Evolution has been Disproven

To backtrack a bit to message 49...use of dictionaries and encyclopedias are useful to a point, but as has already been pointed out to get to the detailed level of understanding one must get past the few lines in a dictionary or the few paragraphs in an encyclopedia to the jargon and exacting definitions used by science. The quite similar definitions of SG and abiogenesis in these general reference texts seem to have defender hung up..perhaps defender's arguments are with dictionary and encyclopedia companies.As related to what Mr. Jack said, evolution deals with change after life started. Abiogenesis is a related but nontopic issue to evolution better suited to chemistry,or for some, cosmology or theology.Also,to quote from a 1933 text about the limitations of science is not very timely.What you have proven is that due to limitations in space and general definitions to various age groups and learning levels, that dictionaries and encyclopedias don't always give exacting scientific definitions. Several posters have made this distintion clear...to me anyway.The devil is in the details....dang that devil!ABB

Thanks Jacen... I usually check the timestamp... I fooled myself when I saw some current responses and then read the thread from the beginning and didn't check the timestamp on a midthread message I responded to..chalk it up to being new here.Thanks againABB