What is Evolution?
The above link gives a sanitized version of the definition of evolution. No creationist disagrees with this definition since it basically describes variations of species . However, at the very end the video goes beyond the original definition and describes what we creationists reject.
Originally posted by RJHindsDefinitions are not there to be agreed with or disagreed with. Definitions are merely a way to communicate. When you use a word like 'evolution' which is used by many people and used heavily in science, you should stick to the dictionary definitions or the definitions used by scientists. Making up your own definition only results in miscommunication.
The above link gives a sanitized version of the definition of evolution. No creationist disagrees with this definition since it basically describes variations of species . However, at the very end the video goes beyond the original definition and describes what we creationists reject.
It is perfectly reasonable to dispute that certain aspects of evolution take place in the real world, but to then redefine it to suit your theological political agenda is just plain stupid.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI do not redefine evolution or evil-lution, since they are both the same to me. I was just presenting how some atheists like to sanitize it by redefining it as they did in that link and after they get everyone to agree with it, then they throw the rock in. A classic bait and switch.
Definitions are not there to be agreed with or disagreed with. Definitions are merely a way to communicate. When you use a word like 'evolution' which is used by many people and used heavily in science, you should stick to the dictionary definitions or the definitions used by scientists. Making up your own definition only results in miscommunication.
It ...[text shortened]... world, but to then redefine it to suit your theological political agenda is just plain stupid.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by RJHindshow come you dont have a problem with the idiots in your video posts making up and misrepresenting science?
I do not redefine evolution or evil-lution, since they are both the same to me. I was just presenting how some atheists like to sanitize it by redefining it as they did in that link and after they get everyone to agree with it, then they throw the rock in. A classic bait and switch.
Originally posted by RJHindsYes you do. We have discussed this many times before and you have fully admitted to deliberately and consistently using a definition that does not match standard usage and has been concocted purely as a theological political tool. I don't know why you would deny that now.
I do not redefine evolution or evil-lution, since they are both the same to me.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have always uesed the old standard defintion to mean a frog can change into a handsome prince according to evil-lutionists. That is, if there is enough time. 😏
Yes you do. We have discussed this many times before and you have fully admitted to deliberately and consistently using a definition that does not match standard usage and has been concocted purely as a theological political tool. I don't know why you would deny that now.
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, that is not the standard definition.
I have always uesed the old standard defintion to mean a frog can change into a handsome prince according to evil-lutionists. That is, if there is enough time. 😏
The standard definition is: the change in the genetic content of a species over time.
You are confusing 'evolution' with 'The Theory of Evolution'.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyOur closest living relative I believe is the Chimpanzee . Our most recent ancestors are nicely laid out by Wikipedia/Human evolution.Remarkable likeness through all Homo forms don't you think?
.... in which other life form's image are you (and I) made?