• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Evolution v Creation. Whats the difference?

alphieb said:
Creationism is impossible to prove. It all depends on faith.
Agreed.
However, one can argue that science is not perfect
Sure.
and evolution contains flaws.
:spin:
Which ones? What specifically are you thinking off or have knowledge about?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphieb
Creationism is impossible to prove. It all depends on faith. However, one can argue that science is not perfect and evolution contains flaws.

So which theory should we use?

ID -- no evidence.

Evolution -- vast amounts of evidence, possible flaws


but the thing is, evolution has so much MORE evidence then creationism.

you creationists belived that humans lived with DINOSAURS. c'mon, humans have been around for 3 million years, dinosaurs died 65 million years ago. there isnt ONE specimin out there that says otherwise, otherwise we would have heard about it. ;)
 
thecelt said:
you creationists belived that humans lived with DINOSAURS. c'mon, humans have been around for 3 million years, dinosaurs died 65 million years ago. there isnt ONE specimin out there that says otherwise, otherwise we would have heard about it.
When dealing with creationist it's important that you keep everything perfectly clear, because they never will.

Some creationists believe that humans lived with Dinosaurs, some do not. There are important distinctions between the many groups, it's important to keep them separate.

PS, is it creationist or creationalist? (I think it's creationist, not sure). :p
 
-Demosthenes- said:
PS, is it creationist or creationalist? (I think it's creationist, not sure).
Merriam Webster: Creationism

Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism
Pronunciation: -sh&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun:
a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis -- compare EVOLUTION
- cre·a·tion·ist /-sh&-nist/ noun or adjective
 
"Evolution v Creation. Whats the difference?"
The question is wrongly worded.
It should be....
"Evolution v Creation. Whats the similarity?"
I shall now provide a comprehensive list below of those similarities:-











.
 
Last edited:
The main factor I can see is the resistance of both theories to other fields in the biological chemical factors taken account in the Evolution of humans.

Where the physical meets the mental should also be studied. Humans grew mentally, more than physically these last centuries. Evolutionary Psychology discusses some of these aspects in the evolution of man.

Past the physical, into the emotional and chemical changes our bodies may have undergone during this process of "evolution," have to be looked into, these may be the very reason there is a "God."

KMS
 
Where the physical meets the mental should also be studied. Humans grew mentally, more than physically these last centuries. Evolutionary Psychology discusses some of these aspects in the evolution of man.
In only the last few centuries, man has changed little.
 
Difference?
I am under the belief that if God is indeed all powerful, He has the right to create the world and universes anyway He wishes. I have learned that there is a direct relationship between the creation theory and the evolution theory. They are in direct proportian to one another. God has created us to learn and adapt to our surroundings, this the basic defination evolution. Now the formation of the world could have very well bagan with a huge exploding rock, which I believe to have been the old earth (yes, I don't believe we were the only ones created). According to the book of revelation, the earth will burn and explode. I think God has been doing this thing for a very long time trying to get the right mix. I would have given up a long time ago, but what would God do if man didn't exist.
 
Laternater said:
Difference?
I am under the belief that if God is indeed all powerful, He has the right to create the world and universes anyway He wishes. I have learned that there is a direct relationship between the creation theory and the evolution theory. They are in direct proportian to one another. God has created us to learn and adapt to our surroundings, this the basic defination evolution. Now the formation of the world could have very well bagan with a huge exploding rock, which I believe to have been the old earth (yes, I don't believe we were the only ones created). According to the book of revelation, the earth will burn and explode. I think God has been doing this thing for a very long time trying to get the right mix. I would have given up a long time ago, but what would God do if man didn't exist.
Ahem, you **DO** know that evolution deals ONLY with how biological life changes from one generation to the next, right? You **DO** know that it has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, Earth, or even life, right?
 
CaliNORML said:
The main factor I can see is the resistance of both theories to other fields in the biological chemical factors taken account in the Evolution of humans.
Where the physical meets the mental should also be studied. Humans grew mentally, more than physically these last centuries. Evolutionary Psychology discusses some of these aspects in the evolution of man.
Where does the physical & the mental meet ?
How can you separate the two since the mental is a function of the physical ?

