Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 91 of 205 (546884)
02-14-2010 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by RAZD
02-14-2010 10:10 AM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
Hi RAZD
Allow me to take a slightly different take on the issue.
What is your definition of an evolutionist?
Is it someone who believes in "descent with modification" or "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation."? Then this in turn means that every creationist I know of is also an evolutionist, including myself. Now if I walked up to someone on the street and told them I was an evolutionist, what would they assume (I don't think it matters whether they are an athiest, christian, muslim, etc.)? They probably wouldn't think "this guy believes in the change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation". But rather they would think something along the lines of that I believe that over many generations bacteria turned into humans, for example. You say that "science defines the terms in science" and yet I would also say that society defines the terms in society.
The word "gay" technically means happy (or at least it used to), but if you go round saying "I'm feeling gay" or "I am a gay person" people will automatically think that you are trying to say that you are homosexual. In a similar way the word evolution does not mean what it technically means when used in society in general. Therefore I think it is inadequate to call evolution simply a "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" because it is quite different from what the ordinary lay person understands by the word evolution. So I think that it is time that evolutionists got over that fact and started using it the way it is used by the population in general. Possibly come up with another term for a "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation". Of course this will probably never happen because otherwise the evolutionist can no longer say "Ah, look you believe in evolution (change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation) therefore it is logical that you also believe that over many generations bacteria turned into humans". They may not define this as a rise in complexity or they may not define it at all but the implication is there that to believe in evolution (change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation) necessitates a belief in universal common ancestry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2010 10:10 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2010 5:47 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 93 by Percy, posted 02-14-2010 5:55 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2010 8:31 PM Arphy has replied
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-14-2010 8:41 PM Arphy has replied
 Message 190 by DBlevins, posted 07-27-2010 5:02 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 92 of 205 (546886)
02-14-2010 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Arphy
02-14-2010 5:29 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
Why is it that only creationists seem to have problems with these definitions?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Arphy, posted 02-14-2010 5:29 PM Arphy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-14-2010 8:50 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 93 of 205 (546887)
02-14-2010 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Arphy
02-14-2010 5:29 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
Hi Arphy,
An evolutionist is someone who accepts the theory of evolution as the explanation for life's history and the diversity of life we see today. You do not accept this, so have no fear of being considered an evolutionist.
There are a wide variety of creationist viewpoints: young Earth, old Earth, special creation, ID, and so forth. Some creationists accept a lot of evolutionary ideas (Michael Behe) and some do not (AIG, ICR, CRS). For this reason you can't reasonably define a creationist as someone who believes the opposite of an evolutionist.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Arphy, posted 02-14-2010 5:29 PM Arphy has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 94 of 205 (546908)
02-14-2010 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Arphy
02-14-2010 5:29 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
Hi Arphy, still having trouble?
In Message 90 we see that "progressive development" is a common misunderstanding of evolution.
Page not found
We also see from a review of the first 97 pages of the Berkeley 101 course on evolution, that "complexity" is not a critical element of evolution.
Let's remove them from the creationist daffynition and see what is left:
quote:
(From The Myth of Abiogenesis (a creationist webpage):
Evolution, as it is strictly interpreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones.
So we get: Evolution, as it is strictly interpreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the development of lifeforms from ones.
That's kind of meaningless, so let me add two words:
So we get: Evolution, as it is strictly interpreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the development of (descendant) lifeforms from (parent) ones.
And this still is not evolution, strictly speaking, but much closer. This still gives a false impression, that evolution can occur within individual organisms rather than in the whole population, and it says nothing about changes to hereditary traits.
So you see, this "definition" is so bad it cannot be corrected by a few word substitutions: it needs to be thrown out, discarded, placed on the scrap heap and forgotten.
Allow me to take a slightly different take on the issue.
What is your definition of an evolutionist?
Someone who understands evolution, has investigated it and the evidence for it in an open-minded skeptical manner, and found that it is a valid concept for explaining the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, to the fossil and genetic record.
Now if I walked up to someone on the street and told them I was an evolutionist, what would they assume ...
You mean do a "Jay Leno" poll of ignorant, misinformed or undereducated people* so they can show that they are ignorant, misinformed or undereducated? The logical fallacy of the appeal to popularity of an opinion?
Curiously, science is not decided by popularity polls or public opinions, no matter how well informed.
Bottom line, the creationist daffynition is wrong, terribly wrong, and it damages the understanding of people regarding the real world evolution.
Enjoy.
