Definition of Evolution

You can delude yourself with conclusions all day. It won't change the fact that your religion includes that which mine excludes through lack. Restraining the definition to knowable limits makes it less dogmatic and more universally accepted. Your religious views are the cornerstone for your desire of a monopoly on this definition. If you can't win this definition, you can't confuse people into believing your lies. Conclusion: purpose served. I un-limited it and then you disagreed. You must have a hidden agenda. What's wrong with seperation of definition and religious inference? The usable definition for a kind, is in the kind itself. It should be obvious that a wolf and a dog are related. A banana and a wolf is a stretch. I admit that quantifying the process is and would be difficult, the fundamental kinds would be hard to tell, for example: Zebra and horse, both agree in morphology yet which came first?You accuse me of not being in reality, perhaps you would like to define reality? I doubt you can give me a usable definition. If telling the truth is outside reality then I don't want to be in.

Thus is the crux of the argument. It is based on observation and subjectivity. You conclude one thing, I conclude another. Evolution, as in variations with in a living organism, or being, or kind, or species, happens everyday. This isn't the argument! Dr. A. and RAZD can chill, at least you Modulous have a cool head. Thank you, even if we disagree. I wish I could agree. For the people involved in debate, this would in fact be somewhere along the reconciliation lines. However, to the layman, evolution infers the subsequent theories. Which is why I would like to digress from any form of acknowledging a position in contrast to mine own.

WRONG!!!! It has everything to do with it. You must understand that your belief in billions of years is a contested theory, and I use "theory" lightly. You believe in the "theory" of evolution, I don't. Therefore, for us to come to any type of terms of agreement we must supplicate our view points. You won't admit that you believe in the theory of evolution. You think it is a fact. I disagree. Instead of calling into question my psychological state, you should educate me with facts instead of assertions relative to your religion.
Also, calling what you believe a religion is true, if it is unfair, then calling Christianity a religion is also unfair. If I call evolution a religion, you get all bent out of shape. When you attack my belief with speculative reasoning that you deem superior, I get upset. So we need a definition that remains unbiased. Not to say that we can't observe the effects of evolution. Which is, in my opinion, labeled under observable. So something that happened 200 years ago is knowable and possibly scientific. However, expanding this range to supplicate your belief system is unacceptable. Again with citing religious dogma. When will you understand, I desire religion out of the definition? Life forming billions of years ago or reference to the fossil record is under deep skepticism. So postulation of unknown hypotheses must meet the same requirements you so readily give to any biblical science or study. And I agree that variations happen, why can't we call these observations variations? Where did that come from? All life one kind? No, how about: All life from one source? Your so static in your reasoning, all you can perceive is your own ideal. Until we know everything there is to know about genetics and genetic data, let us (you) drop the arrogance posture. The fact is, relationships are found. The end. Because things are similar doesn't make some fantasy story come to life to result in an observable construct. Which brings me back to the point: Evolution should be carefully used to a specific degree and not a jumped to over hyped conclusion. Scientology doesn't believe in psychology. What that has to do with the relevance of this topic is up for debate. Me too, however is all reality subjective or objective or is it transitional? This is subjective evidence. calling something blue, that is clearly red is a form of lying. Although you probably don't have any standard, besides yourself, for the accumulation of morals, I don't expect you to understand.

Yeah, what the hell are we talking about? Sorry people.

Is it possible that you are under delusion? nice burn. I know this is OT but, I don't think you can quantify kinds down to the "one" kind or species. You want to mind-wrestle me into accepting this quantum craziness. I don't know of any sound evidence for this, and I have read talk.origins 29+ macro evolution "evidences."Main Entry:
evo·lu·tion Listen to the pronunciation of evolution
Pronunciation:
\‘e-v-l-shn, ‘-v-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
Date:
16221: one of a set of prescribed movements2 a: a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b: the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d: something evolved3: the process of working out or developing4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory5: the extraction of a mathematical root6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
” evo·lu·tion·ari·ly Listen to the pronunciation of evolutionarily \-sh-‘ner--l\ adverb
” evo·lu·tion·ary Listen to the pronunciation of evolutionary \-sh-‘ner-\ adjective
” evo·lu·tion·ism Listen to the pronunciation of evolutionism \-sh-‘ni-zm\ noun
” evo·lu·tion·ist Listen to the pronunciation of evolutionist \-sh(-)nist\ noun or adjectiveThis definition is obviously loaded. Taken from M-W.com I intended to start with this. You have defined evolution according to your terms, which is extremely liberal, however evolution is still based off of the hypothesis of evolution. I like this one from Xaruan:
"Change in a population's genetic traits across generations"
yes, I can agree with that. Anyone object?

Aren't you a moderator? Why are you OT? And why are you presenting your opinion as fact? I rest my case. http://EvC Forum: The Fascism of a Monopoly -->EvC Forum: The Fascism of a Monopoly

Thank you, your input is wonderful.From xuraun: Is this acceptable? Please no more extra twists to supplicate your religious beliefs/.

Sounds good. Case closed.