As regards intelligent design.. Proponents of this base their argument on among other things, the apparent irreducible complexity in the rotary means of propulsion in flagellum. They say it's impossible for the thirty or so components to have come together for that purpose, becuase those components don't occur in organisms without that type of propulsion.
However scientists have shown they do occur in organisms without the rotary means of propulsion. Therefore all that was required for rotary propulsion to have evolved was for those components to have become organised into the rotary propulsion mechanism.
 
Last edited:
steen said:
Ahem, you **DO** know that evolution deals ONLY with how biological life changes from one generation to the next, right? You **DO** know that it has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, Earth, or even life, right?

Yes, I am aware of the biological factors associated with evolution. Do not make any mistake about my intelligence. I was simply pointing out that I believe that God has used evolution to create all things, hence we are a product of his works. This concept relates to everything that is living and all things that have died. I do appologize if you were somewhat confused by my associations. I had taken evolution and creation a step farther than your brain was able to comprehend. Everything in the universe is made of biological particals, a science book would help you out with this. Dust, rocks, stars, moons, even the sun is a biological study of their own. Check out some of the interesting things NASA is doing from samples which were collected and wonderful pictures that were captured.
 
Laternater said:
Yes, I am aware of the biological factors associated with evolution. Do not make any mistake about my intelligence. I was simply pointing out that I believe that God has used evolution to create all things, hence we are a product of his works. This concept relates to everything that is living and all things that have died. I do appologize if you were somewhat confused by my associations. I had taken evolution and creation a step farther than your brain was able to comprehend.
No, you spewed nonsense claptrap, trying for a bit of dishonest sophistry. And then you throw a bit of ad hominems in there as well. :roll:

Everything in the universe is made of biological particals, a science book would help you out with this.
Bwahaha. Nope, your claim is outright false, and a science book will confirm THAT.

Dust, rocks, stars, moons, even the sun is a biological study of their own.
False. You apparent ignorance of what Biology is, that ignorance is astonishing.

Check out some of the interesting things NASA is doing from samples which were collected and wonderful pictures that were captured.
Irrelevant. That is not biology, your ignorant sophistry none withstanding. SHEESH!!!
 
robin said:
Where does the physical & the mental meet ?
How can you separate the two since the mental is a function of the physical ?

As regards intelligent design.. Proponents of this base their argument on among other things, the apparent irreducible complexity in the rotary means of propulsion in flagellum. They say it's impossible for the thirty or so components to have come together for that purpose, becuase those components don't occur in organisms without that type of propulsion.
However scientists have shown they do occur in organisms without the rotary means of propulsion. Therefore all that was required for rotary propulsion to have evolved was for those components to have become organised into the rotary propulsion mechanism.


The frontal brain is where physical and mental meet, it is what seperates us from lower mammals. Do we have some of the same behavior? Yes.

Basic fear of snakes, the "maternal instinct", yet our physical bodies evolved beyond others, language. The need to communicate, and the physical capabilities to do so.

This seperation of "mind" and "Brain" is not so hard to see, the "brain" helps us function in the natural world, keeps us alive yet emotions do drive those instincts. The "mind" is set free, to experience those "out of body" moments.

It is in the "mind" humans think in a totally different realm, one of abstract, metaphor, and beauty, what those below us do not see. An abstract, something that is there, that is not there.

I can even see it in the "Holy Spirit" as it decends into human thought and "visits us" it always comes from outside the body, and the brain. However today medicine says it does not.

KMS
 
Last edited:
steen said:
No, you spewed nonsense claptrap, trying for a bit of dishonest sophistry. And then you throw a bit of ad hominems in there as well. :roll:

Bwahaha. Nope, your claim is outright false, and a science book will confirm THAT.

False. You apparent ignorance of what Biology is, that ignorance is astonishing.

Irrelevant. That is not biology, your ignorant sophistry none withstanding. SHEESH!!!

