Originally posted by RJHindsNo, I am using the definition for evolution as it is defined. If you don't like it, you can try to show that my definition is non-standard (in which case I would be expected to qualify it when I use it in the non-standard way).
You are using the definition for adaptation to replace
the definition for evolution since you know evolution
is a false teaching.
The real problem is that you have got it in your head that evolution is a false teaching (probably because someone from your Church told you so) and so you cant accept any definition for 'evolution' for which that claim is not true.
But to back up my definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.
Don't like it? See if you can get away with editing Wikipedia.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI gave a list of definitons once to Proper Knob.
No, I am using the definition for evolution as it is defined. If you don't like it, you can try to show that my definition is non-standard (in which case I would be expected to qualify it when I use it in the non-standard way).
The real problem is that you have got it in your head that evolution is a false teaching (probably because someone from your Chu populations of organisms.
Don't like it? See if you can get away with editing Wikipedia.
At that time none of you evolutionists would agree
that they were correct. Now here you are throwing
one back at me that is very similar to what I had
quoted from another site. So what happened to this
idea of the one common ancestor from which all
life evolved? So apes never evolved into man?
If that is so, maybe we can resolve our disagreement
and forget defining "kind". You are beginning to make
me happy. You may be a good man after all.