* I realize that these polls are generally edited to show only the most ignorant, misinformed or undereducated people for the sake of humor, that anyone with a sane response is not included in the show, but jeez it must be pretty easy to come up with enough on short notice, or these faux polls would not be done.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Arphy, posted 02-14-2010 5:29 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Arphy, posted 02-14-2010 9:38 PM RAZD has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 95 of 205 (546909)
02-14-2010 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Arphy
02-14-2010 5:29 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
Therefore I think it is inadequate to call evolution simply a "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" because it is quite different from what the ordinary lay person understands by the word evolution. So I think that it is time that evolutionists got over that fact and started using it the way it is used by the population in general.
But I'm not sure that "the population in general" is as stupid and ignorant as you make out.
I'm fairly sure that if I said to the average man: "Mosquitoes evolved resistance to DDT", then he'd grasp what I meant, and not get all stupid in the head and start thinking that this process of evolution must have started with a unicellular organism.
I think you overestimate the ability of creationists to deceive people. Yes, you have had spectacular successes in making people foolish and ignorant, but I think a majority of them still have some sort of grasp on what evolution means.
And even if you could fool most of the people all of the time, I don't see why that should change the vocabulary used by biologists. If you managed to trick a majority of people into thinking that the word "atom" meant "a purple aardvark playing the bassoon", then should chemists agree that that is in fact what the word "atom" really means?
And if they did, which they wouldn't, then the result of this would not be that they'd admit that all these years they've been talking about nothing but mauve aardvark bassoonists. No, they'd say: "Sure, you have that word to play with. We'll think up a new word to mean what we used to mean by atom".
And the same thing is true of the word "evolution". If biologists allowed creationists to redefine the technical term evolution (and they won't) then the very next thing biologists would do is invent a brand-new word to talk about the thing that they want to talk about. "Flarpdidarp", perhaps. And then we'd hear biologists talking about how mosquitoes flarpidarped resistance to DDT by flarpdidarpish mechanisms, in accordance with the Theory of Flarpdidarp, as has been proved by flarpdidarpist biologists.
At which point creationists would have to start telling halfwitted lies about what the word "flarpdidarp" meant. And this would be no victory for you, because you'd have to start again from scratch. You have at least managed to create a certain amount of confusion in the public mind as to what "evolution" means. Congratulations. Do you want to have to start all over by talking nonsense about what "flarpdidarp" means?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : Edited because I mis-spelled "flarpdidarp".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Arphy, posted 02-14-2010 5:29 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Arphy, posted 02-14-2010 10:36 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 96 of 205 (546910)
02-14-2010 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Coyote
02-14-2010 5:47 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
Why is it that only creationists seem to have problems with these definitions?
Because they swore a solemn oath to be wrong about everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2010 5:47 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 97 of 205 (546911)
02-14-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by RAZD
02-14-2010 8:31 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
As I think I have said right from the start, I realise there are problems with the creationist definition that you used (by the way, where is it from?). But my point was that it brings up a relavant point. That the evolutionist definition of evolution is inadequate in explaining the actual use of the word in our society.
You seem to suggest that only "ignorant, misinformed or undereducated people" would think that an evolutionist is "Someone who understands evolution, has investigated it and the evidence for it in an open-minded skeptical manner, and found that it is a valid concept for explaining the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, to the fossil and genetic record." OH wait, THat was YOUR definition of an evolutionist!
So in your definition of an evolutionist (i.e. someone who believes in evolution) it is vital that that person believes in secular natural history. Yet you are also saying that natural history is something completly seperate from evolution.
Because if an evolutionist is someone who believes in evolution and evolution is defined as "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" then strictly speaking I am an evolutionist. But this clashes with your definition of an evolutionist. So either your definition of evolution is wrong (or inadequate) or your definition of a evolutionist is wrong. I would say your definition of evolution is inadequate.
Curiously, science is not decided by popularity polls or public opinions, no matter how well informed.
And I never said it was, neither is truth. However, what words mean are decided by public opinion no matter how much you try to convince the public that they should adopt your definition. Take the word "gay" again. You could start campaigns asking people to start using the word "gay" as meaning "happy", but basically I think you would be told to get over it, the word has a new meaning and you will just have to live with that. You may despise people for being so inconsiderate and uneducated, etc, but that would just show that you are a very sad person. Just get over it and use the word in the same sense that the "uneducated masses" use it. Because otherwise you will just get into more arguments about definitions every time you talk about the subject. So go on, kick and scream all you want, but just realise that your definition of evolution is different from the uneducated masses and you will just have to live with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2010 8:31 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2010 9:46 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 99 by hooah212002, posted 02-14-2010 9:56 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 100 by Granny Magda, posted 02-14-2010 10:31 PM Arphy has replied
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2010 10:13 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 127 by DrJones*, posted 02-15-2010 10:28 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 98 of 205 (546912)
02-14-2010 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Arphy
02-14-2010 9:38 PM


Re: epic fail
However, what words mean are decided by public opinion no matter how much you try to convince the public that they should adopt your definition.
False.