All of this blah-blah you have just interjected means, that you obviously don't believe that at one point and time there was indeed life on other planets. I personally believe that this is a nieve way to look at science. Biology is the study of living matter. Studying dead organisms can help us understand many things about the living, such as: how volnerable living things are? how to prevent death of organisms? how can we strenthen them? we are even able to unmask and track the evolution process. Back to the scientific method for you....
 
Laternater said:
All of this blah-blah you have just interjected means, that you obviously don't believe that at one point and time there was indeed life on other planets. I personally believe that this is a nieve way to look at science. Biology is the study of living matter. Studying dead organisms can help us understand many things about the living, such as: how volnerable living things are? how to prevent death of organisms? how can we strenthen them? we are even able to unmask and track the evolution process. Back to the scientific method for you....

...You said that the sun can be studied as biological. How is that not utter nonsense?
 
Laternater said:
All of this blah-blah you have just interjected means, that you obviously don't believe that at one point and time there was indeed life on other planets.
No, it means that physics, chemistry, geology and astronomy are not biology.

I personally believe that this is a nieve way to look at science. Biology is the study of living matter. Studying dead organisms can help us understand many things about the living, such as: how volnerable living things are? how to prevent death of organisms? how can we strenthen them? we are even able to unmask and track the evolution process. Back to the scientific method for you....
But the sun is not a "dead organism," so you most certainly were spewing ignorant claptrap nonsense.

Did you already forget your own silly nonsense claim:

Dust, rocks, stars, moons, even the sun is a biological study of their own.
 
Laternater said:
Yes, I am aware of the biological factors associated with evolution.

That has yet to be shown. You already seem to have tried to associate evolution with the begining of the universe.

Laternater said:
Do not make any mistake about my intelligence.

He said nothing about your intelligence. He was merely pointing out a couple basic errors that you seemed to be making.

Laternater said:
I was simply pointing out that I believe that God has used evolution to create all things, hence we are a product of his works.

No, if it is a god doing it, it isn't evolution, it would be ID. But, without any evidence of a diety, the basic premise of ID falls flat. It is based on the supposition of the existence of something that has absolutely no evidence to support it.

Laternater said:
This concept relates to everything that is living and all things that have died.

However, it relates in no way to the evidence, or to science. It only relates to a story.

Laternater said:
I do appologize if you were somewhat confused by my associations.

It's not really confusing, it is a common tactic for those who try to argue against evolution. They often try to associate it with something totally unrelated (like the origin of the universe, the earth, or life), and then think that they have scored a victory when evolution is incapable of it.

Laternater said:
I had taken evolution and creation a step farther than your brain was able to comprehend.

Creation has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, planets, or life.

You are trying to redefine terms, and then insult another when they don't use your definition.

Laternater said:
Everything in the universe is made of biological particals, a science book would help you out with this.

Everything in the universe isn't even made of organic compounds, let alone biological. The only element that can be even considered organic is carbon.

Have you ever heard of inorganic chemistry?

Laternater said:
Dust, rocks, stars, moons, even the sun is a biological study of their own.

Patently false.

Laternater said:
Check out some of the interesting things NASA is doing from samples which were collected and wonderful pictures that were captured.

Totally irrelevent to the discussion.
 
Laternater said:
All of this blah-blah you have just interjected means, that you obviously don't believe that at one point and time there was indeed life on other planets.

Two things. First, there is nothing that was said that would lead to that conclusion. Second, life on other planets has nothing to do with evolution.

Laternater said:
I personally believe that this is a nieve way to look at science.

Well, since it is an erroneous conclusion on your part, it doesn't really matter if you think that it is naive or not.

And, again, the possibility of life on other planets is not germaine to the discussion.

Laternater said:
Biology is the study of living matter.

Close, it's the study of life and living organisms. However, since the only living matter of which we are aware is part of living organisms, I'm willing to write this off as an unusual way to word it.

Laternater said:
Studying dead organisms can help us understand many things about the living, such as: how volnerable living things are? how to prevent death of organisms? how can we strenthen them?

All of which has nothing to do with the discussion.

Laternater said:
we are even able to unmask and track the evolution process. Back to the scientific method for you....

Yes, we can track the evolutionary process. And none of it supports the idea of a diety. So, if you want to put forth an argument supporting ID/creationism, then, maybe you should go back to the scientific method.
 
