Definition of Evolution

Evolution is an imagined process by which living things formed by
themselves without a creator and then somehow improved by themselves.
All bacteria, plants, animals, and humans have arisen by mere chance
from a single, remote ancestor that somehow came into existence. The
basic theory is that hydrogen gas, given enough time, turn into people.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolution is an imagined process by which living things formed by
themselves without a creator and then somehow improved by themselves.
All bacteria, plants, animals, and humans have arisen by mere chance
from a single, remote ancestor that somehow came into existence. The
basic theory is that hydrogen gas, given enough time, turn into people.

Wow, I am surprised you actually admitted that. Of course the basic soup was more than just H2, it included carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, stuff like that also. Good to see you on our side now.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Wow, I am surprised you actually admitted that. Of course the basic soup was more than just H2, it included carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, stuff like that also. Good to see you on our side now.

In your dreams.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolution is an imagined process by which living things formed by
themselves without a creator and then somehow improved by themselves.
All bacteria, plants, animals, and humans have arisen by mere chance
from a single, remote ancestor that somehow came into existence. The
basic theory is that hydrogen gas, given enough time, turn into people.

Actually, the definition of the word 'evolution' as you well know because you have been told many times on these forums is : the change of life forms over generations.
What you are talking about is "The Theory of Evolution" and "Abiognesis".
I am also not convinced that "a single remote ancestor" is part of either theory. I am sure that there is no real evidence to support such a claim.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolution is an imagined process by which living things formed by
themselves without a creator and then somehow improved by themselves.
All bacteria, plants, animals, and humans have arisen by mere chance
from a single, remote ancestor that somehow came into existence. The
basic theory is that hydrogen gas, given enough time, turn into people.

It is not an imagined process. Evolution is a verifiable fact when accurately defined thus:

"...any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

(Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974)

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolution is an imagined process by which living things formed by
themselves without a creator and then somehow improved by themselves.
All bacteria, plants, animals, and humans have arisen by mere chance
from a single, remote ancestor that somehow came into existence. The
basic theory is that hydrogen gas, given enough time, turn into people.

You should know that the definition you presented here has very little to do with the term evolution used by people who actually study the process.

Frankly, this to me is the largest problem with this debate. There are many people who don't really take the time and effort to understand what it is they want are trying to argue against.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Wow, I am surprised you actually admitted that. Of course the basic soup was more than just H2, it included carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, stuff like that also. Good to see you on our side now.

'soup', that has to be the best, utterly hilarious. I laugh at it every time.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolution is an imagined process by which living things formed by
themselves without a creator and then somehow improved by themselves.
All bacteria, plants, animals, and humans have arisen by mere chance
from a single, remote ancestor that somehow came into existence. The
basic theory is that hydrogen gas, given enough time, turn into people.

I sort of like that if we want to start at t-zero with hydrogen and cook it in the stars. However, I'd modify it as follows.

Evolution is the theorized process by which living things formed and then became modified and diversified through variation and natural selection. It states that life on Earth has arisen in accordance with the regularities of nature. The process followed the formation of the elements which began with hydrogen and helium as theorized in another branch of science, astrophysics. To date, nothing in these processes precludes the possibility that we are not deluded into thinking this way due to our naturally sinful nature. This alternative view is in the domain of religion, about which science does not speak. Of course people who subscribe to one side or the other seem to think their side wants them to yabber on about the other side being wrong, wrong, wrong. This shows that evolution does not always lead to improvements.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually, the definition of the word 'evolution' as you well know because you have been told many times on these forums is : the change of life forms over generations.
What you are talking about is "The Theory of Evolution" and "Abiognesis".
I am also not convinced that "a single remote ancestor" is part of either theory. I am sure that there is no real evidence to support such a claim.

Then, do you now agree with me that the theory of evolution is false?

Originally posted by pbm
You should know that the definition you presented here has very little to do with the term evolution used by people who actually study the process.

Frankly, this to me is the largest problem with this debate. There are many people who don't really take the time and effort to understand what it is they want are trying to argue against.

You are one of those people who do not understand the real truth
of what the theory of evolution really is. It is not just some small
change or adaptation, if so, there would be no need for the word.

Originally posted by JS357
I sort of like that if we want to start at t-zero with hydrogen and cook it in the stars. However, I'd modify it as follows.

Evolution is the theorized process by which living things formed and then became modified and diversified through variation and natural selection. It states that life on Earth has arisen in accordance with the regularities of nature. ...[text shortened]... side being wrong, wrong, wrong. This shows that evolution does not always lead to improvements.

As long as science excludes God, it will never be able to discover the
full truth of the universe and the other creations of God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Then, do you now agree with me that the theory of evolution is false?

No. The Theory of Evolution covers a lot of ground and cannot be said to be true or false. People studying it make mistakes and therefore some things they say may turn out to be untrue. But other things they say are provably true. Others - like the fact of 'evolution' as I defined it - is true by definition (ie it is a definition not a claim with a truth value)

Originally posted by RJHinds
As long as science excludes God, it will never be able to discover the
full truth of the universe and the other creations of God.

Those aspects of our shared world that cannot be discovered within the domain of science are the domain of other aspects of human endeavor, such as the domain of religion. Science isn't going away, and religion isn't going away. If we do not keep the advocates of each domain from treating the other side as wrong wrong wrong, we may revert to intolerance, then persecution. Avoidance of this could begin with you.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
It is not an imagined process. Evolution is a verifiable fact when accurately defined thus:

"...any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

(Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974)

You stated, "Evolution is a verifiable fact ."

This is what biologist, L. Harrison Matthews, in the forward to the 1971
edition of Darwin's "Origin of Speicies" says

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the
peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it
then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly
parallel to the belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers
know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

Matthews, L.H., The Origin of Species, (Introduction) by Charles Darwin,
J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., London, 1971, page 10.

Originally posted by JS357
Those aspects of our shared world that cannot be discovered within the domain of science are the domain of other aspects of human endeavor, such as the domain of religion. Science isn't going away, and religion isn't going away. If we do not keep the advocates of each domain from treating the other side as wrong wrong wrong, we may revert to intolerance, then persecution. Avoidance of this could begin with you.

I think we would be better off doing our science with the knowledge
and view that God put all the forces and everything in place to produce
a location that was just right for His creation of life, which we can study
to see how it works. Thus, we would obtain the truth in science without
hostility toward God and spirituality. We should realize that there is
more to consider in out study of science than just the material.