Scientists carefully define the words they use to avoid confusion.
We are under no obligation to spoon feed the populace who might choose to use the wrong definitions through ignorance, nor the creationists who use the wrong definitions in a deliberate attempt to sow confusion and "controversy."
You don't like the way we use words, get your own words and define them any way you want. But leave our definitions alone--you aren't half qualified.
Edited by Coyote, : Speeling

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Arphy, posted 02-14-2010 9:38 PM Arphy has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 99 of 205 (546916)
02-14-2010 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Arphy
02-14-2010 9:38 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
At any rate, the term "evolutionist" seems to only be a part of the evolution vs. creation debate. It does not, at least to me, appear to be a term used by "the general populace".

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Arphy, posted 02-14-2010 9:38 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 100 of 205 (546917)
02-14-2010 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Arphy
02-14-2010 9:38 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
Hi Arphy,
So in your definition of an evolutionist (i.e. someone who believes in evolution) it is vital that that person believes in secular natural history.
You are putting words in RAZD's mouth. He never said any such thing.
Yet you are also saying that natural history is something completly seperate from evolution.
That is because they are not the same thing. Of course the Theory of Evolution helps illuminate natural history in countless ways.
Because if an evolutionist is someone who believes in evolution and evolution is defined as "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" then strictly speaking I am an evolutionist. But this clashes with your definition of an evolutionist. So either your definition of evolution is wrong (or inadequate) or your definition of a evolutionist is wrong. I would say your definition of evolution is inadequate.
This is clearly false. The definition given by RAZD described someone who had "found that it is a valid concept for explaining the diversity of life as we know it,". As things stand, that clearly doesn't include you.
I think you are clouding the issue by using the term "evolutionist". You should realise that this term is very rarely used outside of the context of evo/creo debates. It is not meaningful outside of these debates.
Take the word "gay" again. You could start campaigns asking people to start using the word "gay" as meaning "happy", but basically I think you would be told to get over it, the word has a new meaning and you will just have to live with that.
But happy people don't have their own specialised terminology that they need to use in order to be happy.
Scientists on the other hand, do have their own specialised terminology, that they do need to do science. If you want to understand what actual scientists are actually saying (as opposed to creationist strawmen), you need to understand that terminology.
If you insist upon using some definition other than the one used by scientists, you are not addressing the real ToE, you are only attacking a strawman; clearly a waste of time. think about it; do you want to argue over the real ToE? Or on that was made up by creationist propaganda merchants?
You may despise people for being so inconsiderate and uneducated, etc, but that would just show that you are a very sad person.
No-one despises anyone. No-one else mentioned any such attitude.
Personally, I feel the exactly opposite way. Every time we see a new member turn up with another creationist "daffynition", I sigh and think "Oh dear. Another poor soul who has been lied to about what evolution is.". I feel sympathy for such people. I feel that they have been deceived, perhaps intentionally, most likely not, but they have been misled whatever the cause. All I am trying to do is help undo the damage and show people what evolution really is. To my way of thinking, that is the only respectful thing to do.
Just get over it and use the word in the same sense that the "uneducated masses" use it.
Once again; when discussing a scientific subject, I use the definitions created by scientists.
Why would you let the least educated dictate usage? Do you really think that is the best way to raise peoples conciousness? The best way to educate? By pandering to the lowest common denominator? Really Arphy?
Because otherwise you will just get into more arguments about definitions every time you talk about the subject.
Yes, as long as creationist websites keep peddling erroneous definitions of evolution, we will continue to try and educate their victims in what evolution really is.
So go on, kick and scream all you want, but just realise that your definition of evolution is different from the uneducated masses and you will just have to live with that.
Being different from the uneducated? I think I can live with that.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Arphy, posted 02-14-2010 9:38 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Arphy, posted 02-14-2010 11:49 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 101 of 205 (546918)
02-14-2010 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
02-14-2010 8:41 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
Hi Dr A
I don't tend to reply to your posts, but just for a bit of fun
I'm fairly sure that if I said to the average man: "Mosquitoes evolved resistance to DDT", then he'd grasp what I meant, and not get all stupid in the head and start thinking that this process of evolution must have started with a unicellular organism.
How is this a contrast with my comment? Anyway if you just said "mosquitoes evolved" then we understand this as meaning that through many generations a unicellular organism turned into a mosquitoe. To say that "Mosquitoes evolved resistance to DDT" means we understand that you are talking about a particular point (or area) of the evolutionary pathway of mosquitoes. Sorry don't see how this negates anything I said. Not sure what you're trying to get at.
I guess that when evolution is mentioned I see it more as the pathway from universal common ancestry to the present. organisms that are evolving (which is every organism) move along this path through a variety of mechanisms which account for the diversity we have today. So if you are "evolving" you are doing the process of "evolution", that is changing over time from a unicellular organism to what you are presently.
