How do you define the word Evolution?

dwise1: "creationists ... hold beliefs ... that are contrary to fact."An example, please.

Pressie: "From my work, I concluded that the firstforms of life (as we know life) were unicellular."I'm not sure what your point is, but my point is, believing that all life evolved from a common ancestor is useless to applied biology. You've come to the conclusion that the first forms of life were unicellular - so what? How are your fossils and your conclusion useful to applied biology (or to any form of applied science, for that matter)?

What are talking about? Read my lips: I AGREE with you - they are two diiferent enrirely different mechanisms.

Taq: "The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable."And the reason we have the Bible is because human beings aren't reliable.

The science magazine you refer to forgot to mention that all those respondents who chose the spiral trajectory were retarded three-year olds who were tripping on a massive dose of LSD. Even the village idiot would have enough common sense not to choose the spiral trajectory!

jar: "the theory of evolution says nothing about origins".You could have fooled me.

Dr. Adequate: "this is exactly why we need to say the bacteria evolve ,,, so that people don't get misled into imagining such processes as you describe,"I don't think my allusion to vaccine immunity has anything to do with the absence of your magical word. I notice that in the medical profession, bacteria are said to "become" resistant; no one says bacteria "evolve" resistance. I suspect that the only scientific sphere in which bacteria are said to "evolve" resistance isevolutionary biologiy - because evo-biologists are convinced that antibiotic resistance is evidence that supports their theory that all life evolving from a common ancestor.Regardless, I'm still in the dark about how what happens after the bacteria are exposed to the antibiotic. What is the connection between exposure to the toxin and the surviving bacteria producing a beneficial mutation that is passed on to the next generation?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Well, what is the definition of "origins"? I am aware that abiogenesis is not evolution, but I would say that the first evolutionary step after abiogenesis could be included in the realm of "origins". And guess what, Origins science includes evolution.So please explain what you mean when you say my "ignorance is stunning"?

No causal connection? Well, well, well; now doesn't that come as a surprise! Is there any empirical evidence that the alleged post-toxin mutations occur, or is their existence a matter of conjecture?

Coyote: ""verified by observation and experiment" is not a valid criterion is science."Really? My dictionary seems to differ; it saysscience is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world THROUGH OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENT."This means theories that aren't verified by observation and experiment lay outside the realm of science - the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor, for example. Since creationists don't deny anything in science that has been verified by observation and experiment, they can't be accused of being anti-scientific.

dwise1: "I'll give you two major ones: 1. Young earth
2. Noah's Flood"Since I'm not a young-earther, the first item doesn't apply to me.How can you prove that Noah's Flood is "contrary to fact"?

dwise1: "thank you for pointing out that you are not a YEC."But don't get your hopes up - I also believe that all life on earth was created in six days, 5778 years ago.

The medical profession concerns itself with the real world - to wit: helping the sick; it has no good reason to replace "become" with a contrived word like "evolved".
Evolutionary biologist, on the other hand, don't concern themselves with the real world; their "job" is to promote atheist theology - to wit: prop up the utterly useless theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Hence their use of the word "evolved" when it's not necessary to.

The thought of that creepy nutter, Dr. Eugenie Scott, being let loose on clueless university students is truly disturbing,--------------------------------------------------------dwise1: "Science was fun! And still is."Now here is something you and I can agree on.
--------------------------------------------------------dwise1: "That is what evolution does for biology."I look at biology and see the wondrous complexity of God's incredible creation. Naturalistic evolution reduces it to a meaningless accident. Sorry.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Dr. Adequate: "Dredge was de-nouncing speciation ... just the other week."Dredgeconfesses that his understanding of the definition of speciation was flawed. Dredge now understands the definition of speciation and realizes that speciation is a fact - but he also realizes that speciation isn't evidence for the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor.