The Evolution Definition Shell Game

The word evolution has gone through its own evolution over the years, as I describe in this article: 404 Not Found For example, evolutionists solved the colossal abiogenesis problem by simply removing it from the meaning (definition) of the word evolution! Evolutionist G.A. Kerkut defined the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ in his 1960 book 'Implications of Evolution' as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." I wonder if Mammuthus thinks Kerkut was confused to write such a thing in his book! The New Revised Evolution Standard Version (NRESV) now excludes abiogenesis. Nevertheless life-from-non-life remains a key component of the belief system of virtually every evolutionist scientist, even those who claim to believe in a deity. While they claim abiogenesis is not a part of their theory, it is revealing that they still spend a great amount of time trying to explain how life arose from lifeless pond scum. Abiogenesis still remains a part of the evolutionist worldview, regardless of whether or not the term ‘evolution’ encapsulates abiogenesis.

SO essentially you thinkthat complainign that you don't like the deifnitions used by "evolutionists" is a worthwhile contribution to the debate ?You don't show anything wrong with the definition of macroevolution other than it disagrees with a creationist definition. But the creationist definition is not viable at all since it relies on the concept of "kinds", a creationist invention which reflects only the arbitrary limits on evolution assumed by creationists.Think of it a - science book uses a scientific definition rather than one invented for the purposes of religious apologetics with no scientific basis - are you really asserting that that is wrong ?

Maybe you could define "kinds" for us, while you've got your all-knowing dictionary open. In particular I'm most curious to know how I would distinguish between two individuals from different "kinds".

Freddys BACK!anyway I just love you site especially your squirrel who decides he wants to fly. (that was sarcastic) I have been through your site and its clear you have very little understanding of evolution. I think Your site is not only funny to you its funny to us how stupid it is
Oh thanks for not responding to my comments[This message has been edited by DC85, 09-02-2003]

That's amazing.But did you know that the biblical worldview from which creationism stems has ALSO gone under a bit of evolution? I know it seems amazing that creationists would try and sweep this under the carpet but part of this worldview used to accept the notion that the Sun revolved around the Earth! It seems like it's hard to believe, but it's all true!I once read that some people even got killed for saying otherwise! Or at the least sent to bed early. I don't know the names of these people but I think someone here might be able to back me up on this. Also I know of several historians whose theories support my statement.Later, it was proven that the Earth actually revolves around the sun (and is NOT FLAT!) Creationists have simply "solved" the problems and inconsistencies in their worldview by claiming faith. The Earth revolving around the sun business still remains a part of the Creationist worldview though they are always at a loss to explain how the Sun can stop in the sky.go figure.

Hi Fred!I guess I have a somewhat similar reaction to some of the other replies. With all the interesting issues available, *this* is what you choose to discuss?Well, anyway, so that there'll be at least one serious reply, here goes...If you want to believe that evolution was once defined so as to include abiogenesis, and further that the definition was changed as a response to Creationist pressure, then I won't try to persuade you otherwise. I think we all agree that however you define them, both abiogenesis and evolution (defined as descent with modification through natural selection) are signficant issues in the debate.--Percy

Hi Fred,Are you aware that Darwin himself did not deign to explain how life itself began?

quote:

---

"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."

---

Quote is from: The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882, Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, First American Edition, 1958------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

A quote from a 1960's biologist is Fred's "evidence" that abiogenesis is the same as evolution?..given the responses from the others I think this topic is dead. If Fred wishes to argue against what evolution is not in order to feel like he can make a point, nobody will be able to get him out of his own little fundie fairytale world.but feel free to explain to me how changes in allele frequency over time in any way has anything to do with abiogenesis....

quote:

---

Nevertheless life-from-non-life remains a key component of the belief system of virtually every evolutionist scientist, even those who claim to believe in a deity.

---

And your support for this assertion is?...oh yeah something of equal relevance to the theory of evolution..a surprising number of scientists drive cars and sleep...you want to add this to your conspiracy theory?

quote:

---

While they claim abiogenesis is not a part of their theory, it is revealing that they still spend a great amount of time trying to explain how life arose from lifeless pond scum.

---

Interesting, I have read or scrolled through the contents of more than one hundred scientific articles on evolution in the last month or so and have yet to run into "..they still spend a great amount of time trying to explain how life arose from lifeless pond scum"....sounds like another baseless assertion.

quote:

---

Abiogenesis still remains a part of the evolutionist worldview, regardless of whether or not the term ‘evolution’ encapsulates abiogenesis.