So when I say that is inadequate to call evolution simply a "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation", I think a more adequate definition that fits in with what people understand about evolution and what it means to be an evolutionist could possibly be "evolution is a change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation which has allowed them to diversify from a unicelluar organism to the vast diversity of organisms found presently and in the fossil record."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-14-2010 8:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by hooah212002, posted 02-14-2010 10:54 PM Arphy has replied
 Message 106 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2010 12:36 AM Arphy has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 102 of 205 (546919)
02-14-2010 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Arphy
02-14-2010 10:36 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
I think a more adequate definition that fits in with what people understand about evolution and what it means to be an evolutionist could possibly be "evolution is a change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation which has allowed them to diversify from a unicelluar organism to the vast diversity of organisms found presently and in the fossil record."
So we should define words the fit the way a layperson thinks they mean?
Maybe we can do the same with the word "christian".
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Arphy, posted 02-14-2010 10:36 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Arphy, posted 02-15-2010 12:47 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 103 of 205 (546921)
02-14-2010 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Granny Magda
02-14-2010 10:31 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
Hi Magda
You are putting words in RAZD's mouth. He never said any such thing.
um, yes he did.
razd writes:
Someone who...found that it (evolution) is a valid concept for explaining the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, to the fossil and genetic record.
Or maybe I did misunderstand him. I guess I could read it differently but that comes back to our dilemma that I fit the discription of an evolutionist. Let me explain:
"Someone who understands evolution, has investigated it and the evidence for it in an open-minded skeptical manner"
I feel I have done so if you maintain that evolution means "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation".
"...and found that it is a valid concept for explaining the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, to the fossil and genetic record."
Yes, I believe that it is valid in explaining much of the diversity of the world around us, and the fossil and genetic record. So am I a evolutionist? If you feel that I am being pedantic and maybe it would read better as "the diversity of ALL Life" this is equivalent to saying that you believe that purely naturalistic processes achieved the diversity of life as we know it. Which presumably means that you subscribe to secular natural history.
Come on admit it, being an evolutionist (a believer in evolution)means that you believe that all know organisms diversified from a/(or many) unicellular organism(s). Yet this concept is strangly absent from the definition of evolution.
Also just a note, I put "uneducated masses" in quotation marks more as a sarcastic comment, because many people who use the word evolution in the way i am describing are actually well educated and in fact I am quite sure I have seen evolutionary scientists use it in that sense as well. In fact seeing we seem to like using the berkley website after a quick look it is easy to spot the same "mistakes" you think creationists are making. Under the title for "What is the evidence for evolution?" Understanding Evolution - Your one-stop source for information on evolution (in other words according to you what is the evidence for a change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation)there is an article called 15 EVOLUTIONARY GEMS. Which doesn't actually concern itself so much with evidence that the frequency of hereditary traits change, but rather it spends time in defending secular natural history. According to your definition surely they are way off topic. In fact basically all of the links under the section "What is the evidence for evolution?" are all more concerned with defending natural history as opposed to defending that changes in hereditary traits occur. Why is this? surely they should have titled it: "Evidence of a secular understanding of natural history through the process of evolution." Unless of course when they say they want to defend evolution they mean they want to defend secular natural history through naturalistic processes. maybe this should be the definition of evolution? So don't come at me with the "scientists strictly only think of evolution as a change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" line. Evolution concerns itself with something much wider than that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Granny Magda, posted 02-14-2010 10:31 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by hooah212002, posted 02-14-2010 11:53 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 105 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2010 12:24 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 109 by Granny Magda, posted 02-15-2010 1:12 AM Arphy has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 104 of 205 (546922)
02-14-2010 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Arphy
02-14-2010 11:49 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
Come on admit it, being an evolutionist (a believer in evolution)means that you believe that all know organisms diversified from a/(or many) unicellular organism(s). Yet this concept is strangly absent from the definition of evolution.
Come on admit it, being a christian(a believer in christ)means that you believe that all know organisms poofed into existance magically. Yet this concept is strangly absent from the definition of christianity.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Arphy, posted 02-14-2010 11:49 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 105 of 205 (546923)
02-15-2010 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Arphy
02-14-2010 11:49 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
Come on admit it, being an evolutionist (a believer in evolution)means that you believe that all know organisms diversified from a/(or many) unicellular organism(s). Yet this concept is strangly absent from the definition of evolution.
And being a chemist means that you believe that salt is the product of ionic bonding between sodium and chlorine. And yet, "strangely" as you would say, this fact is absent from the definition of chemistry.
How many times and in how many ways do we have to explain this to you? Just because some fact about evolution is obviously true, that doesn't make the truth of that fact part of the definition of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Arphy, posted 02-14-2010 11:49 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024