alive to evolve to the point of having organs to support our life if we were dead because we didn't have those organs.

[Watyll 1104]

My general idea is that he started the big bang and just pushed things in the right direction from there.

[Archmage_Cataris 622]

I believe in a higher being, that of a being far superior then humans, an alien race if you will, but not angels, gods etc. I believe in the Multi-verse theory, Big Bang, Evolution etc. My Mum hates that I am Atheist, so she tried setting up an argument between me and her 60 year old Catholic priest, he agreed with me on the fact that, if you think evolution and the big bang is not a plausible theory, then you are retarded. Yes, a catholic priest just called a bunch of people retarded. His words, it was hilarious.

[PtahWithin 1320]

I believe in a higher being, that of a being far superior then humans, an alien race if you will, but not angels, gods etc. I believe in the Multi-verse theory, Big Bang, Evolution etc. My Mum hates that I am Atheist, so she tried setting up an argument between me and her 60 year old Catholic priest, he agreed with me on the fact that, if you think evolution and the big bang is not a plausible theory, then you are retarded. Yes, a catholic priest just called a bunch of people retarded. His words, it was hilarious.

How does one believe in a higher power and yet is also an Atheist?

[Judoc 3]

I agree, I believe God placed us here, as a little bit more monkey looking. And we evolved into what we are now. Because really, the odds that we just HAPPENED to land on a planet that can support life COMFORTABLY, And us having all the correct biological things to stay alive is crazy. We wouldn't be alive to evolve to the point of having organs to support our life if we were dead because we didn't have those organs.

Actually many beings on earth don't have the organs we do, and they seem to get along just fine.... If you want in depth examples of how each miniature stage of a hypothetical organ developing could be useful, I would be willing to go into more depth. Also, life evolves and changes to fit its environment. Therefore, the planet humans live on currently fits human life because humans evolved to fit it. We would not evolve on a planet where we couldn't exist.

Humans did not just appear empty shells and evolve organs to fit inside them. That is not how the theory works. Life began as some sort of simple replicating organisms, though as others have stated, the begginning of all life is not the debate in this thread. In any case, these simple forms slowly diversified due to random copying errors as they bred. The new forms most suited to their environments thrived, and those not suited died off. Eventually, diversity led to organisms growing more complex, continuing to modern life. I won't say I can explain things extremely well, but that is what books on science are for.

[Wavejammers 328]

VERY VERY Very short said:

A cell grew and became an animal, the animal slowly began to turn into a human (Homo-Sapiens) And we have evolved so much, that we have become a prime-species. That means we are no longer "Family" with the apes.

[Samson (Derick) 123]

Actually many beings on earth don't have the organs we do, and they seem to get along just fine.... If you want in depth examples of how each miniature stage of a hypothetical organ developing could be useful, I would be willing to go into more depth. Also, life evolves and changes to fit its environment. Therefore, the planet humans live on currently fits human life because humans evolved to fit it. We would not evolve on a planet where we couldn't exist.Humans did not just appear empty shells and evolve organs to fit inside them. That is not how the theory works. Life began as some sort of simple replicating organisms, though as others have stated, the begginning of all life is not the debate in this thread. In any case, these simple forms slowly diversified due to random copying errors as they bred. The new forms most suited to their environments thrived, and those not suited died off. Eventually, diversity led to organisms growing more complex, continuing to modern life. I won't say I can explain things extremely well, but that is what books on science are for.

Things have to be LIVING to evolve dude. If the first human couldn't fit the environment, then he couldn't evolve to where he could live in it.

[Jistuma 1996]

Things have to be LIVING to evolve dude. If the first human couldn't fit the environment, then he couldn't evolve to where he could live in it.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by 'fit the environment'. Probably the frasing, stating a first human couldn't fit in an environment, is something that can't really be said in the theory of evolution, because there would be no first human. The ancestors of the human would have to fit into an environment yes, or it would not be able to survive. This is where the theory says, only those that, lets say a big word here, evolve (this is very simplified), would survive, making way for a new specie, or any other type. The evolving takes place not fast but very slowly, and a lot don't actually survive.

And I would also ask again, this might remove quite a lot of confusion.

Please state your definitions of creation and evolution, you might be wrong, I might be wrong, but since this is the debate, their definitions need to be said.