Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.

Is this not a conflation of evolution and ToE? Where the ToE say that evolution, caused by X pathways, is enough to explain biological, natural history as we understand it, we certainly can't have "evolution" defind using a part (common decent) of natural history as we understand it. That begs the question.Edited by lyx2no, : Add Travis Bickle's accent to subhead.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

I was playing Travis Bickle. I don't think myself the only fellow evolutionist here. I've even got sources. AbE: Ah! I see where I went wrong: I forgot to add the accent. I'll go correct that. No, It's sloppy alright, but I see no need to make it sloppier on purpose. Anyone making an honest attempt to alleviate their ignorance to either adopt or battle ToE is not going to be won or lost on semantics. Either group will gain from the distinction. Those who are willfully ignorant, those who use the conflagration as a weapon, are all ready lost. Those who are blissfully ignorant are the group we risk losing as we bore them to death. With that group we can use a lax definition just as you can use a lax definition with me. They're not looking for any little thing to protect their notions.Edited by lyx2no, : No edit:I mis-read myself.Edited by lyx2no, : AbE:

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

They are both horses. Do you really expect any of us to believe that you are incapable of distinguishing a higher order categorization from a lower order categorization? Which is not a shape, ICANT, a circle or a square? Which is not a pet: a cat or a dog? Which is not a fruit: an apple or an orange?Pretense is a form of lying.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.