It is quite obvious that my degree in astrophysics and minor in biology are quite worthless to this discussion. At no time did I mean to insult anyone. The point of this forum is discuss evolution and creation and the differences between them. I honestly believe that they can coexist in our universe. yes, universe. It is also obvious that each of you are not willing open your minds enough to consider all the ramifications of this discussion. The answers are not black and white, I wished to GOD that they were. We are working everyday to find the natural beginnings of life and if life existed on other planets. I'm not so sure why this idea is hard for many people to consider. I rule nothing out when it comes to science, because everyday I learn new things and have to adapt to new findings. Have a good hunt for the truth!:confused:
 
Laternater said:
It is quite obvious that my degree in astrophysics and minor in biology are quite worthless to this discussion. At no time did I mean to insult anyone. The point of this forum is discuss evolution and creation and the differences between them. I honestly believe that they can coexist in our universe. yes, universe. It is also obvious that each of you are not willing open your minds enough to consider all the ramifications of this discussion. The answers are not black and white, I wished to GOD that they were. We are working everyday to find the natural beginnings of life and if life existed on other planets. I'm not so sure why this idea is hard for many people to consider. I rule nothing out when it comes to science, because everyday I learn new things and have to adapt to new findings. Have a good hunt for the truth!:confused:

If you have a minor in biology and you genuinely think that creationism is a legitimate scientific theory, you need to have your degree revoked.
 
Laternater said:
It is quite obvious that my degree in astrophysics and minor in biology are quite worthless to this discussion. At no time did I mean to insult anyone. The point of this forum is discuss evolution and creation and the differences between them. I honestly believe that they can coexist in our universe. yes, universe. It is also obvious that each of you are not willing open your minds enough to consider all the ramifications of this discussion. The answers are not black and white, I wished to GOD that they were. We are working everyday to find the natural beginnings of life and if life existed on other planets. I'm not so sure why this idea is hard for many people to consider. I rule nothing out when it comes to science, because everyday I learn new things and have to adapt to new findings. Have a good hunt for the truth!:confused:
So how does your claim of a science background jive with your claim that studying the sun is biology? It seems even MORE ignorant if your background is as you claim.
 
Engimo said:
If you have a minor in biology and you genuinely think that creationism is a legitimate scientific theory, you need to have your degree revoked.

There are two groups of people in the world, those who have analytical minds, and those who don't. Laternater belongs to the latter.

In the end these people are happier, living through life without re-thinking ideas, following logic, or using reason. They're happy, let 'em be.
 
Laternater said:
It is quite obvious that my degree in astrophysics and minor in biology are quite worthless to this discussion. At no time did I mean to insult anyone. The point of this forum is discuss evolution and creation and the differences between them. I honestly believe that they can coexist in our universe. yes, universe. It is also obvious that each of you are not willing open your minds enough to consider all the ramifications of this discussion. The answers are not black and white, I wished to GOD that they were. We are working everyday to find the natural beginnings of life and if life existed on other planets. I'm not so sure why this idea is hard for many people to consider. I rule nothing out when it comes to science, because everyday I learn new things and have to adapt to new findings. Have a good hunt for the truth!:confused:

I must admit...as a fan of science, that if indeed you have the background claimed, I fear for the future of our education system. The use of Biologocal foundation for the study of Cosmology seems to be Psudo-Science at best. The claim that all Matter in the Universe has Biological properties is patently false by the standards of the very degree you claim to have.
You are free to believe that God started the process of evolutuion as a path to what mankind, and all living creatures have become....but this in no way effects the theory of evolution, as it does not deal with the creation event. Virtually every comment thus far made to debate the validity of Evolution points to a lack of comprehension of the subject......which does not help you garner respect in the eyes of those who have studied it.
If you wish to forward a theory that explains observation better than Evolution....I would recommend you at the very least read up on what the theory is, then attempt to refute the findings.
 