---

Even if this were true, what does this have to do with the theory of evolution? If Darwin had believed that life originated from the gas from the anus of a giant pink galactic goat but then went on to propose the theory of evolution based on the observations he actually made, most people would have ignored his musings on the origin of life and still accepted his theory of evolution.If you wish to start a thread in the Origin of Life forum please do...that forum has been quiet lately...when you do however, how about starting with1. a testable hypothesis of creation ex nihilo
2. how the hypothesis is falsifiable
3. the evidence supporting it
4. how it explains the evidence better than competing hypothesis of abiogenesischeers,
M[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 09-03-2003]

quote:

---

PaulK: SO essentially you thinkthat complainign that you don't like the deifnitions used by "evolutionists" is a worthwhile contribution to the debate ?

​

Percy: With all the interesting issues available, *this* is what you choose to discuss?

---

This is important because I believe that evolution is built entirely upon illusions, and that the equivocation of the term evolution is the greatest of the illusions invoked by evolutionists. Provide evidence for small-scale change, misnomered as microevolution (something both creationists and evolutionists agree occur) as if the evidence supports large-scale change (the type of evolution that the public associates with the word ‘evolution’). I’ll start threads on other big illusions soon.

Uh, you are behind the times Dr Potatoe . This has been discredited long ago. This was a bit of dubious revisionist history perpetrated in the 1800s, which is well-documented in the book Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians by Jeffrey Burton Russell. Dr Danny Faulkner has a good online article about this here:The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)

quote:

---

Hi Fred,
Are you aware that Darwin himself did not deign to explain how life itself began?
quote:

​

"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."

​

Quote is from: The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882, Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, First American Edition, 1958

---

Thanks for the quote doc! Mammuthus, are you listening? (or perhaps you think Darwin became a Christian on his death bed? )Doctrbill, as far as what Darwin believed, just because he did not offer a just-so story of abiogenesis does not mean it was not part of his overall paradigm of life arising via naturalistically processes.

Fred,You act like scientists are afraid of discussing abiogenesis, or that is some kind of Achilles Heel in the Atheist worldview (and please say Atheist when you mean Atheist rather than using Evolutionist). This is simply not the case. All that is going on is that we are trying to maintain meaningful definitions.Evolution is usually used to describe Darwins theory of descent by natural selection or, more commonly, a modern varient on that basic principle. Abiogenesis, however it happened, can never be explained by natural selection; because until we have a replicator there is nothing for natural selection to act on.This is why Evolutionist insist on seperating Evolution and abiogenesis; because the issues involved are wildly different.

quote:

---

This is important because I believe that evolution is built entirely upon illusions, and that the equivocation of the term evolution is the greatest of the illusions invoked by evolutionists.

---

And this has what to do with abiogenesis which is what you and a few crank creationists equivocate with evolution?

quote:

---

Provide evidence for small-scale change, misnomered as microevolution (something both creationists and evolutionists agree occur) as if the evidence supports large-scale change (the type of evolution that the public associates with the word ‘evolution’).

---

You cannot even find two creationists that know what the theory of evolution actually states much less a creationist that knows anything about genetics and "small scale change" as you put it. But the microevolution-macroevolution debate is yet another creationist fallacy as if one can put a defined measure of how much is a small change and how much is a big change.

quote:

---

I’ll start threads on other big illusions soon.

---

Starting threads is all well and good but will you actually stick around to debate or run for cover when you cannot answer the posts that have so often decimated your arguments?

quote:

---

Thanks for the quote doc! Mammuthus, are you listening? (or perhaps you think Darwin became a Christian on his death bed? )

---

For all I know you are not a christian...all you fundies seem to disagree with one another yet you all claim to be right....I have heard the old "Darwin was not a christian or that he became a christian on his deathbed" argument a million times...and what does this have to do with evolution?

quote:

---

Doctrbill, as far as what Darwin believed, just because he did not offer a just-so story of abiogenesis does not mean it was not part of his overall paradigm of life arising via naturalistically processes.

---

And what does this have to do with the theory of evolution?You are so confused you cannot even stay on the topic of the thread YOU started.

since you tend to cut and run so often, how about focusing for a moment and starting with1. a testable hypothesis of creation ex nihilo
2. how the hypothesis is falsifiable
3. the evidence supporting it
4. how it explains the evidence better than competing hypothesis of abiogenesis