[QUOTE="_glatisant_"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No they are not. If you are relligious you believe in creation. That does not mean you don't accept evolution. You are not correct.

LJS9502_basic

This is ridiculous. What most people mean by "creationism" is not technically all that word means. As the term is much more commonly used, creationism involves the rejection of evolution. It can mean that one believes that a deity merely created the universe, but the vast majority of the time, the former is what is intended, as is the case with this thread.

They are as the TC clearly intends the term.

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"] No, because if you're a Creationist you automatically do not believe in Evolution and vice versa. They ARE mutually exclusive. LJS9502_basic

This is ridiculous. What most people mean by "creationism" is not technically all that word means. As the term is much more commonly used, creationism involves the rejection of evolution. It can mean that one believes that a deity merely created the universe, but the vast majority of the time, the former is what is intended, as is the case with this thread.

well here is what i want to say. this is what i say is what happens.

Evolution can be true, but it makes no sense where they came from. thats where Creationism comes in. God made the first organisms, and he sat back and let it go into action as they evolved. The two intertwine in that way in my head. sorry but that wont change for me.

Noskillkill

Ahh, you mean you don't believe in abiogenesis. I find it more plausable than an interventionist God, but I'm happy to leave this discussion at that.

[QUOTE="_glatisant_"]

[QUOTE="Noskillkill"]

im only a freshmen in highschool so im not too sure i understand. but i know that the inetelligent definition of a theory is something i am unable to COMPLETELY comprehend. but im sure that evolution is not TOTALLY PROVEN and that it has DISPROVEN Creationism. i believe that God created animals, and that the animals evolved. not into humans though. is there anything wrong with that though? have i not taken into consideration any scientific or religious factors?

Noskillkill

How about Australopithicens afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis for starters?

ummmm....im going to asume those are different species, listed in the sequence they evolved, and one of the later of the list is human??? see, i just have trouble believing it. i just wish that people installed video cameras in the pastso that these damn confusing and conflicting debates didnt happen

Actually Homo heidelbergensis is our common ancester with Neanderthals, but that's the gist. And you should study the biology behindevolution before writing it off out of personal incredulity. Natural selection, mutation and inheritance are all established facts.

[QUOTE="drj077"]

[QUOTE="Noskillkill"]

Which is ...why...its called ....the Theory of Evolution... **see above quote**;)

Noskillkill

I think you misunderstand. There will likely never be another "Law" of science described, because scientists don't use that term anymore. However, Law and Theory are nearly interchangeable when you deal with observations at the macroscopic level. It's only when you deal with matter at the quantum level that you can no longer describe anything in terms of absolutes.

im only a freshmen in highschool so im not too sure i understand. but i know that the inetelligent definition of a theory is something i am unable to COMPLETELY comprehend. but im sure that evolution is not TOTALLY PROVEN and that it has DISPROVEN Creationism. i believe that God created animals, and that the animals evolved. not into humans though. is there anything wrong with that though? have i not taken into consideration any scientific or religious factors?

How about Australopithicens afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis for starters?

[QUOTE="drj077"]

[QUOTE="Noskillkill"]

which is why it is the THEORY of evolution?

i think the two co-exist.

Noskillkill

Actually, it's not called the Law of Evolution, because science doesn't deal in absolutes anymore unlike when Newtonian Physics were described. Ifscience did, then it would be a law.

Which is ...why...its called ....the Theory of Evolution... **see above quote**;)

Dear God...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[QUOTE="Ed_Cetera"]I don't have to "believe" in evolution, since it is a proven fact.Noskillkill

which is why it is the THEORY of evolution?

i think the two co-exist.

The meaning of "theory" in this context is completely different than the word's meaning in mundane usage. Evolution is called a theory as it is an explanation of many facts, and natural selection most certaainly is a fact, as is mutation and inheritance.

I wish people would learn the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis.

It's disgraceful that this is still seen as a topic up for debate. Evolution is the keystone of biology, it's what binds the various fields together. Without it, very little of biology would make sense.

And it's quite obvious what the TC meant by "creationism". There are different beliefs that don't exclude evolution classed under "creationism", but most of the time this is not the usage people mean. There was no real point in bringing that up.

I've been to see Tim Minchen, and once a month there's a comedy show in my town, often featuring surprisingly high profile names (Reginald D Hunter being a recent example).

The Killers. I'm not a huge fan of either, though