Wow. Just....wow.
After spending the better part of an hour reading this(that's an hour I wish I could get back), that last revelation that the poster has a degree and a minor in scientific studies...wow. Now, it should be pointed out that some, perhaps not all colleges will award degrees with as little as 2.5 GPA's, so he could pull D's and still get his parchment. But, is it possible he got these from the Oral Roberts University?
The 'fossil graveyard'. There's nothing in that picture or the site it's on to verify a flood. Mt. Vesuvius ring a bell?
The 'tree'. It's placement could very well have been the result of an earthquake, judging by the rock formations on either side. Again, no evidence at all of a 'flood'.
I admit I am not a student of the bible, unless you want to include reading some of it in hotels. But what I have read and heard regarding Genesis seems to defy every logic put forth by the scientific community, from evolutionists to archaeologists. While it's true that 'some' evidence of areas mentioned and/or rulers has been discovered, this surely doesn't conclude that the stories re: Noah, Adam and Eve, et al are true. And it certainly doesn't preclude the scientific discoveries made in the last 150 years in regard to the evolutionary process.
Wow...if he'd gotten a degee in Economics, I'd use him for my accountant-I'd get back more in taxes than I grossed all year!:mrgreen:
 
In Defense, somewhat, of one poster, Laternater,

I think, simply, he was being overly broad in use of "biology" and "biological properties" but fundamentally he was right.

The single most significant driving force of every level of study humans have endeavored to undertake, has at it's core and as it's roots what we now term "biology."

There is physics, and physics is divided into two parts: Chemistry and not-chemistry. Chemistry is then further divided into two parts: Biology and not-biology.

Deliniations between study of physics, chesmistry and biology, particularly at the biological cellular level, all pretty much vanish.

The obvious significant reasons for scientific study is that study which better explains life, particularly human life. The reason we study the sun, is because the sun is the reason we are here, on Earth. It provides us energy and warmth. That energy and warth facilitate chemical reactions in plants and some small organisms. The plants provide energy for animals, and other small organism, thus provide for us. Understanding the Sun, let's us better understand ourselves. Understanding where life is NOT (at least at first look appearantly ) helps us better understand ourselves and life in general.

Just as understanding of the non-chemistry parts of physics will better let us understand chemisty.

Architecture, Metalurgy, ceramics, plastics, astronomy, all appearantly NON-biological studies, actually have root or purpose to facilitate the biological form we take. We build houses to keep warm, cool, or sheltered. We make metals to cook with, build better houses, or dissect a body for study. We design pots, jars, glass, and spaceshuttle ceramics, all for our use as living orgamisms, or as a mechanism of better study of living organisms. Same with plastics. Astromoy and astrophysics help us perform biologically, because if we can fully understand what's going on out there, we should be better able to understand what's going on inside our own bodies and minds (such as how supernova were necessary for us to be alive).

I think it was, in the sense, that as biological creatures with reason, we tend to focus overwhelmingly at that which serves biology.

This doesn't mean to say the WAYS in which we serve biology, are the best ways nor that we don't produce unintended consequences because of our ignorance (we do).

But simply, as biological beings our first and primary focus in all scientific endavors is that which studies life, even if life is not the primary focus, it is always a focus. Not to mention, MOST sciences (theoretical and applied) deal with the questions of origins, biolgical usefulness, or biology directly. (Cosmology, Particle/Quantum/String Phsyics, engineering, computer sciences, anthropology, Medicine, molecular biology, hell, even all the defense spending and weapons production is stilla study of biology, because it's a study of what kills or incapacitates things of people.

The Core theme of all study, is human study, thus a biological study, again, even if thea actual "biology" is not the primary focus. And, even non-human biological study, is a counterpart to human biological study, and studdying the non-human biology of the world and universe, will better let us understand the human biological study (thus lab rats).


At least, this is the theme for which I understood Laternater's point.
-
(this part is a wee metaphysical, but I think still interesting)
It may be even, that since our biological interests are so strong, we may not even fully understand the non-biological world properly (our biology may act as blinders, preventing us from seeing the non-biological chemistry occuring, because we have no understanding of our interest of it)

P.S. I understand that each group "non-chemistry" physics can be further subdivided, but as you can see, I am long winded as it is, so I used that for clarity and to save space.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom